User talk:Ctaring
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Ctaring! I noticed your contributions to Talk:Hunter Biden and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
June 2020
[edit]You didn't respond to the material below.
There are actually excellent reasons to unblock me. One is that the reasons stated for blocking me, by DRMIES, were and remain all lies. I will copy the text that he presented:
"You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them. Editing from Ctaring has been blocked (disabled) by Drmies for the following reason(s): Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: incessant forum posting, spouting talking points and conspiracies, BLP violations" [end of quote]
Where should I begin? Notice that DRMIES didn't wait long enough to claim that I am "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia". Apparently, I (and others) were actually obstructed from "building an encyclopedia" because the article "Hunter Biden" was obstructed from being edited by the vast majority of WP users. So, he's jumping to the conclusion that the edits that I would someday make WOULDN'T "build an encyclopedia". I think the "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia" schtick is potentially much more appropriate as a criticism of a person who has ACTUALLY edited an article-page, not a person who has been OBSTRUCTED from editing an article page. But DRMIES didn't bother to notice the difference between those two situations. DRMIES should say, "Oooops!!!" and apologize.
Second, he claims "Incessant forum posting". My understanding is that "incessant" means "does not end". However, the history of my account clearly shows NO "incessant" posting, none at all. Further, a brief look at the history of the Talk Page for the article "Hunter Biden" easily shows dozens of editors who have posted vastly more than I did, including over weeks and months. I posted for about a day. Evidently, DRMIES is wildly abusing the term "incessant". He's using that term, "incessant", simply because he can't think of anything else (correct) to say. It sounds good, or at least "good enough", for a low-effort complaint.
Third, he claims "spouting talking points". I am not aware of any "talking points". Can he show where these "talking points" exist? I may be saying some truthful things that other people might have said before, but I am not aware of them being labelled "talking points", either by myself or others, or why DRMIES believes they are "talking points". Does the (alleged) fact that somebody else, sometime in the past, called something a "talking point", somewhere, mean that this limits me somehow?
Even not having identified them, DRMIES doesn't even explain why he believes those statements are false: Maybe his failure is a concession that my statements are actually true. He doesn't say otherwise! He doesn't even describe, let alone list, those "talking points". If he is claiming to use them as a justification for blocking me, I'd say he should actually quote the statements he claims are "talking points", and prove them to be mere "talking points". While he's at it, he should also show they are false. (Or concede that they are indeed true.) After all, merely calling something a "talking point" does not, itself, assert that the "talking point" is actually false.
Fourth, he says: "and conspiracies". Actually, quite the opposite! I made it quite clear that much and probably most talk of "conspiracy theories" is nuts. But DRMIES doesn't bother to explain that, even if true (which I don't concede) mere talk of "conspiracies" would be any sort of violation of WP rules. DRMIES doesn't even claim that those 'conspiracies' (which he doesn't bother to identify) don't exist.
Curiously, he is blocking me for editing on the Talk Page of the article "Hunter Biden", where the article itself refers to "conspiracy theories". DRMIES doesn't bother to explain why the article can label things as "conspiracy theories", yet he wants to be able to criticize others' statements for what I assume he thinks is the same thing.
Fifth, he goes on to claim "BLP violations". Notice that's plural, "violations", not merely a violation, singular. Without bothering to list them, or even identify even one "BLP violation". Not one. If DRMIES cannot be bothered to list even a single "BLP violation", how can I be expected to disprove what he claims? Did he (or anybody else?) actually complain of "BLP violations" on the Talk Page? I didn't see it. Probably because there were no "BLP violations".
It's actually quite simple. Apparently, DRMIES simply randomly listed a number of names of things he doesn't like: "incessant forum posting, spouting talking points and conspiracies, BLP violations". One possibility is that these were the only things he could think of, at that moment.
That list could actually have been written weeks, months, or even years ago. He could have simply just called that list up using a hotkey, in order to avoid 10 seconds of tedious typical. He didn't feel the need to actually describe the details of how that list is relevant here. That may mean, unfortunately, that DRMIES understands that I won't be allowed to challenge his misconduct. I AM allowed to label is abuse as being that, correct? How do I complain about DRMIES's misconduct if I cannot edit Wikipedia? That's a neat trick!
But show me I'm wrong. My block should be immediately lifted, and DRMIES should be required to actually flesh-out his complaint. Once he provides specifics, I will then ACTUALLY have an opportunity to challenge a GENUINE complaint, not one cobbled together through just a few words of boilerplate text. Sure, I know he will be unable to do so, but I want him to clearly fail to act. Ctaring (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
UTRS 37502
[edit]UTRS appeal #37502 has been declined.
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that either the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks for more information. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)