User talk:Fsfolks

Fsfolks, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Fsfolks!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Fsfolks reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: ). Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Calling other editors vandals is a personal attack. Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calling editors disruptive when they are maintaining consensus is a personal attack: Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Skyerise (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The exemption from WP:3RR for reverting vandalism is very narrow. The edits you are undoing at Portal:Free software/Terminology and Free and open-source software do not meet that exemption, so your reverts there must comply with the three-revert limit. —C.Fred (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. —C.Fred (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is going back to the same edits to Portal:Free software/Terminology that led to your block for edit warring really a good idea? —C.Fred (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that is your own opinion, I'm reverting disruptive edits: ask before the other editor why he didn't explain his edits. Fsfolks (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either party's edits have been disruptive; it looks like a content dispute, and content disputes should be resolved on the article talk pages. —C.Fred (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is already refusing to discuss, and not assuming good faith: you can see what he wrote in the noticeboard to understand his behaviour. Fsfolks (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which editor? I see at least two who have reverted your edits today. —C.Fred (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this one [1].

Arguably, since you're the editor who initiated the change from the status quo, the burden is on you to discuss. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didnt think of meeting such edit conflict: so I've started a discussion for better explaining my edit: The editors involved in such conflict should better discuss rather than reverting. Fsfolks (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that the cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss, not Bold, Discuss, Revert. They may very well revert to the original text while the discussion is in process. —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear now who does the POV edits: it's the engaged editors party which refuses to discuss and using the consensus instead to justify its biased edits. Fsfolks (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations and personal attacks

Please don't refer to other editors as vandals or sockpuppeteers, or to their edits as vandalism, as you recently did in several of your recent contributions ([2] [3] [4]). Making these sorts of accusations without evidence, or in willful ignorance of what they actually mean here, can be considered a personal attack for which you can be blocked. If you have a disagreement with another editor about the content of a page, please discuss it civilly on the associated talk page. Bona fide cases of vandalism and sockpuppetry should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, respectively. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sockpuppetry reporting is a good idea. But, as for vandalism, I accused only your edits, of that, which seems to be unconstructive: you already have vandalized my edit with cited text here [5]. Moreover, you need to assume good faith as well instead of accusing me of incivility without any evidence for that. Fsfolks (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both versions of the page had cited text. I don't see any evidence that Psychonaut edited in bad faith; unless you can show some compelling evidence that the intent of Psychonaut's edit was to disrupt the page, please withdraw your claim of vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: can you before all, explain me why you are considering such edit being free from vandalism ? Fsfolks (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't see anything that is outright disruptive or indicative of bad faith. Why are you not assuming good faith in the edit? —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

when I said "assume good faith", I was meaning the way that editor accused me of incivility in this section. the vandalism could be found here [6] as cited text was been deleted by him. Fsfolks (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again: Why do you feel that the removal of cited text was done in bad faith? (And really, looking at the edit, the only removal was a second citation that you added to existing text that you altered slightly.) We're talking about your failure to assume good faith with respect to Psychonaut's edit here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's your opinion. But my last edit is approved by reliable content, so reverting it means vandalism.

Psychonaut's edit was also supported by reliable sources. Does that make your edit vandalism? —C.Fred (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are the reliable references I reverted? Fsfolks (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ubuntu help system, which you yourself cited. —C.Fred (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a deadlink: so I updated it with a new one (the LTS one as you can see in the diff). Fsfolks (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If all you did was update the link, then it would be easier to say that reverting back to a dead link is not constructive. However, because you changed other things at the same time, so Psychonaut could just be objecting to those changes and missed the change of the link within that one reference. —C.Fred (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you thiunk that any of the edits that this user made, were any constructive? Fsfolks (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, please explain how this edit summary, where you've branded a good-faith edit vandalism, does not meet the criteria of a personal attack. (For quick reference, see WP:WIAPA.) —C.Fred (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I did in the edit summary was only "commenting on content, not on the contributor": so it's not a personal attack per WP:WIAPA. Fsfolks (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fsfolks, the evidence of incivility was provided in the comment of mine to which you were replying. I provided three links to edits of yours where you accused others of vandalism or sockpuppetry without evidence, and I explained why this sort of behaviour is considered rude. You don't need to remind me to assume good faith; as I already said, the problem is probably not that you are being deliberately disruptive, but rather that you do not understand the meaning of "vandalism" and "sockpuppetry", nor the sort of proof required to substantiate these accusations. Regardless, you need to stop this behaviour (by which I mean the edits which break wikitext markup and/or English grammar, the associated edit warring, and the unfounded accusations). Some of your concerns with the articles are legitimate but you are not addressing them in the right way. Please read through the policies and guidelines others have referred you to. Also, if it's at all possible, please get a native speaker to check your text before posting it to article space; some of your edits are getting reverted partly or entirely because others don't understand what it is you're trying to say. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing and POV-pushing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at WP:AN3 (permalink). Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced that you will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fsfolks (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

(I, User:Gronky am making this suggestion because I'm guessing Fsfolk, or any other new editor who doesn't know our values, wouldn't know what an appeal is supposed to mention.) Hi. I think "indefinite" is inappropriately long in this case. Fsfolks edited in a way which isn't accepted here, but the reason seems to be lack of awareness of the social and formal norms of the community. I saw the duration of the ban described elsewhere as "until such time as he expresses willingness to follow our policies", but since he clearly doesn't know our policies, this obviously isn't going to happen (and I hope no one will suggest that our values can be quickly and sufficiently grasped by all people by pointing new users to the numerous and lengthy policies, of which the interpretation is constantly debated). We all learned the Wikipedia values by experience, and that's the only way new editors will learn them. Note: I haven't read the discussions Fsfolks was involved in and am not defending those discussions or edits beyond that I think "indefinite" is too long. Gronky (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Indefinite" is precisely as long as Fsfolks need to convince us he's willing and able to edit Wikipedia in a constructive manner. At the very least that would require some indication that Fsfolks understands that there's a problem with their conduct so far. For example, Fsfolks is well enough aware of "assume good faith", they simply don't do so themselves. Huon (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

MfD nomination of Portal:Open-source software

Portal:Open-source software, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Open-source software and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Open-source software during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fixuture (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:Perl programming language

Portal:Perl programming language, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Perl programming language and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Perl programming language during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Perl programming language listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:Perl programming language. Since you had some involvement with the Portal:Perl programming language redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Legacypac (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]