User talk:Vapourmile/Archive 1

Archive 1

Your draft article, Draft:Legacy desktop pc graphics

Hello, Vapourmile. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Legacy desktop pc graphics".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Legacy desktop pc graphics

Hello, Vapourmile. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Legacy desktop pc graphics".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Legacy desktop pc graphics

Interesting. Since Vapourmile created Draft:Legacy desktop pc graphics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on 27 June 2019‎, they have made exactly two edits, on 19 October 2019‎ and 26 September 2020.

I would like to see this become a real article. It is a subject of great interest to retrogamers. If this is not to be and Vapourmile isn't interested in improving it, then it should be deleted.

Note: The desired response by Vapourmile is not to engage in Yet Another Personal Attack, but rather to make steady progress on improving and expanding the draft article. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Motorola 68000, you may be blocked from editing. Stop blanking that talk page section. Meters (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Talk:Motorola 68000. And read WP:3RR while you are at it. Meters (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Guy Harris (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vapourmile: I am an uninvolved administrator who noticed the above report. I'm sure you are editing constructively and have the best intentions but consensus is against you. I will issue a block if there is any further disruption at Talk:Motorola 68000. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq; Like these? [1][2][3][4] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#User:Vapourmile has repeatedly removed my comments from Talk:Motorola 68000

Given edits such as this:[5] (reverted here[6]) I would suggest a topic ban from computer architecture, broadly construed. I do not believe that Vapourmile is capable of editing collaboratively in this area, and that they should spend their time on topics where they do not have such strong emotions. --Guy Macon (talk)

Guy, it's becoming a habit: When I make technical corrections you dislike the sound of, you try to get me banned. It's YOU who needs to keep your emotions in check. Vapourmile (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Enough.

Vapourmile, please stay off of my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD

• Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Hi Vapourmile.

I've seen and read over the various talk page and WP:AN/I discussions that you appear to have been in of late.

And in my estimation, if things continue as they appear to be currently going, you may end up being blocked.

I'm going to make an attempt to explain something that applies to everyone who edits Wikipedia. I hope you receive it in the positive tone which I am trying to convey.

While Wikipedia truly is a place anyone can edit, there are boundaries to that.

If you decide to make an edit without discussing it with others, we call that being "bold".

But if someone undoes or "reverts" that edit, you should not "be bold" again. Instead, if you would like that edit in the article, you should "discuss" it with others on the article's talkpage, and after the group comes to a consensus, then whatever the group decides per verifiable reliable sources, may potentially be added to the article. If you feel discussion is at a standstill, then you could also ask for a third opinion.

This is laid out more clearly at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and I would encourage you to read that page.

And if you sincerely think someone is being uncivil towards you, then you of course may ask others at WP:AN/I to look over the situation. But please realise that merely disagreeing with your assertions is not necessarily being uncivil.

At this point, please stop accusing people of bad faith towards you. I don't think that is helping you.

And for now, I would encourage you to discuss your edits on an article's talk page.

I sincerely hope this helps. - jc37 15:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Dispute

"And if you sincerely think someone is being uncivil towards you, then you of course may ask others at WP:AN/I to look over the situation. But please realise that merely disagreeing with your assertions is not necessarily being uncivil"

It seems to be you are confusing me with Guy Macron. He is the one making accusations of incivility based on nothing but the fact I do not take his word for gospel and he is the one issuing threats, as he did on my talk page this morning. He is also actively trying to get my account suspended. I think you need to talk to the source of the problem, which is Guy Macron, not me. I will now take this up as an official complaint. Vapourmile (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not involved in your dispute. And I don't believe I am confusing you with anyone.

At the end of the day, each of us are responsible for our own actions. I am for mine, and you are for yours.

At this point, though, what you decide to do is up to you. - jc37 16:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Then why are you here? You told me not to do something I haven't done. If you aren't confusing me with somebody else then how do you explain that comment? Vapourmile (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Why am I here - I came here, as an uninvolved admin, after assessing an ongoing behavioural situation which is really looking disruptive.

But instead of blocking you for disruption (and noting the several warnings you have already received), I decided to give you one more opportunity to look to your own actions.

If others are being disruptive, I have no doubt that that may be addressed as well.

But right here and right now the concern is your actions.

And please consider this a warning: If you continue as you are, you may be blocked by any uninvolved admin. As I said, what you do now is up to you. I hope it is some self-reflection. _ jc37 16:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour most of which I am clearly the primary recipient, not the cause. You accused me of making accusations of incivility merely for receiving annotations. The accusation is false, it is Guy who has done that. You can go to the 68000 talk page and read his very words. If you want to accuse me of doing something in future, I would appreciate it if you would also enclose some evidence your claim is correct.

"But right here and right now the concern is your actions"

The tit-for-tat is tiresome. It was I who woke up this morning to more threats from Guy so I really do have to wonder why you are here, especially as you haven't evidenced your accusation. Vapourmile (talk)

I see that you have started an WP:AN/I thread. At this point I will defer to the assessment there. - jc37 16:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Vapourmile, it seems to me you are confusing Guy Macon with Emmanuel Macron. Some people can be offended when you persistently get their names wrong, so please try not to. Bishonen | tålk 16:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC).

Community-imposed topic ban

Hi, Vapourmile. Please note that I have closed the abovementioned ANI discussion with the following sanction: an indefinite community-imposed topic ban from computers and computing, broadly construed. The sanction has been logged at WP:EDRC. Thanks in advance for your close attention to this matter. El_C 15:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there is no more apt word for this action than "bullshit". Its origin is juvenile editors trying to enforce bullshit so Wikipedia says what they want it to, and not what it should, if you want it to be technically, factually accurate, rather than being led by marketing and evangelism, which I had, until now, thought was one of the aims.

I raised the complaint because there was no explanation offered for the incoming hostility, and there has still been none. I accept I removed a section of text from a talk-section, before I knew than that it was against the rules, but that text has since been restored which still leaves the explanation I asked for pending.

Except for that one incident, which I accept, and now understand those rules, there is no warrant for this action that I accept. There is still no genuine explanation.

It started with a vendetta approach from Guy Macon after HE reignited an argument of his own accord and then began sending me threats after I made long-overdue technical corrections to the 68000 page. I was then accused of threatening people and getting emotional, which is somewhat hypocritical given it is clearly Guy who is unable to control his emotions. I was also sent several warnings even after days of absence as Guy set about trying to hunt me down for daring to point out he is wrong and his sources are inadmissible marketing material, clearly breaching the impartiality rule. So, thank you for giving me the news, but this is obviously juvenility taken to an extreme, for no better reason than to satisfy people are able to be vindictive and get away with it. The 68000 talk page still needs correction.

13 years of Wikipedia use only to be drummed out by fans policing their pet pages. It's just sour grapes so the wrong people get the final word, gerrymandering the rules post-hoc so their team can win, albeit by cheating. If they were more interested in the facts than having their side win then this would not have been an incident. I apologise for removing the section from the talk page, despite the fact it doesn't contribute to an understanding of the issue, but I don't apologise for changing the talk page otherwise. The complaint I raised clearly resulted in farce, proving the process doesn't warrant serious attention and doesn't offer serious remedy or a fair and balanced hearing. It brings the service into disrepute, especially with a view to the 68000, and Amiga pages, and probably others outside my own region of expertise, are obviously protected by fans, so they can have things look just how they want. In short, what a way to ensure fans and product evangelists have their way. Vapourmile (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Vapourmile, briefly: I interpreted the consensus in that discussion, which I found to have been unambiguous. Otherwise, I'm not inclined to get into the content weeds of the dispute/s which brought about the sanction. El_C 16:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen the fruits of "consensus". It allows popular, and deliberate, misconception to reign and it allows group-mentality to rule. Vapourmile (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Vapourmile, again, please stop responding on my own talk page — the conversation is already happening here. Anyway, the community is what it is. Not sure what else you expect me to say... El_C 16:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

"Anyway, the community is what it is.". Oh yes, I have noticed. It definitely /is/ what it is.

"Not sure what else you expect me to say...". I don't expect anything, except of course for "consensus" to continue to mean Wikipedia is littered with fan-fiction. Wikipedia isn't taken seriously, and this is one of the major reasons why. Vapourmile (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, Vapourmile, I will leave you to it, then. El_C 16:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh one more thing, return to the 68000 talk page, and notice now others have brought more substantial *independent* material to the 68000 discussion, it vindicates every edit I made, and demonstrates that the points I made are correct, so I am now officially *banned* from the Wikipedia computing pages for *correcting* technical errors. Really, look for yourself and decide if you did the right thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Motorola_68000 Vapourmile (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the editors who are not disruptive were able to do start doing productive work once you stopped interfering with them shortly after it became clear that the Community was no longer willing to put up with your antics. You were topic banned for your behavior, nothing else.

Also, you just posted to my talk page[7] after being asked to stop,[8] and that your post was an unambiguous violation of your topic ban (writing "...the computing pages...all the corrections I made are substantially correct..." is posting on the topic of computers and computing, broadly construed.) If this behavior continues, you are likely to be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop being a child Guy. You're the one being juvenile. They may react differently to your "personality" but YOU are the one who needs to grow up. You are the one who loses your temper and resorts to threats and hostility just for reading corrections you don't like, just as you are doing here again. You are the one who needs to stop being "emotional". You have even been *shown* I was correct, so the statement you are telling me not to make is *also correct*. Stop trying to avoid it being shown you are wrong Guy and that your behaviour is childish. You owe me an apology and you are throwing another tantrum like an infant. All you are doing is trying to stop me from correcting you so you don't end up with egg on your face. It's a bit late for that. You should grow up and admit it. Vapourmile (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for harassment. Too much WP:BATTLEGROUND. Will need some compelling assurances before restoring editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 18:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

What's the point when you have already demonstrated you would rather have childish bad-tempered morons like Guy Macron have his way? Why not ban the source of the problem and ban him? Vapourmile (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

"Will need some compelling assurances before restoring editing privileges". What? Like changing my policy of correcting bullshit on Wikipedia to helping bullshit along, you mean? Seems to be the way around here. Vapourmile (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

El_C, Please revoke talk page access. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Go to hell guy. You're a fucking child. Vapourmile (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 Bishonen | tålk 19:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)