Talk:Keep America Beautiful

On my way to simplifying[change source]

@Darkfrog24: I am simplifying this article, instead of complaining to you that it has some complex sentences. It's really nice to see this article present here! Good job you did by creating this! :-) Haoreima (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! It's almost always easier to see ways to simplify someone else's work (or your own from long ago) then to fix your own at the time. The more different people work on an article, the better it becomes! Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24: I saw this page is much different from its en wiki equivalent. Seems like it's your own creation. So, I think {{translated page|en|Keep America Beautiful}} isn't needed. Right? Another thing, I think we should not use the word "litter", "littering", instead we should use "making environment dirty"! Any comments? Haoreima (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, I created an infobox for it. It's not present in English Wikipedia. If you want, then please add the infobox there at en wiki too. It might help people to grasp a brief info quickly. :) Haoreima (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. This is not a translation, so we don't need to mark it as one. I find it's much easier to write in Simple English from scratch than to simplify regular English.

I believe we should indeed use the word "litter." Littering is a specific kind of making the environment dirty. "Making the environment dirty" can mean littering but it can also mean industrial pollution. Because the fact that littering and industrial pollution are two different things is so important to this article (in that Keep America Beautiful was created to trick people into thinking they're the same), we should use two different terms. I think we should say "litter" and not another word because 1) the Susan Spotless little/litter pun doesn't work with another word and 2) the word "litter" is what people see on the roadsigns.

I cannot add infoboxes on en.wiki because I am blocked on en.wiki. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24: Oh I feel sorry for your block! You have the same luck as mine. Well, may I know for what reason you were blocked. Is it because of edit warring or for sock puppetry? Mine is the latter one! And do you have any plan to request for unblock? I saw you have not touched en wiki for more than one year. Haoreima (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never sock puppeted in my life on this or any project. Someone filed a false AE complaint against me in 2016. It was about 10,000 words long, so no one actually read it except me--and that took me a month, by which time I'd already been punished. Two of the admins later admitted to me that they hadn't read the whole thing (one of them was actually named as an involved party and didn't know it because they hadn't read the complaint). But at the AE thread all they said was, "Well, I guess we'd better sanction Darkfrog," but they never said specifically what I was being punished for. I think they skimmed the complaint and just got impression but didn't actually read the threads or click on the links. So a month later when I finally got the enforcing admin to say "Okay, here's what I think you did," it was full of things that never happened. I said "OH! That's what you think happened? I actually didn't do any of that and I can prove some of it! Here you go. Whew, what a misunderstanding!" (Example: The new guy I was accused of harassing said "It wasn't Darkfrog who harassed me; it was someone else.") But the admin filed another complaint and had me indeffed.

It is really messed up. The way the disciplinary system at en.wiki works is that the punished person must say he or she is sorry for what he or she did. "Here's proof I didn't do it" got me blocked again in 2018. I think what's going on is that I did something but no one wants to come out and say what it was. Like, it might be, "Yeah, we know the rules say you can appeal a sanction by showing evidence that it wasn't necessary, but we don't ever want anyone to actually try to do that." Or it might be something else.

I also think people were projecting. One admin said "Stop accusing us of being a conspiracy!" or something and I was all "Huh? I never said anything like that—why do you think I said that?" I think a lot of people were going "Well blocked users usually accuse us of being a conspiracy. Darkfrog is a blocked user. So Darkfrog must have accused us of being a conspiracy." It's weird.

To be fair, I also didn't understand the culture of the AE disciplinary system. I started out by asking the enforcing admin a LOT of questions. I thought I was showing "See? I'm willing to follow all the rules! I am diligent and attentive!" But the enforcing admin actually wanted low-maintenance. I was burning up his patience and didn't know it.

I plan to request unblock in the spring or so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24: Sometimes, I missed en wiki a lot! I abused multiple accounts! Now, I have started an unblock request but it's in semi inactive stage! Well, it's really a matter of surprise that you are being accused of someone else's deeds! In fact, punishment (block, banned, or whatever) should be given only in case of explicit proofs like differences! Right! And even if the content is too long within the difference, admins ought to revise it first before taking up a big decision, that's blocking or banning. In your future unblock request there, don't think too bad and just say sorry! It's not only you, everyone needs to say sorry in unblock requests. And do not mess with those false chargers again! When someone says sorry, his or her unblock request is kept in long pending, but in unblock request complaining instead of saying sorry, such requests are immediately declined. Haoreima (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You actually have a decent chance of being unblocked. You were accused of something specific, it sounds like you really did do it, and you understand that it's against Wikipedia's rules and can promise not to do it going forward.

Well yes, appeals that provide proof that the original sanction wasn't justified always get declined, but I didn't know that back in 2018 when I made one. More importantly, I can't say I'm sorry about things I didn't do. I was accused of lying, and I have never told a lie in my adult life. Pretending I was a liar would turn me into one.

What I can say is something like "If it is the admins' opinion that my post XYZ counts as WP:BATTLEGROUNDING or WP:ANYOTHERGUIDELINE, then I, like all Wikipedians, am required to go with that." That's is like the way players in a ball game must obey the referee to keep the game going for everyone else. Sometimes the player really was safe but the ref says they were out, and it's understood that refs getting it wrong once in the while is part of the game. But this would not apply to the accusations of lying. That would be like saying "If an admin calls me a liar, then I must be a liar. I only think I believed what I'm saying, but I'm wrong. The admin can magically see inside my head and I can't. That source book I copied that's open on my desk right now? I only think I can see it; I'm wrong." It would be like denying that I'm a human being or denying that I exist. It's way too creepy. The new Universal Code of Conduct gives me hope, though, because it forbids gaslighting. There was no rule against it in 2018.

I'm sure I can say something that people will find unobjectionable. Maybe if I just don't mention "Oh, and I was accused of things that I can prove I didn't do, so none of this was necessary" that'll be enough. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24: I know your condition! Well, when one knows that he/she is not false, s/he doesn't want to say "sorry". Ok, in your request, don't mention "Sorry", but write it at your best to please your reviewing admin! :) Haoreima (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. That's what I think. Wikipedia can be a toxic place but not every person there is like that. I checked your userpage and saw your unblock request. It might get declined, but then just wait a few months and try again. A normal block means any admin who wants to can unblock you. I got a fancy block, so it's more complicated. Just keep making good content here until they realize that en.wiki is better off with you than without you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24: WHAT? OMG! Is there any chance of my unblock request being declined this time too? If done so, what might be the reason for decline, according to your assumptions? I am asking this as you mention about it! Just got extremely curious! Haoreima (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move this to your talk page. I probably should have realized this a few posts ago. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops[change source]

Turns out "Ad Council" and "Advertising Council" are both acceptable names for the same group. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking about that a while before, after I did edits. Haoreima (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]