User talk:Miesianiacal

Per this ANI thread, you are indefinitely topic banned from the Canadian monarchy, broadly construed. This applies to any discussion, article, or part of an article anywhere on the English Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, this is adieu to Wikipedia, then. That's my area of expertise and, if two decades adding to it dozens of articles and building up dozens more with hundreds of thousands of words and hundreds of reliable sources doesn't stand for anything against the, by comparison, small compendium of examples of my having exacerbated fractious disputes, and if even my fulfilling, over the last couple of weeks, my promise to modify my behaviour means nothing, well... I no longer see any logic in donating my time and effort to this venture; the complete lack of appreciation was already leading me to question how much I ought to keep giving. This topic ban seals the deal. Unofrtunate, as I was just in the midst of a few productive discussions.

Thanks for the 20 years. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider waiting a while to cool down -- and I can well empathise with the frustration you must be feeling -- for a couple of weeks or months, and then perhaps appeal to AN or indeed yo Arbcom. Either way, all the best. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite cool over here; about eight degrees, right now. My decision was premediatated; I knew weeks ago a ban was a possible outcome and considered my reaction. And that was before I'd self-analyzed, explained at AN/I where my faults lay, promised to change, and then did, as demonstrated by all the discussions I've been part of over the two weeks since. The fact the ban has come today, regardless, not only shows it's personal, but, it also affirms my earlier suspicion that the balance between the work I've put into this project (inlduing work on myself; on my emotions and behaviours) and what I've received from it is way, way off. It's bad for one's mental health.

I won't be appealing anything if the majority of the other guilty parties don't also change. There will never be a point to coming back for another hypocritical beat-down.

The best to you, as well, 109. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree about the mental-health aspect. Wikipedia is supposed to be a crucible of facts, not just of psychological endurance, as seems to what's actually the case in practice.. But moaning about that aside, for the people that have suffered as a result of it that should be priority for sure. Take good care of yourself, and ignore Wikipedia for as long as necessary. Including forever... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A shame. We had our differences on the Charles article but I always valued your contributions there. Hope one day you might choose to come back: if not, I wish you well for the future. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this would be a loss to Canadian articles overall in my view. Moxy🍁 19:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go, but I understand the frustration. I do hope you seek an appeal in future, but you need to do what is best for you. Being an editor can be a thankless job, but know that many of us appreciate many contributions you have made over the years.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]