Hello, 74.64.104.99. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by PrimeHunter (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Those aren't crests on the stones "based on partnership towns". Those are shields. A shield is something a combatant had in his hand with or without his arm going through loops or brackets on the shield's back side. A crest is something on top of something: crest of a wave, crest of a bird, crest of a knight's helmet. The confusion arises because an ordinary person, let's say what would be called "middle-class" today (well, not today, since a middle class doesn't exist anymore, but during my childhood) in medieval times could get a coat of arms, a shield. To get a knight's helm on top of it with a crest on top of the helm(et) required more, like being knighted or having an office or a noble title. Therefore to puff themselves up anyone who had ONLY a shield (a middle-class person) would refer to it as a "crest" to give the impression that they were of a higher rank than they really were. In fact they never HAD a crest, only a shield. To this day people will see a shield on the pocket of a private school's blazer and ignorantly call it a "crest". That is probably indicative of the value of a private-school education.74.64.104.99 (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Please cite examples.

The accusation of "disruptive editing" is what you hurl at me when you can't impeach me for factual error. When someone is right on the facts, you will argue process. Being "disruptive" is the accusation levied against me by my schoolteachers who could not make a sound argument that my behavior as wrong, citing chapter and verse. So they'd just say "he's disruptive" and not clarify the generalization.

In advance, let me refuse to apologize. I do not understand people who will say something like there's such a thing as a Nobel Prize in Economics, or that a shield is a crest, or that the Ostrich Feathers are a badge awarded along with the title "Prince of Wales", parroting COMMONLY-HELD beliefs that are not true, and who won't back down when given the correct information. I will always embrace anyone who backs down. It's those who double down (soon to be renamed "Trumping down") and won't budge with whom I have a beef AND IT IS A LEGITIMATE one. AFTER having been advised that the commonly-held belief is self-confirming (because it gets into the press and a published article can be cited in Wikipedia as equal to Alfred Nobel's will or the pronouncements of the College of Heralds, and this participation by Wikipedia in self-confirmation loops has I believe been documented) and is wrong, anyone who doesn't then back down deserves public scorn and ridicule, for they are in fact heaping scorn and ridicule upon the idea that truth is truth and can't be decided by popular belief.

I believe Wikipedia has been documented in social experiments where putting something in Wikipedia causes it to be cited in the press, which can then be cited in Wikipedia as grounds for believing the original falsehood in Wikipedia.

I take it for granted that an encyclopedia should serve as an authority that can be cited against common falsehoods such as the Nobel Price in Economics. An encyclopedia is where one goes for the truth after the newspapers have worn won out. Wikipedia seems to aspire to agree with, rather than to refute, the falsehoods that are generated by ill-informed sources parroting each other.

And as to President James Buchanan's sexual orientation, let me say that all bad faith in that argument is on the other side. Not one of them says "I will support the statement that James Buchanan was homosexual if ..." and then let that stand and when people meet the conditions after the "if" then say "Okay, then. He was homosexual". Their arguments are truly absurd. I've been admonished that homosexuality is a POLITICAL IDENTITY that didn't exist in the 19th century. There are some people who will not admit that Buchanan preferred to perform sex acts with men no matter what they evidence, but they will not HONESTLY admit that that is their position. The letter that Buchanan wrote in which he says a marriage to a woman would be a sham would be enough to convince anyone that he was more likely HETEROSEXUAL than homosexual if all of the gendered nouns and pronouns in that letter were reversed to the other gender. Anyone arguing in good faith must then admit, not that he was CERTAINLY homosexual, but only that the letter makes it MORE LIKELY for him to have been HOMOSEXUAL than heterosexual. The people refusing to concede that that is the standard of argument that should apply are the people whom you ought to be bullying with your threats of blocking. Not me.

It is readily apparent to me that Wikipedia has no copy-editor. Anything goes. Not even misused commas, or missing commas, get corrected before going into print. Some of the sentences and paragraphs I find are not so much wrong as so confusing that they might in fact be neither right nor wrong because they are in fact meaningless. So I gripe about that. So what?

Accusing me of being "disruptive" is bullying. You are a bully.

And you can run but you can't hide. It's a free country, at least for a few months more. What is your threat to prevent me starting my own website "Idiotic Reasoning On Wikipedia" and carrying on my crusades there? Litigation? I'll laugh you out of court.

Should I have, by insufficiently precise use of language, given you the impression that I consider myself bound to be polite to you or that I hold you in high regard, please do let me correct that misapprehension.74.64.104.99 (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

[1] Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently using talk pages as a political forum for non-encyclopedic controversy-related statements, such as in Special:Diff/931057428 and Special:Diff/933080756, after being warned about this behavior. See also: WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions to the encyclopedia (be bold) instead of using talk pages as a political forum.

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 ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if you keep abusing this talkpage to post more walls of text, I'll disable talkpage access. Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for your thoughts. Acroterion (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]