This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KingdomHearts25 (talk | contribs) at 10:54, 9 November 2021 (→KingdomHearts25 U5). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:54, 9 November 2021 by KingdomHearts25 (talk | contribs) (→KingdomHearts25 U5)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Tokens from other editors:
| RfA candidate |
S |
O |
N |
S% |
Ending (UTC) |
Time left |
Dups? |
Report
|
| RfB candidate |
S |
O |
N |
S% |
Ending (UTC) |
Time left |
Dups? |
Report
|
No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online
|
- Hello and welcome to my talk page! Click the + button at the top of the page to create a new discussion or use any of the "edit" buttons to contribute to an already existing discussion.
- Postings made in the form of haiku will be given first priority.
- Note: I was once known as Chillum, so perhaps you already know me. HighInBC 20:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Kathleen Stock article
How does this matter work with the "consensus required" restriction? Isn't the editor reverting the tag essentially reinstating the challenged edit without talk page consensus? Crossroads 21:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- I should have done this from the start but I have added extended-confirmed semi protection to the article. IPs and new users with less than 500 edits and 30 days will not be able to edit it. As for consensus required, form a consensus on the talk page. It does not have to be a giant RFC or anything, just a general consensus. HighInBC 23:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Different question - being unfamiliar with consensus required restrictions, what is the proceess for reporting violations, etc.? The 3RRN does not seem to be the best tool for the task, but maybe it is? The edit I am thinking of is this one, which reinserts a formulation that was initially proposed here but then objected to (by me) here and by myself and another editor on Talk. But really I am raising the general question of "how to report consensus required vios" in general, since I'm confident there will be others regardless of the status of this one. Newimpartial (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Newimpartial, I didn't know you had this outreach ongoing when I filed the AE request and would likely have paused if I'd known you were seeking out the best resolution method. Apologies if you feel your toes were stepped on. HighInBC, I didn't question that AE was the appropriate venue for this, but if you have other thoughts and feel withdrawal is necessary, I would definitely accede. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- AE is the appropriate venue for this. I feel in circumstanced where the result is highly subjective that these violations be interpreted by admins other than the one who imposed them, except in completely objective violations where interpretation is not needed. HighInBC 22:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have given my 2 cents on the matter at AE. HighInBC 23:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I see that. I also see that admin at AE are taking it upon themselves to adjudicate the scope of WP:3RRNO and related policies in ways that do not accord with what I have seen in other venues, but I live and I learn. Newimpartial (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- The BLP exemption to 3RR is commonly accepted. Perhaps you have not noticed this, but it is nonetheless a common practice and fully supported by policy. Reading your comments there tells me you may want to review our policies regarding verifiability and synthesis. Something you have a memory of reading in a book but can't find or reference anymore is not sufficient, and combining sources to create a new idea is not an acceptable practice(especially when one of those sources is Misplaced Pages). You may not like the response you are getting at AE but it is very much in line with policy. HighInBC 23:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have actually cited WP:3RRBLP previously and had my interpretation supported by participating admins; I am not in ignorance of that policy. What I am saying is that it does not apply to Nomoskedasticity's revert-war: the term in question (gender self-identification) is one employed by the BLP subject, as well as the reliable sources on the topic, in precisely the same sense reflected in the WP article and in its sources. That isn't SYNTH, that is a plain reading of the available evidence - it can't be a BLP vio to state, in neutral terms, facts about which all RS (and SPS, even) agree. The reality that some WP editors interpret descriptions which are undisputed in the source material as though they were problematic, or "could mean something else", is a problem with those editors, not those descriptions, and I am always disappointed when experienced editors and administrators fall for such arguments.
- And once again, I am not citing Gender self-identification as an authority on the topic; I am pointing to it (an article created, and substantially written, by the editor who filed the AE against me) as a fair summary of the sources it cites - the sourcing is fairly generous for a young article, and the citations are easily checked. I have been pointing to it because editors who should know better have been suggesting that "gender self-identification" might mean something other than what it actually does mean, but if that were the case, one might expect that people whose POV incentivizes them to do so would have found some sources to back it up. As with many claims that are baselessly repeated in the Talk pages of gender-related articles, this is another one for which no sources are ever found. Meanwhile, setting aside your issues with Material Girls and its paywall, I cited Stock's use of gender self-identification in her 2018 Economist piece here. I am not relying on
(s)omething (I) have a memory of reading in a book but can't find or reference anymore
, which seems hurtful TBH. Newimpartial (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
There is little point in having a side debate here, let's keep this discussion to AE. HighInBC 06:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- The point was mostly the word limits. Newimpartial (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- While my talk page does not have word limits, the outcome cannot be decided here. I appreciate the self-revert, it does make a huge difference to me. I would like to wait and see what other admins think about the case. HighInBC 06:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- That does seem to be the prudent course; I appreciate your selecting it. Newimpartial (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Please block this editor and refactor their posts
Special:Contributions/Sphnctr These posts are absolutely not acceptable - warning - NOT SAFE FOR WORK! Springee (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Seconded. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like another admin got to it first. Things like that can get a quicker response at WP:AIV. HighInBC 00:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Happily the account was blocked but I still think the edits need to be suppressed. VERY not safe for work. Will visit AIV in the future! Springee (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
A good point. I have revision deleted them per WP:CFRD#2. HighInBC 02:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Edit summary
A living person who is not related to the Bitcointalk has been attacked in one of the edit summaries, the last one see: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/107.77.204.132
Request to blank it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.51.109.52 (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes thank you. That is a case of outing and BLP violation. I have redacted the edit summary and blocked the IP. HighInBC 03:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Sincere apology from 70.66.59.163
There was -- honestly -- a huge reason that has resulted into that "punishment" you assigned me.
You should have seen what happened to the COVID-19 dashboard on October 25 and 26.
That technical difficulty occurrence was, absolutely, out of my expectation. I am glad that it has been fixed on Wednesday -- shorter than what I have expected (That technical difficulty could have been lasted for, pretty much, an entire week).
I have autism which makes me think rather uniquely from most of the people (Including the editors in this organization).
It has been the behavioural concern I have been dealing with, for all my life.
Because of that, it is rather easy for myself to get into all kinds troubles over something I really did not commit (Implies discrimination).
Anyway, I am beyond sorry for being a Kevin/Karen (I am not going to disclose my gender as an IP editor) on the edit summary. I absolutely should not have done it. 70.66.59.163 (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
P.S. I failed you as an IP editor.
KingdomHearts25 U5
Hi HighInBC. It's not a big deal, but the reason I blanked KingdomHearts25 rather than deleting it is that it has a substantive history before the spamming started and is therefore not eligible for WP:CSD#U5. – Joe (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with your interpretation of policy. I however feel it only benefits the project to have it removed as leaving it there allows the user to retain the benefits of using Misplaced Pages to keep notes. I offered to e-mail him the contents. I have no objection if another admin wants to undelete it, and I will even do it myself if someone feels strongly about the matter. HighInBC 10:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- I sincerely apologise for using my userpage to post notes. I was not aware that it constituted such a serious offence. I promise to blank the page right away and never repost any such thing ever again. If I do so, you can certainly delete the page permanently if you wish to. Please give me a second chance. Regards KingdomHearts25 (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
_by_Ron.jpg){kind=small}
