User talk:Willbb234/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Dnepropetrovsk maniacs
Please engage on the talk page rather than edit warring. It simply isn't good enough to say that WP:ONUS is a free hand to remove things that you disagree with. ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ianmacm Blocked from that page as well. Doug Weller talk 07:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Unblock discussion
@Doug Weller: Leaning Endorse unblock, but the "personal attacks thing" gives me pause. Calling me "buddy," or "bruh," or any other unearned term of familiarity would make me angry/angrier. I mean I would unblock if you would but won't if you wouldn't. Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra The request doesn’t seem to show good faith and doesn’t deal with the personal attacks, so I wouldn’t. We need firm commitments on those issues and no attempt to suggest others may be to blame. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Some advice
Hey. I'm not at all involved in the issue going on, just happened across the AN discussion, and I'm going to go out on a limb and assume good faith here for a moment. As far as I can see, there's roughly two issues happening: the whole edit war/reverting thing, which I'm going to ignore for a bit, and the civility/no personal attacks thing, which I'm going to expand on. Because, as you said, communication is key
.
Things can be insulting and/or incivil even without using a single expletive, and a lot of what you're saying comes across as really, really patronizing, which is insulting to the person you're talking to.
The way you use "buddy" falls into this. what a load of shit, buddy
is a fine way to rib a mate who spouts some nonsense. But for the most part, folks on en.wiki aren't mates you'd go down to the pub with for a couple beers. They're more like business acquaintances, random strangers you pass on the streets, and the likes. And then saying it is a good way to get people's hackles up and give them the impression you're talking down to them. Which is rude.
Same goes for the way you describe the entire situation on AN. Once again, things like Anyway, along comes Doug and bang he blocks me from editing the page!
? Perfectly fine when you're regaling your mates with a story. Not so good when you're on AN and trying to convince strangers that no, you're not being incivil.
AddWittyNameHere 21:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
For any admin considering an unblock see their ANI post
See [1] - thread "Block of Willbb234:" Doug Weller talk 13:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello Willbb234,
- Backlog status
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
- Coordination
- MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
- Open letter to the WMF
- The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
- TIP - Reviewing by subject
- Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
- New reviewers
- The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
- Reminders
- Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
- If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing
{{subst:NPR invite}}
on their talk page. - If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
- To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
NPP message
Hi Willbb234,
- Invitation
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
| New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors October 2022 Newsletter
  Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up for our July Backlog Elimination Drive, 18 copy-edited, between them, 116 articles. Barnstars awarded are noted here. Blitz: Participants in our August Copy Editing Blitz copy-edited 51,074 words in 17 articles. Of the 15 editors who signed up, 11 claimed at least one copy-edit. Barnstars awarded are noted here. Drive: Forty-one editors took part in our September Backlog Elimination Drive; between them they copy-edited 199 articles. Barnstars awards are noted here. Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz begins on 16 October at 00:01 (UTC) and will end on 22 October at 23:59 (UTC). Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 19:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 303 requests for copy edit – including withdrawn and declined ones – since 1 January. At the time of writing, there are 77 requests awaiting attention and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 1,759. We always need more active, skilled copyeditors – particularly for requests – so please get involved if you can. Election news: In our mid-year election, serving coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tenryuu were returned for another term, and were joined by new coordinator Zippybonzo. No lead coordinator was elected for this half-year. Jonesey95, a long-serving coordinator and lead, was elected as coordinator emeritus; we thank them for their service. Thank you to everyone who took part. Our next election of coordinators takes place throughout December. If you'd like to help out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself or other suitable editors (with their permission, of course!). It's your Guild, after all! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Reidgreg, Tenryuu and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
Baffle☿gab 03:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
| Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since October. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz focused on July and August 2022 request months; and articles tagged for c/e in December 2021 and January 2022. Seventeen of those who signed up claimed at least one copy-edit, and between them copy-edited forty-six articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: In the November Backlog Elimination Drive, thirty editors signed up, twenty-two of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Both target months—December 2021 and January 2022—were cleared, and February was added to the target months. Sixteen requests were copy-edited and 239 articles were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Our seven-day-long December 2022 Copy Editing Blitz begins on 17 December at 00:01 (UTC)*. It will focus on articles tagged for copy-edit in February 2022, and pending requests from September and October. Barnstars awarded will be available here. Progress report: As of 22:40, 8 December 2022, GOCE copyeditors have processed 357 requests since 1 January, there were seventy-four requests outstanding and the backlog stands at 1,791 articles. We always need skilled copy-editors; please help out if you can. Election news: Nomination of candidates for the GOCE's Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2023 is open and continues until 23:59 on 15 December. Voting begins at 00:01 on 16 December and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Coordinators serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on June 30. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, please nominate yourself or any editor you consider suitable—with their permission, of course!. It's your Guild and it doesn't coordinate itself. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers and best seasonal wishes from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Tenryuu, and Zippybonzo. *All times and dates on this newsletter are UTC.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. |
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
| Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Our 2022 Annual Report is now ready for review.
Highlights:
– Your Guild coordinators:
Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment
You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Edit warring at Tucker Carlson
Your recent editing history at Tucker Carlson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Content removal at Tucker Carlson
I'm sorry but this edit was completely inappropriate. We don't remove entire paragraphs just because somebody added sourcing, which is not WP:SYNTH. If you have a concern about that section, please address it or raise it on the talk page instead of blanking the whole thing. –dlthewave ☎ 23:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Dlthewave: maybe take another look and you'll see the WP:SYNTH. I suggest using your eyes next time. And by the way, what we don't do is add whole paragraphs of information on controversial articles without first gaining consensus. This was not done in the first place. The WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus. Your edits don't help. regards, Willbb234 17:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Here's the thing about ONUS: Removing content with an explanation like "I challenge this" or "this is synth, look at your eyes" with no further explanation (which is basically the same thing) is not a legitimate challenge, it's disruptive editing plain and simple. That's why I came to your talk page to discuss your conduct instead of going to the article talk page to discuss the content. Politeness and civility go a long way - When you're ready engage other editors respectfully and fully explain your reasoning, feel free to open a talk page discussion and I'll be happy to talk about whatever your concern might be.
- And unless there's a specific article restriction, editors are not required to discuss or gain consensus before adding content, even when the topic is controversial (which Tucker Carlson's disinformation is not). –dlthewave ☎ 18:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Indefinite partial block from article namespace
I've indefinitely partially blocked you from editing articles. This is because
- you're continuing to edit war in new articles after being partially blocked from two articles previously
- your latest edit war includes exhortations for other people to discuss the dispute without making any effort to do so yourself
- you are still including uncivil statements in your edit summaries while edit warring (see Special:Diff/1143703963 for instance)
You can still edit talk pages, file requests for dispute resolution, etc. To directly edit articles, however, you will need to explain how edit warring and dispute resolution work on English Wikipedia in an unblock request. Any admin is free to undo my block as they see fit, though they should probably consult Doug Weller about the previous block that I overrode. See Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks for instructions on appealing a block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Any editor who lies - and yes, it was lying as the NBC source didn't say these things (I read through it twice) - should be ashamed of themselves. Lying, cherrypicking sources, and deliberately misinterprating sources is much more damaging to the encyclopedia than edit warring is. The editor should be ashamed of themself and I don't see how anyone would think otherwise. Editors who have an issue with this should debate whether the sources actually said these things as opposed to the way I dealt with the situation.
I am a constructive editor and I don't believe this block does any good to the encyclopedia. Regards, Willbb234 18:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Also I did attempt to discuss the new stuff. Willbb234 18:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Also please don't talk to Doug I don't believe he is suitable to be an admin and his judgement is poor. I would encourage any admin who wishes to unblock to look at this independently and not consult Doug. Regards, Willbb234 18:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Willbb234, I agree with your concerns regarding the text that was added to the Carlson article. It fails IMPARTIAL. However, the Carlson article is one where editors need to be careful. Many RSs are clearly presenting over the top versions of events that don't fit with the facts. However, if you want to have a positive impact on the article you need to do so via carefully handling the talk page. When it feels like a group of editors are "out to get" the article subject it can be difficult to strike that balance. The best way to do it is propose new text and sources. I think that could be done here. I have to admit, I do find it exhausting as do a number of other editors who are concerned about article pages looking like long attack articles. Still, it's hard to get consensus if you are blocked! In this case at least you can make your voice heard and object to the version of the current text. Springee (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Willbb234, while Springee is correct about taking care when editing and discussing such articles, I urge you to ignore much of their post as editors are not out to get the subject and this is hardly an attack article. Keep in mind WP:AGF as thinking otherwise will not lead to collaboration and is likely to interfere with your ability to successfully make your points. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Discussion moved from Talk:Tucker Carlson
The issue is that the original text was problematic (as I think we have already established here). It was also added without conensus and the original editor provided no edit description nor did they attempt to fix the issues once they had been pointed out. Why, then, should I spend my time fixing content that was added by someone else? You might say that I would do it in the interest of the article as a whole, but I believe other editors are much better at writing content on contientious issues like this. I am happy to remove content or discuss it, but reading through American sources on topics which I am not all that familiar with and then writing content on that is not in my expertise.
I think that it is entirely reasonable that the content is therefore removed before consensus can be gathered. I am glad that other editors fixed the content and re-added it into the article, but when I saw the synthesis of sources that allowed one to come to a certain conclusion I immediately removed the content again, as I don't believe that it is my responsibility to babysit you through the process. Just fix the content yourself.
Another reason for my response is that they content added was clearly not impartial and used language that furthered a specific viewpoint. I am tired of this kind of content being added (and there's an awful lot of it in this article as Springee has pointed out) and so my reaction was natural. I don't have time for editors who want to act like this and so I removed the content. I also shouldn't have to repeat myself when giving justifications. I hope this clears things up and I believe you should be grateful that I took the time to justify my actions as it is clearly on those wishing to include the content to give their justifications in the first place. I would be happy to discuss specific parts of the text further but it seems this has already been done to some degree. Willbb234 23:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Read WP:BOLD. The first addition does not have to be discussed or already enjoy a consensus. OTOH, if the editor knows their addition is likely to be very controversial, it might be better to start on the talk page and collaborate with others to refine it into a consensus version.
- In this case, at least for those who know the situation and sources, it was not seriously controversial content, and any minor issues could be worked out by other editors tweaking it. You violated WP:Preserve by completely deleting it, rather than improving it, tagging issues, etc. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Willbb234 and Valjean, I hope it's okay that I'm moving this to user talk. It seems like a better fit since at this point we're discussing editor actions rather than article content.
- Willbb234, I feel like I need to address a few things you've said which appear to be inaccurate or not in the spirit of collaborative editing.
- As others have pointed out, editors are not required to gain consensus before adding content to articles. BOLD edits are legitimate and should not be reverted due to lack of prior consensus.
"Why, then, should I spend my time fixing content that was added by someone else?"
Because we're all working together to build an encycopedia. If you see something that needs to be corrected, then fix it!- An editor did address the concerns you raised in your initial revert here. They added a source and changed the incorrect "thousands" figure.
- Yet you reverted with the summary
"adding additional sources to support specific parts of the content violates WP:SYNTH."
I'm sorry but that's not a thing. Adding sources is not SYNTH, so I'm sure you can understand why you were reverted as no valid rationale was given. You refused to elaborate on the article talk page and even when asked directly on your user talk; you expected editors to know what you meant as if the issue was self-evident. Explaining things that you do not think need to be explained is not "babysitting"; it's an essential part of collaborative editing and you should not have been making changes to articles that you are not prepared to explain. Don't expect editors to do this work for you if you're not willing to explain what it is that you want. Because of your refusal to elaborate, editors had to play a guessing game until we came up with a version that was acceptable to you. This was insulting and disrespectful of our time - remember, we're all volunteers. - ONUS only really applies when a legitimate challenge has been raised. You have to give a good reason; you can't just say "I challenge this" or refuse to explain your reasoning. And you shouldn't continue to remove content after your stated concerns have been addressed, unless new issues have arisen.
- I hope that you take this feedback to heart and find ways to work collaboratively with other editors. –dlthewave ☎ 05:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@Dlthewave: the issue is that you're wrong.
- Firstly, I was being WP:BOLD by reverting and the process after this is WP:BRD. The editors should have discussed this before adding it back in for the second and third time as there were reasonable objections made. BOLD goes both ways and I think you should know that. In a more general sense this becomes a discussion bout inclusion and exclusion i.e. whether the content being out of the article or in the article should be the status quo and then discussions should go from there. From my perspective, damaging content should be removed from an article before discussions take place. Maybe you prefer to keep it in but that's not my problem.
- Maybe you didn't read what I said. I am not going to fix writing that is both wrong and unfamiliar. There's is never a situation in which I could work collaboratively with someone who is lying and is writing content that is bad for the encyclopedia as a whole and they know they are doing it. They are the worst editors.
- Okay so you've raised the issue of synthesis many times because it's really bothering you. Here's the thing - you'd be correct if I was talking about sources in a general sense. Sure, adding additional sources to support a claim is not synthesis (I am aware of how Wikipedia works) but with respect to the article, these additional sources were synthesis. Maybe you could look at the context of where this was written next time? Because I seem to recall I wrote this in an edit summary where I removed content that had been synthesised from sources. Contextual clues should help you to understand actions and I really shouldn't have to spell it all out or you. Next time I'll be aware that you struggle with this and I'll try and be more accommodating.
- As you said yourself, we're all volunteers and I'm under no obligation to fix anything myself. If there's an issue and I remove it, you can't justify it's replacement by simply stating "the editor who removed this is too lazy to fix it himself so it should stay in the article".
- My challenges were legitimate so ONUS applies here. Even if they weren't legitimate, it's usually the best course of action on a page like this.
I hope that you take this feedback to heart and find ways to work collaboratively with other editors. Willbb234 14:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Unblock request
Willbb234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to be unblocked so I can edit the article space. The vast majority of my contributions are helpful to the encyclopedia. However, I understand that some of my edits would meet the definition of an edit war which I recognise is unacceptable and contrary to the aims of us as editors. When dealing with contentious articles, such as Tucker Carlson, I will make use of the talk page before reverting other editors as I recognise that prior discussion is necessary, especially on these types of article. Regards, Willbb234 22:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter
| Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter
Election results: In our December 2022 coordinator election, Reidgreg and Tenryuu stepped down as coordinators; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo were returned as coordinators until 1 July. For the second time, no lead coordinator was chosen. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators open on 1 June (UTC). Drive: 21 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 14 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 170 articles totaling 389,737 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Our February Copy Editing Blitz focused on October and November 2022 requests, and the March and April 2022 backlogs. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine claimed at least one copy-edit; and between them, they copy-edited 39,150 words in 22 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: Sign up now for our month-long March Backlog Elimination Drive. Barnstars awarded will be posted here after the drive closes. Progress report: As of 12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 73 requests since 1 January 2023, all but five of them from 2022, and the backlog stands at 1,872 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
Unblock request
Willbb234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to be unblocked so I can edit the article space. The vast majority of my contributions are helpful to the encyclopedia. However, I understand that some of my edits would meet the definition of an edit war which I recognise is unacceptable and contrary to the aims of us as editors. When dealing with contentious articles, such as Tucker Carlson, I will make use of the talk page before reverting other editors as I recognise that prior discussion is necessary, especially on these types of article. Regards, Willbb234 22:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter
| Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter
Election results: In our December 2022 coordinator election, Reidgreg and Tenryuu stepped down as coordinators; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo were returned as coordinators until 1 July. For the second time, no lead coordinator was chosen. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators open on 1 June (UTC). Drive: 21 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 14 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 170 articles totaling 389,737 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Our February Copy Editing Blitz focused on October and November 2022 requests, and the March and April 2022 backlogs. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine claimed at least one copy-edit; and between them, they copy-edited 39,150 words in 22 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: Sign up now for our month-long March Backlog Elimination Drive. Barnstars awarded will be posted here after the drive closes. Progress report: As of 12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 73 requests since 1 January 2023, all but five of them from 2022, and the backlog stands at 1,872 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|