User talk:Peter L Griffin

Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, Peter L Griffin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

A lengthy welcome

Hi Peter L Griffin. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Hipal. Peter L Griffin (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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.

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Beccaynr (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Death of Nex Benedict

Hi Peter L Griffin, I encourage you to use the talk page to discuss inclusion of the disputed detail related to personal information of living people in this article instead of continuing to try to add it; I have not been able to find this information in independent and reliable sources, and this likely needs to be discussed before inclusion even if it can be sourced, because of WP:BLP policy. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Beccynr,

It seems like your edit has been reverted by Kcmastrpc. The detail about the class year of the three girls involved in the altercation is sourced in Vox, which is an independent and reliable source: "On the afternoon of February 7, Benedict was participating in a school disciplinary program alongside three first-year girls." [1] WP:BLP is not violated because that detail is attributable to the aforementioned independent and reliable source.

I hope this clears up any confusion. Please do not revert Kcmastrpc's edit again, as that would be a violation of WP:EDITWAR, but feel free to discuss any remaining objections on the talk page.

Thank you, Peter L Griffin (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It would seem that there is already a thread on this. Convinient! Peter L Griffin (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in discussion - this is a challenging article with a variety of policy and guideline considerations, so major changes can take some time to consider; I appreciate you presenting your concerns and discussing the sources, as well as identifying options for addressing concerns about the article. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Hello, I'm Beccaynr. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Death of Nex Benedict, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Beccaynr (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I find it funny that you accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing. You are repeatedly reverting my edits. You claim that they are not supported by reliable sources even though I am linking you to the sources. The burden is on you to prove you are right on the talk page, not on me. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

As I noted, the sources were already in the article. And this is a biography of a recently-deceased person, within three contentious topic areas, so we need to be particularly careful that poorly-sourced and unsourced contentious content is not added to the article, including the lead. I think it should be expected for there to be edits to rapidly-added content based on partially-reported breaking and developing news, and discussion before inclusion of disputed content (see e.g. WP:BLPUNDEL). Beccaynr (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

How can you make say it is unsourced that the 13 March report attributed the manner of death to a drug overdose? I showed you one; here are several others. This is extremely well sourced in WP:RS and ought to be included. Kindly restore my edit, so I do not have to escalate this matter to the administrator's noticeboard.

The Oklahoman: "An Oklahoma teen whose death sparked widespread outrage and calls for change died of an overdose, authorities said Wednesday." [2]

USA Today: "Authorities said the 16-year-old was involved in an altercation at their high school and died the following day of an overdose, which a medical examiner ruled a suicide." [3]

PBS: "The state medical examiner determined last week that Benedict’s death in February was a suicide caused by a drug overdose." [4]

The Associated Press: "The report shows Benedict had toxic levels of two drugs in their system and died of an overdose." [5]

TIME Magazine: "The report shows Benedict had toxic levels of two drugs in their system and died of an overdose." [6] Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Also you have a tendency to not respond to messages I leave on your talk page, but rather to delete them. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Death of Nex Benedict. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Death of Nex Benedict. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You were previously warned above after this [7], but you have continued with this [8], which included pinging me. Beccaynr (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Not a personal attack. A disagreement on policy. Know the difference. Peter L Griffin (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring at Death of Nex Benedict

The page has been fully protected for 72 hours, and it has been placed under a one-revert restriction, meaning that you may not make more than one revert every 24 hours. Please note that any future edit warring at Death of Nex Benedict or related articles will lead to a page block or a topic ban. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

noted Peter L Griffin (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Bad revert

Do not revert removals of troll edits as you did here. That edit was not constructive and violated WP:NOTFORUM. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought it would be kind (and in-line with Wikipedia policy) to restore the IP's comment and explain why we use they/them pronouns to refer to Nex Benedict, as opposed to the he/him we see in most sources now, and the she/her we saw in very early reports, and how this is because Wikipedia operates under a system of gaining consensus for policies, and all articles, per current consensus, must comply with MOS:GENDERID...all of this is obvious to you and I is not so obvious to a first-time editor.

Imagine you were brand new to Wikipedia, were confused about the Wikipedia style guide, and asked a question on an article talk page to this effect. Then your comment disappeared. Because you're not familiar with Wikipedia, it's not immediately obvious what happened or where it went. Your original question went unanswered, and now you're only left with more questions.

WP:NOTFORUM which you cite, states that talk pages should not be used as a general forum for discussing the topic of an article, but rather on how to improve it. IP's comment, while ill-informed, is relevant to improving the article (by changing pronouns), and is not general commentary on the subject. Thus, it seems as though this is an inappropriate rationale for removing the comment when we can politely end the user's confusion. Peter L Griffin (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with EF, that's a troll, not a confused newbie. The statement They/Them pronouns refer to more than one person. If you were born with a XY chromosomes, your pronouns are he/him. Likewise, if you were born with XX chromosomes, your pronouns are she/her. Those are the only pronouns. The facts do not care about your feelings absolutely falls under notforum. This person wasn't ill-informed. They know exactly what argument they're making. Valereee (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Advice

Peter L Griffin, I see that you're working towards fitting in to the Wikipedia system. I know that it's a complicated set of rules (and culture around these rules), but I can see that your edits are getting better as time goes on. I want to give you a piece of advice. I have felt a pattern from you of always being on the attack on talk pages, and repeating any complaint made against you against the complainer. In the short term, that might sometimes work. In the longer term, I have heard the advice given that the best way to navigate Wikipedia is to be hyper-polite (while still staying brief); WP:AGF is an important and relevant guideline. I've seen some folks that were combative over a period of time wind up blocked or banned. Wikipedia needs a diversity of viewpoints, including yours (but also no one is irreplaceable). Anyway, this advice comes with no strings attached, and you're free to listen or ignore. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Associate Justice

Hi Peter. You probably know better than myself, but if 'Associate' is removed from Greg Abbott's page, with TX not having one, should others be deleted also? I ask because I saw that the two names under his in the infobox, Jack Hightower and Xavier Rodriguez have Associate Justice listed in their infoboxes. If there is no such thing, it should be explained to the Texas infobox makers. I do know that the U.S. has a Chief and also Associates. Maybe I'm missing something somewhere, I'm good for that. Thanks in advance. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey Bringingthewood,

The Texas Supreme Court has a "Chief Justice" and 8 other "Justices" -- per Supreme Court of Texas "Unlike their counterparts on the U.S. Supreme Court, the official title of incumbents holding Place 2 through Place 9 is Justice, rather than Associate Justice." These titles are likewise reflected by the court's official webpage [9].

Of course this is somewhat confusing/counterintuitive, since this is nearly the same structure as the U.S. Supreme Court, except at SCOTUS the non-Chief Justices are formally called "Associate Justices" so many probably (mistakenly) assume that the honorifics in Texas are analogous.

I think yes, you'd be correct to remove any "associates" you find around referring to Texas Justices. I'll probably do this too. Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

This can be traced all the way back to the Texas Constitution (Article V, Section 2a) which states "The Supreme Court shall consist of the Chief Justice and eight Justices" [10]. Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

However, associate justices in Texas were formerly a thing (pre 1945 I believe) until the TX constitution was amended to remove this qualifying title. Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I thank you very much, that made for some interesting reading. Never too old to learn. I'm still glad that I ran it by you first, better than typing 'blame it on him' in the edit summary. Just saw your last message, that's good history to know. Bottom line, I'm thinking you might be the best one for the removals. You have way more ammo if a revert shows up. Well, thanks for all the insight, it was much appreciated. Enjoy your weekend and stay well. Bringingthewood (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep no problem. I think i've fixed all the incorrectly labeled ones. Peter L Griffin (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

That was fast! Looks good. If I see someone making a mess down the road ... I'll revert it. ;) Bringingthewood (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Your move on Death of Nex Benedict

You can't just move something against consensus. Don't do it again. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Show me what consensus it is against. And your bossy attitude is not appreciated. Peter L Griffin (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

For the record, no consensus to move looks like Talk:Death of Nex Benedict/Archive 2#Requested move 28 March 2024, a conversation that you contributed to and were/are surely well aware of. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

But Liliana suggested that the move was AGAINST consensus. Which is not true because there is no consensus. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The policy on Wikipedia is that if no consensus for an action is reached, that the usual course of action is that status-quo is maintained until a new consensus is established - When article title discussions end without consensus, the applicable policy preserves the most recent stable title. You can read WP:NOCONSENSUS to familiarize yourself with this policy. Which in this case would require a new move discussion after something fundamental has occurred that would warrant a new discussion to reach a different conclusion. Raladic (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

To expand a little more on what Raladic says, there was a well-attended RfC on the question that ended about a month ago. The close was "no consensus to move". This a weaker result than "clear consensus not to move", but is still a decision against moving. Applicable guidelines include WP:NOCONSENSUS (as pointed out), also WP:CCC. I would strongly recommend against trying to move this page again yourself. You could start another request after enough time. I think that the general guidelines suggest waiting at least 6-12 months after a consensus against, less for a no consensus close. My personal advice would be to wait at least another several months before starting a new request, unless additional sources arise. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)