User talk:Unnamed anon: Difference between revisions

Archives

1

I think your username is misleading. I think you should either change it or make your signature show that it is your username. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is my username misleading? An actual unregistered user would just be an IP address, which is just a bunch of numbers. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I got confused, I thought an IP user attempted to hide username poorly. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you archived the thread before I could reply, Schnapp does not say "Will is not gay" in the source you linked. He said it's "open to interpretation", and whether or not Will is gay is "beside the point", and questioned whether liking certain things makes one gay. It's not an explicit denial, which is what I sought after you claimed so. As I said, this was not the point anyway. Claiming Schnapp said Will is not gay when he didn't explicitly say so and claiming Technoblade's tweet was "not proven to exist" when it's still up on Twitter are to me hot takes. Also, you misinterpreted what I said. I said you have received more notices about sanctions applying to all editors editing in controversial topic areas than I had ever seen. I didn't say sanctions applying to you only. But you have also received a lot of guidance from editors based on your apparent heated arguments with others over controversial topics, and I'm saying you need to be careful going forward. It's not bad advice, it's good because from a glance at your contributions, since registering you have gone to a lot of divisive topic areas in the news. If it's all an editor does, and with a name like "Unnamed anon", it looks like trying to stir up arguments for the sake of it. I reiterate: I don't think "be careful with doing this" is bad advice based on what I see. Ss112 07:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair advice, thanks. Sorry that I misread your other one. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Time to eat your words and step back from removing anything about Will's sexuality from Stranger Things articles. Straight from Noah Schnapp's mouth, "Now it's 100% clear that he is gay and he does love Mike." He even admits that it was "obviously hinted at" as early as season one. I really do hope you are telling the truth when you say you don't have something against mentions of characters as LGBT or using LGBT sources on Wikipedia. Ss112 03:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Inside Job (2021 TV series), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at WP:RFPP regarding your request for protection of List of Rick and Morty characters are obnoxious. There is no reason for you to post such comments anywhere on Wikipedia. If I see you do this again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I admit I should have controlled my anger. However, did you actually check the diffs I linked on the request for protection, or did you deny it because of my admittedly obnoxious behavior (I felt like this was the only way to reach these IPs who refuse to read the hidden note and discuss on the talk page)? The level of disruption is genuinely really, really bad. When you see other angry comments I made, for which I apologize, those were before your warning. Unnamed anon (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even without your language, I would have declined it. There hasn't been enough recent activity to justify protection. It's not "really, really bad". You're obviously too invested in this to be objective.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2010 film). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:FILM, "The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources that summarize reviews; do not synthesize individual reviews. Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly.". Per WP:BURDEN, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.". Rotten Tomatoes directly contradicts your statement, and it is unsourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously need to stop posting your own personal synthesis that directly contradicts what some of the sources say, as you did in this edit. This film did not receive mixed reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, so you can't say that it received mixed reviews just because one aggregator out of the two cited in the article said it was mixed. This is undue weight and cherry picking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only one adding undue weight is you, for mentioning specific aggregate sites in the lede. Read it again. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement… and, as I have made it very clear already, I do not appreciate the accusation of this being "my opinion". In the case of Pirates of the Caribbean 4 though, I can see that 33% is very low, and am willing to call that movie as having mixed-to-negative reviews. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck are you talking about? Since your last message on my talk page, I agreed that 33% was too low to call it mixed. Although does not solve the problem of mentioning aggregate sites by name in the lede, I agreed with you that 33% was too low. I didn't add original research to that page at all since your last post; in fact since your last post I didn't add anything at all, I only removed content that was undue. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1168156326 was rightly reverted as synthesis an hour after Special:Diff/1168142632. MOS:FILM is pretty clear that a summary in the lead must "reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources" without synthesizing something that none of them say. WP:NPOV is also pretty clear that "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance". This means not making up a synthy mash-up of their views but stating what their views are. There is also a general dislike of phrases like "mixed to negative" across various WikiProjects. See WP:VG/MIXED for an example from another project which probably should be copy-pasted into WikiProject's Film's MOS, too (or moved to a more general MOS page). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that edit, yes. I actually eventually agreed with Betty Logan that "mixed-to-negative" was unencyclopedic if you read my edit summary after hers. While I still do not appreciate the block warning for something I had conceded and came to an agreement in, I do appreciate you pointing out your specific concern here. Thank you. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, while you may not like the presence of slang, it is not considered disqualifying for a reliable source. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding that archive link to the reference on List of Teen Titans episodes. I wanted to bring to your attention that I corrected the syntax for the archive link here. You can find out more about the template syntax at Template:Cite_web#archive-url EvergreenFir (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to repeat what I said in my revert of you: You obviously and transparently disapprove of this essay. That's fine, but after the deletion discussion ended in "keep", I've seen you consistently attempting to remove the stuff you don't like through regular editing. Occasionally by deleting entire sections and more generally by removing bullet-points that contain information you dislike. Editing other people's essays is fine, but I don't think trying to undermine an essay you don't like through edits after outright removal has failed can be described as anything other than disruptive behaviour, and I'm asking you to cut it out now, before I have to get mods involved over edit warring. Thanks in advance. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Licks-rocks: First, I haven't been edit warring. It's three reverts for a war, and generally I have either taken it to discussion or dropped the stick after it was reverted once. Secondly, how the hell is editing an essay I don't like "disruptive"? The reason why I don't like the essay is that I feel a lot of it is casting aspersions, and removing those aspersions would make the essay be less likely to be abused. I have seen some essays wrongly cited as Wikipedia policy, and if this essay would also be wrongly cited as policy I do not want real debates to be taken as bigotry, nor do I want to see good faith editors blocked for taking a neutral stance instead of taking a clear side. It's telling that my edits from before the MfD concluded are what caused several people to strike their !delete votes, as before my edits, the essay was too accusatory and broad, and frankly was very close to being a personal attack. I do not see a problem with continuing to improve the page even after the deletion discussion has ended; as I said in the MfD, I'm not upset that the page remained up, but my opinion on the page will shift back to a negative view if editors try to adding back their loose definitions of queerphobia and mixing it with actual bigotry again. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's good I didn't mainly accuse you of edit warring then. I also accused you of disruptive editing. Your arguments below that are a rehash of what you said at MfD in the hopes of getting the whole article deleted, which just goes to support my point that you're now trying to achieve your desired result for that MfD through other means. Additionally, Edit warring refers to a broader category of behaviour than just 3RR, there's also things like slow edit warring. Your repeated removals of various parts of that essay, only to get reverted and do the same thing to another part, definitely qualifies. Again: cut it out. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago, I experienced an editor repeatedly (at least 5 times) reverting a page to his desired revision every month or two that removed valid content despite it a prior discussion that the content was valid. I reported that as edit warring, and it wasn't considered as warring. So if that wasn't warring, neither is what I'm doing, because I take it to discussion after being reverted once or twice. I also am getting the impression that you are assuming bad faith because I'm trying to achieve your desired result for that MfD through other means. My desired result for the MfD was to prevent false aspersions, and you are correct that this is the reason I am editing the article. I do not see what is wrong with trying to get a compromise though; as you saw, several editors removed their !delete votes because my edits were overall improvements to make it less accusatory. I see nothing wrong with continuing to remove accusations even after the MfD ended. I'd also like to address your thought that I obviously disagree with the premise of the essay; no, I don't. That's another part in a long line of assuming bad faith by making shit up about me, and if you do this again I may have to report you to mods as well. I have repeatedly said that queerphobia is hate and that it shouldn't be allowed; the problem was the list of what editors considered hateful, which, as I've stated many times, I do not want good faith edits to be lumped in with real hate. Yes, this is a repeat of my MfD argument, and that's because it still holds up. Unnamed anon (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never assume bad faith. I prefer to describe behaviour instead, and I never make claims about behaviour that I can't back up. I'm incredibly careful about that. You've admitted to "trying to achieve your desired result for that MfD through other means." several times already. You did it in this very comment immediately after you accused me of assuming bad faith over it.

bviously disagree with the premise of the essay; no, I don't" Yes you do, you've been pretty clear about that. And you need to stop. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed anon, I have no comment on whether you're edit warring in the essay but I should warn you that whatever happened with your previous experience you've either misunderstood or were misinformed. You do not get to make 3 reverts or 5 reverts, and even repeatedly making on revert can be edit warring. Besides the 3RR bright line, there is no clear definition of edit warring, but what you describe definitely could be edit warring and blockable edit warring in the right circumstances. I strongly suggest you change how you edit and stop assuming it's fine to make 3 reverts or 5 reverts or even 1 revert repeatedly since if you keep at it there's a fair chance you will be blocked over it eventually and your excuse that your were told it wasn't edit warring when some other editor did it once is not likely to fly. Especially now that you've been told you are wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne:, understood about what constitutes as edit warring. I'll try to fix that. Unnamed anon (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Unnamed anon. Thank you. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend removing the "doxxing" thing from the arb statement: you were editing as an IP address, meaning literally anybody could geolocate it. In fact, the menu at the top of an IP's talk page gives me five separate dropdown menu items for the "IP lookup" section -- and one of them is the link that Serial posted on that talk page. He was literally linking a page that shows up on a dropdown using a very common gadget. If he were posting your irl name or something (or alluding to it etc) that'd be one thing, but as it stands, you are making a very absurd claim. jp×g🗯️ 00:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand that now. I don't think publicly stating it was appropriate for that discussion and it definitely felt uncivil (especially with calling me a "crufter", but you're right, it's not technically doxxing. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I issued a warning at WP:ANI which you acknowledged that you had read by thanking me for my edit. In the 20 plus hours since then, you have persisted with your blatant WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, which you have admitted yourself. Your repeated references to doxxing are utterly spurious, as saying that an IP geolocates to California says only that the IP may be possibly be used by someone who lives in or is visiting California, which has a population of about 39 million people, and stretches 950 miles from Crescent City to Calexico. Those repeated remarks indicate a lack of perspective and proportion, and an inclination towards fighting for the sake of fighting. So, please be on alert that a return to this kind of behavioral pattern may result in an indefinite block. So, when your block expires, focus like a laser beam on edits that 99.9% of active editors would readily agree are productive. Cullen328 (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I owe you an apology for my comments towards Serial Number and YFNS. I should have realized that acknowledging my BATTLEGROUND behavior isn't enough if I keep doing it. While I did feel wronged when both users resorted to name-calling and "Feel free to cry" statements, plus I was uncomfortable with Serial Number using diffs where I eventually reached an agreement to say I was stubborn (you and JPxG did clear the doxxing concerns), I accept full responsibility by being no better. I still accept the temporary ban, because today has made it clear that provocations will send me over the edge; a week of being forced out is a good mental break for me to reflect on why I can't react calmly to incivility, regardless of if it's valid or perceived.

As for the discussion at ANI, I have no more interest in editing the No Queerphobia essay, as I fully realize that, regardless of my intent, it is clear I do have a disruptive editing pattern there. I fully understand 0xDEADBEEF and Licks-rocks' points that I added content way too fast after seeing it on the talk page. It would be better for everybody's mental health, including mine, for me to outright ignore the essay. I would prefer not having an official page ban, at least not an indefinite one, as the block notice on my contributions list will remind me of the page's existence and defeat the whole purpose of ignoring it; this talk page section serves as a good reminder for me without being the reminder being constantly everywhere, but I will promise to never touch that essay again. If I do edit that essay again, specifically in the way the users are concerned about that adds talk page input immediately after hearing it, then an official page ban can be in order. As you can see with my edits since the MfD ended, I can make constructive changes to other pages, mostly small changes that fix things like grammar. Unnamed anon (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]