Jump to content

User talk:WikiWikiWayne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Email this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WikiWikiWayne (talk | contribs) at 02:50, 21 March 2023 (OneClickArchiver archived Women in Red in February 2023 to User talk:WikiWikiWayne/Archive 48). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


>Very low pending changes backlog: 3 pages according to DatBot as of 05:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
    "Have a cuppa... Coffee?"
    "Have a cuppa... Coffee?"


    Tami Erin and the definition of vandalism

    Hello,

    Per WP:BLP, we don't add information about trivial arrests without convictions to BLPs. Removing such tabloid newspaper style content is most certainly not vandalism. Vandalism has a very strict definition here and is a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia. These were good faith edits not vandalism.You really want to add material about a fight between roommates about pizza to a BLP? Really? Make your case on the article's talk page, which I will be watching. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please check for link rot before you tag an article with the template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Random reversion bot

    Good job reverting Grover's material out of the knockout game page! That is exactly what one of your two revisions accomplished. The other left in the stupid sentence in the last paragraph of the lead. Even better job ignoring that the page is anything but informative or neutral. Three thumbs up! 98.225.252.201 (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: (User talk:ais523) Updating stub script

    The script that you mention, User:Ais523/stubtagtab.js, is one I haven't looked at in years (and I'd mostly forgotten it existed until you linked it). Most people use the script I originally created at User:Ais523/stubtagtab2.js instead (which was adopted and maintained by another user, at User:MC10/stubtagtab.js; it seems that my version was updated via {{edit protected}}, I didn't update it myself). It looks like nobody's done the same for the "original" script.

    I'm not really active at Wikipedia at the moment, and am not really up-to-date enough on scripting knowledge to fix it. I'd have no objection to someone else updating the script and using {{edit protected}} to replace it (or, if they were an admin, just putting in a script redirect; script redirects to non-admin namespaces are a security issue). Otherwise, I'll probably have a look at it next time I become active at Wikipedia, but that might not be for months or years (I tend to become active in bursts). --ais523 02:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

    Checkingfax has accepted the nomination for a Wikipedia adminship from Corinne and Natalie.Desautels

    Appreciation

    I appreciate your interest in editing the Signpost Humour article. Please feel free to make any changes that you feel are appropriate. Any edits that anyone else has made to the articles has improved the article, so you are invited, forever and beyond, to continue to check up on my sloppy writing. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 16:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The Barnstar of Good Humor
    Listen, I'm just flattered that you even read the humour article in the Signpost. If we were face-to-face I would shake your hand and give you a smiley cookie. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 16:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Barbara (WVS). I cheated as I have a couple of user scripts installed that make those (possible) nitpick errors leap out at me when I read articles. I felt cheeky enough making the edits that I wanted to check with you and make sure that I did not make three steps ahead and two steps back. Thank you for the barnstar. I really appreciate it. PS: I learned a lot about Ralphs. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to learn how to cheat! What script do you use? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 14:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Barbara (WVS). I use two user scripts, made by other editors. The first turns redirect links from blue to a light green (kinda hard to see), and the second turns disambiguation links to orange (very easy to see). Then, I can manually check them to see where they lead, and repoint them if or as necessary. Have you ever installed a user script? Let me figure out the easiest way to walk you through it, if you need some help. The process is simple and quick. I will be back in a jiffy. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Barbara (WVS). Okay. My apologies. You are way ahead of me. I found the script for turning redirect links to light green. Copy all of this into your common.css page:
    /* Makes redirect links appear green to me only */


.mw-redirect {
color: #006633;

}
.mw-redirect:visited {
color: #009900;

}
.mw-redirect:hover {
color: #990000;

}
.mw-redirect:active {
color: #990000;

}
    I will poke around to find the other script or gadget. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Barbara (WVS). Okay, turning disambiguation links to orange (only you will see this) is a gadget. Check out this tip of the day for the simple enablement. Have fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Checkingfax, new tools are like candy to me! thanks so much and the very best of regards. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 10:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Barbara (WVS). I do not know if you have enabled the orange link thing yet in your preferences yet, but if you have, you can spot and fix an orange link in the Social justice article - it is right in the lead! Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy New Year!

    Hello WWW, and may the best of all New Year's ride with you in 2023. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Randy Kryn - Back at you. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 10:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Killing of Tyre Nichols

    Thank you for your hard work and Ninja-like edits. Over a quarter-million people have read the article so far, and you've helped keep the info encyclopedic. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Magnolia677 – Thank you. I really needed that. These types of articles have a lot of drama edits and snarky or missing edit summaries. By the way, I was just about to compliment you. I truly appreciate your efforts and I like your style. I make a lot of mistakes, but either I fix them, or y'all's do. That's the beautiful thing about the Wiki: it gets healed quick by good faith volunteers. You rock. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 20:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mostly edit city articles in Canada and the US, but often stumble onto these politically charged articles because they are wild. I've been editing Attack on Paul Pelosi a lot, and it's an epic battle. Thanks for the compliment. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 4 February 2023

    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report

    Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
    Our 2022 Annual Report is now ready for review.

    Highlights:

    • Overview of Backlog-reduction progress
    • Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page
    • Membership news and results of elections
    • Closing words
    – 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) 00:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    New message from Stifle

    Hello, WikiWikiWayne. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
    Message added 09:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

    Stifle (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure doesn't look like a list. Looks like an article. Should be renamed. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    ITN recognition for Raquel Welch

    On 18 February 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Raquel Welch, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 20 February 2023

    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing news 2023 #1

    Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

    This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

    1. The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
    2. They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

    Talk pages project

    Screenshot showing the talk page design changes that are currently available as beta features at all Wikimedia wikis. These features include information about the number of people and comments within each discussion.
    Some of the upcoming changes

    The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

    It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

    Daily edit completion rate by test group: DiscussionTools (test group) and MobileFrontend overlay (control group)

    An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

    New Project: Edit Check

    The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

    –Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirect : 2nd Degree Murder

    What do you think about citing or redirecting to Tennessee statutes for 2nd degree murder instead of the general wiki article? I also found on archive dot org, "Tennessee Pattern Jury Instructions 26th edition" (the criminal edition) which better explains 2nd degree murder in Tennessee. The Jury instruction is clear in what is required to convict. AgntOtrth (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    AgntOtrth – It is worth a shot. Go for it. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 04:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 9 March 2023

    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Praia do Ervino moved to draftspace

    Thanks for your contributions to Praia do Ervino. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and also read about verification on Wikipedia and burden on citation. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

    Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Reading Beans (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:Drafts

    Fair warning, I will block you if you revert again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

    Information icon 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WikiWikiWayne reported by User:Alalch E. (Result: ). Thank you. —Alalch E. 16:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BRD

    Per WP:BRD, when you are reverted you should leave the article as it is and then discuss on the talk page. You're edit warring (I count that you're now up to 5 reverts), your edit seems to be inserting a note/commentary into the text, and you seem to have stopped replying on the talk page. Please leave the article as it is and discuss on talk. — Czello 17:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Czello – Thank you for reverting my misplaced edit-summary when my cursor jumped up into the body. Good job.
    My first edit was a good-faith edit, not a revert. Two of my reverts were in good faith. Two were blunders. Like I said, sorry for that. I was not trying to war with you, or anybody, and indeed your hands were clean. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 00:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    March 2023 block

    Stop icon with clock
    You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Wikipedia:Drafts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
    During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases, it may be appropriate to request page protection.
    If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read your email. It falls well short of an acceptable unblock request. You made three reverts in just over an hour, as a result of which no fewer than three editors came to your talk page. My warning could not have been clearer. You then stopped editing for an hour and I hoped that was the end of the matter, but then you came back and made yet another revert. I considered blocking you when I left the warning but decided to give you a chance to step away. You didn't. A 48-hour timeout is lenient. You're welcome to follow the instructions in the template to request another admin review the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, HJ Mitchell – Thank you for your reply. I truly appreciate it. However...
    • My first foray was a good-faith edit, not a R-evert, nor was it even a B-old edit.
    • I reverted for the first time after that, and then entered into a D-iscussion with the editor that reverted my edit. They asked me not to revert their reversion, but I did before seeing their note. Neither of us was warring, we were just missing each other's communications. We were both acting in good faith as far as I knew.
    • I was busy getting new eyeglasses so I was very busy and I missed your warning shot above, and I'm just seeing it now.
    • I was also oblivious to the ANI, and never got a chance to chime in, just as I had no opportunity to talk to you. I never got an email reply from you either. The instructions we are given are to email you, which I did. I have a screenshot of our options to reach out when blocked. To say I wrote a weak (unacceptable) email is presumptuous and mean, as you did not reply, and I could not add detail you felt was lacking. I'm not sure why you're replying here, instead of via email.
    • I acted in good faith, and I always do. The point of blocks is to be a teaching moment.
    • Three editors did *not* come to my talk page, but anyway, the last two "reverts" were unintentional, I took ownership of my blunder, and I apologized to that editor and admitted my error. What they reverted was unintentional where my insertion cursor jumped from the edit summary into the body – they caught my mistake and fixed it, but I thought it was something else, I was puzzled, and I blew it. Blocking me fixes nothing, and has really mucked up trying to resolve this. I performed one good-faith edit, one revert, a discussion, a 2nd germane revert, and two admitted blunders, partially due to my jumping cursor.
    • Your comments above are off base, overstated, and not productive, IMHO. The original editor, the 2nd editor, and I could have worked it out, or the ANI process could have.
    • By the way, your warning shot to me, which I am just now seeing, is buried in another section header, unrelated to this unfortunate situation that we all caused, including you. We all made mistakes. But, too much drama.
    • My original edit was made in good faith, and I stand by the fact that what I edited out was confusing and contradictory.
    • I feel bullied by you in several ways. You made no efforts to mediate or mitigate. That's not the Wiki way. The other 2 editors were not bullying me, and I believe it would have worked out fine if you had not stepped in and dropped a hammer on me.
    • I am looking forward to the new Wiki where bullying is noticed and dealt with. If readers knew about this drama under the hood, I don't know what their reaction would be. You might see steam when you read this, but that's on you. You read a lot of drama into my edits that were not my intention or motive.
    • Take care. Hopefully, we can all be collegial on the Wiki. Whoop, whoop. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 23:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you feel bullied, but saying that I made "no efforts to mediate or mitigate" is simply not true. I offered a third opinion on the talk page (you didn't engage and in fact continued reverting) and I left a very clear and unambiguous warning on your talk page (you state that you didn't see it; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but it was there for you to see and you edited afterwards, in fact you made another revert). Even without those intervention, an editor with your experience must know that edit warring is frowned upon and that making four reverts in one day is a violation of a bright-line rule and grounds for a block. In fact, you cited WP:BRD and even told someone else "please do not edit war during a BRD (discussion)", but you continued reverting and declined to engage in the discussion beyond your initial reply. I feel I've been more than reasonable in explaining the grounds for this block but if you want another admin to review it, you can use the {{unblock}} template and a second admin should be along shortly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    HJ Mitchell

    I'm sorry you feel bullied,

    • YES, I FEEL VERY BULLIED.

    but saying that I made "no efforts to mediate or mitigate" is simply not true.

    • WHERE IS IT TRUE? NOW I'M A LIAR TOO? REALLY?

    I offered a third opinion on the talk page

    • NEVER SAW IT. BEFORE THE BLOCK?

    (you didn't engage and in fact continued reverting)

    • I WAS ALREADY ENGAGED, AND BUSY WITH LIFE.

    and I left a very clear and unambiguous warning

    • NEVER SAW IT. DID YOU WARN THE OTHER TWO REVERTERS? HOPEFULLY NOT.

    on your talk page

    • THATS NOT IN THE ADMIN BLOCKING HANDBOOK.

    (you state that you didn't see it;

    • ARE YOU DOUBTING ME? CALLING ME A LIAR, AGAIN? REALLY. WERE YOU AWARE OF THE ANI?

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt

    • NO, YOU BLOCKED ME. NO BENEFIT GIVEN, THEN, OR NOW. NOT SINCERE.

    but it was there for you to see

    • NOT SEEN. JUST AS YOU MISSED THE ANI, AS I DID. THIS MOVED WAY TOO FAST.

    and you edited afterwards,

    • I HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THE TIME STAMPS, BUT YES, PROBABLY, AS I WAS OBLIVIOUS TO IT.

    in fact you made another revert).

    • I MADE ONE GOOD-FAITH EDIT AND TWO GERMANE REVERTS. I DEALT WITH THE OTHER TWO MISTAKES, DIRECTLY WITH THE GOOD-FAITH EDITOR..

    Even without those intervention, an editor with your experience must know that edit warring is frowned upon

    • UM, YEAH. MORE BULLYING.

    and that making four reverts in one day is a violation of a bright-line rule

    • NOT MY INTENTION. BUT, I WAS SELF FIXING IT.

    and grounds for a block.

    • NOT IN THE CASE OF A GOOD FAITH EDITOR. AND, NOT ACCORDING TO THE ADMIN HANDBOOK. BLOCKING IS A LAST RESORT TO PREVENT ONGOING DAMAGE. MY GOOD-FAITH EDIT WAS NOT HARMFUL TO THE READERS.

    In fact, you cited WP:BRD

    • YES, THE OTHER EDITORS BOTH REVERTED AFTER OUR D-ISCUSSION BEGAN.BRD IS AN ESSAY. I DON'T THINK WE CAN CITE ESSAYS.

    and even told someone else "please do not edit war during a BRD (discussion)",

    • I BELIEVE I SAID THAT. LET ME CHECK.

    but you continued reverting and declined to engage in the discussion beyond your initial reply.

    • HOW COULD YOU KNOW THE REASON I WAS NOT ENGAGED? COULD IT BE THAT I HAVE DUTIES OUTSIDE OF BEING FULLY ENGAGED IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT AN EIGHT WORD GOOD-FAITH, HELPFUL EDIT?

    I feel I've been more than reasonable in explaining the grounds for this block

    • YOUR GROUNDS ARE IMPROPER, ACCORDING TO THE ADMIN'S BLOCKING HANDBOOK, GUIDELINES, POLICIES, NORMS, INTENT, AND ESSAYS; AND THE SPIRIT OF A WIKI

    but if you want another admin to review it,

    • WHY WONT YOU SAVE FACE AND UNBLOCK ME YOUSELF INSTEAD OF BEING "RIGHT" AND AUTHORITATIVE?

    you can use the {{unblock}} template and a second admin should be along shortly.

    • TOO MANY BAD, JADED, MISGUIDED, AND ILL-TRAINED ADMINS. NO THANK YOU. TOO CHANCEY. YOU CAN FIX IT.

    HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 3:14 am, Today (UTC−7)

    • YOU SAID A PENNY FOR MY THOUGHTS, AND YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO GASLIGHT, MOCK, AND IGNORE MY SHARED AND CONFIDENTIAL THOUGHTS. MY BLOCK IS BOLLOCKS, AND YOU KNOW IT.
    • YOU STILL CAN SELF-FIX THIS, AND BLANK IT FROM MY SPOTLESS LOG.
    • PLEASE RE-READ THE HANDBOOK ON BLOCKING AND WHEN, WHERE, HOW, AND WHY. I DON'T DESERVE A BLOCK OR YOUR BULLYING. IT'S ALL THERE IN THE ADMIN READING MATERIAL. – Take care. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 11:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your post-block conduct has been generally disruptive, but this last shouting personal attack (if you think formatting this screed is in some way helpful, you are mistaken) is the last straw. I have revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [ec] Dear WikiWikWayne, I came to your talk page to check up on how you're doing, and if you have made any comments in response to being blocked. I am being very serious about what I'm saying here. It's disorienting for me to see that you are now writing in all-caps. I am so, so, sorry that you're under such stress, and are having the experience of someone being bullied. The current situation is emphatically not what I had in mind when I reverted your initial edit. I have seen things on Wikipedia, but I was unable to anticipate that this chain of events would take place, even as I was bringing a report to the edit warring noticeboard.
    When I first encountered you on the essay page, my expectations from you were wildly different—I was really troubled with how we aren't communicating effectively. But now I understand that you were distracted with a serious real-life task, and were already probably under some stress. Entering then in a dispute with someone, when you did not expect that there could be opposition to what you thought was a relatively minor tweak to an essay, removing what you believed were some extraneous words with funny practical implications (which they are not, but maybe they would look that way to someone who isn't in the right moment to exhibit their full range of exegetical talents), only distracted you further and caused you to lose footing.
    I wanted to get you to really begin communicating on the talk page, in a substantive manner, not in a pro-forma manner where we mostly talk past each other. But you weren't in the right mind to engage more deeply. And that's fine. With the power of hindsight, I can respect that. Had I known this then, if you had told me "I want to hash this out properly, but I'm busy, let's do this over the course of a week", I would have given it multiple weeks, and would not have minded what the last saved wording is. It isn't that critical. (Still, Wikipedia:Drafts is an important page, many parts of which have been deeply considered by many editors, and it reflects actual practices. Nothing in it is really "nonsense".)
    I recognized said initial edit of yours as a bold edit and a revert. When there is a discrete addition to a page that someone later removes, despite there being intermediate edits, this is more or less commonly seen as a revert. Not all editors interpret what counts as a bold action and a revert exactly the same. Perhaps we belong to two "camps" that see this differently. From my perspective, the burden was on you to fully argue the removal case, because you reverted MB, and that revert was—at the same time—a bold action because some time had passed in between, with no intermediate editor having reverted the addition, which makes said addition subject to implicit consensus. That's what makes your initial action a bold action. I disagreed with it, and that's why I reverted you the first time. I was just going through the motions.
    I was then expecting a normal, collaborative, decision-making process to take place, but in your first reply on the talk page you said I'm reverting you. Huh? "What's the point of that", I wondered. "How does that get us any closer to a resolution?" It was like we were communicating from slightly time-lagged parallel universes. I suspected that you may be intent on discussion avoidance. But you were distracted. That's the real reason.
    You have my sympathies and I'm so very sorry that I hadn't thought up something else, some other approach that would have precluded this unfortunate development. Please forgive me. Please be well. Kind regards—Alalch E. 12:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    Ownership warning

    March 2023: article ownership

    Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you assume ownership of articles, as you did at Killing of Tyre Nichols. You have made over 300 edits to the article, which is 21.7% of edits Please slow your roll. AgntOtrth (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your continued edit warring

    Stop icon Your recent editing history at Killing of Tyre Nichols 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.

    3 Times in less than an hour you reverted edits to your personal opinion. You are being disruptive. Your actions, of repeatedly reverting edits to your opinion of what you believe is right, is edit warring. You did not seek a consensus. Yet you repeatedly reverted edits to your opinion. Additionally, your conduct shows a lack of good faith from you towards others. AgntOtrth (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Killing of Tyre Nichols Restored

    I restored the page for Killing of Tyre Nichols which you erased in its entirety earlier today. I have explained why on the talk page. You removed the page body in its entirety again without discussing. I have undid this revision to preserve the page content before it gets buried under a dozen new edits to the lede. As I am writing this, you have already undone my edit and nuked the entire page a third time, again without discussing. I hope we can discuss this on the talk page instead of treading into WP:ER territory. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 07:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Combefere – That portion of the page was already on ER. The very first sentence of the {{copyvio}} notice on the blanked area of the article states that only admins and clerks are permitted to unblank or edit things. Unblanking copyvios puts the whole project at risk. Take care always. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 23:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 20 March 2023

    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:DRN discussion closed

    I've closed your discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Killing_of_Tyre_Nichols. The discussion at the Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols#Resolving vs wikilawyering has not been going on for long enough to be brought to WP:DRN. I also want to remind you that you must inform involved editors on their talk pages when opening a thread at WP:DRN, you did not do this for the thread you opened. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Philipnelson99 – Premature closure. I did ping them from the DRN. That DRN is about a much longer and larger issue that for some would have gone to ANI, but I was trying to find the gentlest venue to resolve. Please undue your misunderstanding of the situation. Also, you are an involved editor in other matters already. Reopen it please, I don't need this added drama. Thanks. Take care always. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 20:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiWikiWayne I won't be undoing my closure. You need to discuss on the talk page first. That's how DRN works. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, it clearly says at the top of WP:DRN: Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiWikiWayne I've reopened the discussion but even though I've had interactions with you before, don't think that those weighed into my decision to close. I closed it because the issues you raised at WP:DRN have not been discussed properly at the article talk page. Additionally, this is not really a content dispute but instead a conduct dispute. This dispute is about your differences with another specific editor. I expect it to be closed by another WP:DRN volunteer on that basis/. Conduct disputes are better left to WP:ANI. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Philipnelson99 – Thank you. Good call. I truly am pleased. However, you are mistaken about the closure, but I get it. Please re-read. It clearly says to talk on
    a
    talk page, which we have done a lot of... too much in fact. There is no rule it has to be on
    the
    talk page as you've been thinking. We have discussed on many spots. No worries. I do that every day. And, I only expect DRN to address content. No way am I taking them to the ANI (DRAMUH) board. Take care always. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 22:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC) (real name Wayne)[reply]
    The guidelines at WP:DRN say: The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Furthermore, they also say This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
    I have experience at DRN and have watched disputes there for many years, therefore I do believe my closing of the thread was not premature. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that you said the other editor is rabid and militant and in the very next sentence say There are conduct issues, but that's another story, I assume good faith and give the benefit of the doubt for their content control efforts and their tenacious conduct. and then say that DRN can let the newbie SPA editor know what they are doing is harming the encyclopedia and coach them on how to be an awesome editor, and to stop wikilawyering to support their content edits; stop reverting the content of good edits. Provide a support team to filter their content edits maybe in a personalized "pending changes" protocol until they internalize their own direct content edits. Teach them the need and how to build out references that contain full metadata and use the citation style in place. This is not at all the purpose of DRN and if you had read the guidelines at the top of the page you'd know this. I've reviewed the other editors contributions and discusssions on the talk page. Their disagreement around the close of the discussion regarding the title of the Killing of Tyre Nichols was rightfully dismissed by most of the editors on the talk page, but singling them out in a thread at WP:DRN because you have issues with how they conduct themselves as an editor is not what DRN is for. I think both of you would be well served by stepping back from the article and moving on to a new page. I promise there's more out there than this article. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Just FYI: another volunteer at WP:DRN has closed this thread now with the same reasoning as I did. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    DRN Closure Again

    I have closed the DRN case again. User:Philipnelson99 was correct in stating that the discussion at the article talk page had been going on for less than 24 hours. Also, the discussion did not seem to be about article content. If there is an article content issue, it has been overtaken by conduct allegations. User:WikiWikiWayne says that they are not lecturing, but that doesn't change the fact that they are lecturing, and is being overbearing. Also, DRN is not a forum to discuss copyright, and DRN will not handle a case while either copyright problems or conduct issues are being discussed. Resume discussion at the article talk page, but be civil and concise (two qualities that have been in short supply). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiWikiWayne&oldid=1145808676"