User talk:Sparkle1: Difference between revisions

Having seen your use of the word "cancerous" in an edit summary I felt it necessary to flag up my concerns here Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Editor's_edit_summaries_(language,_tone). Regards. doktorb _words^deeds 06:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to find you to be quite irritating and someone who is taking far too much interest in me could you please cease and desist. You are wasting not only your time and mine but the project as a whole. Why not have a constructive discussion like you did on the removal of council leaders which might I add was overwhelming in support of their removal. I would also like to point out I am under no obligation to participate in and have disabled notifications for that kind of mention. Moving on edit summaries are not compulsory just good practice. Not everything needs to be explained to death and not everyone always puts in an edit summary. I feel you are singling me out, at least complain every single time you see someone not post an edit summary or stop being selective. In short, respect being bold. If you are objecting to an edit then be bold yourself and revert. Then discuss. That is common practice in line with

WP:BRD. Otherwise, please stop this, as this is tiresome. This is the only time I will address this so please do not post anything else here on this subject as I will simply delete it. If you wish to talk about other things related to article contents or new articles or projects feel free. Please also do not take this personally, this is simply me giving you my view on this and my opinion of your actions, and is no reflection on you personally. I am happy to work with you on furthering the aims of Wikipedia, I am just completely uninterested in minutiae like this which has the feel of tiresome red tape. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey Sparkle. Thanks for the revert on the by-election page. The editor keeps popping up with paragraphs of text about the English Independence Party and all sorts, he was the candidate in the previous B&S by-election as "Anti Corbyn" and pops up occasionally to post tonnes of paragraphs about related and unrelated topics. If he's appearing on that page again we just need to be vigilant. doktorb _words^deeds 07:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sparkle1, I would recommend deleting your recent comment about Crossroads. I am certain that Crossroads understands abbreviations, and saying otherwise is uncivil and insulting. If you want to keep the comment, I would appreciate you taking my name out of it, as I don't want to be linked to what I perceive as incivility. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you advise Crossroads to delete their comments if you have not already done so, which amount to attacks on me and are a pure and simple assumption of bad faith. I am not going to be playing this as a one-way street. Sparkle1 (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove talk page posts that other editors have replied to. You may be able to collapse them or archive them. Aircorn (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly acceptable to remove posts that are off-topic, against Wikipedia rules and are vandalism. Using the Hubbard talk page to push transphobia is perfectly fine to delete. Wikipedia is not a forum and talk pages are not a sanctuary where anything posted is never subject to deletion. the rules are strict and the bar is high but pushing transphobia and intentionally misgendering is grounds for removal. Please fully read the rules on talk pages. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You recently reverted 2021 Cornwall Council election back to your previous edit. Personally I don't agree with you, but I also don't care that much. I had reverted this mainly because it was unexplained - please remember to leave edit summaries, especially when removing or adding large amounts of content (and especially if the content is referenced). It really helps other editors to understand why you're doing what you're doing. Gazamp (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and you need to not add the information. it has been talked about on many pages and the information is not notable, verifiable or useful this is not a council directory. Unless you can show why this irrelevant cruft should be included it is as useful as putting the minutes of the council meetings on here. Sparkle1 (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to be

Look mate, the info is irrelevant and is not included as a matter of course, there is also one more glaring omission from this inclusion is the sourcing and verifiability. This is a complete non-starter. Also if you only include select leaders because of sourcing and verification issues that is a POV bias as to only some being included giving them a perceived additional undue weight. Include this at your peril. Sparkle1 (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Natalie Mars, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Mars until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Potentially uncivil edit summaries. Thank you. ― Levi_OP^Talk 16:32, 20 December 2021 (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

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

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.

This is a renewal of the previous notice (given by Crossroads), which has expired. Newimpartial (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AVN Award for Transgender Performer of the Year, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVN Award for Best Actor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It is a standard explainer and not an overlink. Nothing more to say about the content. Now turning to you as an editor, stop acting like you own the lede. You are also going on about edit warring, when you are doing the same. Pot Kettle Balck stinks. Please do not post here again. You are not the owner of any article or space on Wikipeida. You are free to start any discussion you like but I am not going through you as a gatekeeper. You do not own the Abigail Thorn article or any other article, you are not able to gatekeep any other editor and you need to cease with this kind of softly-softly patronising, lording it over, and article ownership by the above gatekeeping ludicrousness of 'if you would like to respond with a reason, I can bring this explanation to Talk:Abigail Thorn to see what other editors think". If you want to start a discussion go for it but I am not giving you my replies for you to then offer them to others. Get stuffed and grow up. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv:

I'm coming here in the hopes of a positive outcome. However, I need to be quite direct to make this unequivocally clear to you. You've been informed about the

Further, on numerous occasions you have engaged in

I will echo the comments @Johnuniq: said on my talk page while pinging you [14]. I agree; this ends now. Therefore;--Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am uninterested in rehashing old shite which has been discussed before. Come back with something of substance. Don't like what I say then tough, I have broken no rules and your use of civil when things are in my opinion laughable nonsense is just something you are going to have to live with. Sparkle1 (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you removed the warning, you are aware of it. The warning stands. You most emphatically have broken rules which have been pointed out to you on multiple occasions. If you do not want to be blocked, then your toxic and edit warring behaviors must stop. You can either choose to comply or choose to be blocked. Your choice. I am quite willing and happy to assist you in understanding what you are doing wrong. Continuing it as you have is not an option. As I said, this ends now. Your choice as to how it ends. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Addendum; your edit summary indicated I templated you. I did not. It was a custom warning message, complying with the request at the top of your talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post here again. Sparkle1 (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]

This is just a tit-for-tat. Scientelensia is simply bad faith reporting after they got a 12-month topic ban from gender-related articles.

If you genuinely want to engage with me fine, but don't come here doing the bidding for an editor who is only reported to you in bad faith and has not reported on an appropriate noticeboard. I have to ask why they have run directly to you and not gone to an appropriate noticeboard. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a problem with my use of language, let's talk about this in a civilised good faith way and let's see if we can come to an understanding without any swords of Damocles hanging over either of us. After all, Wikipedia is a place to build relationships and if we can both come out of this stronger then all the better. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC) @Hammersoft:[reply]

Since you struck the banning me from your talk page and pinged me, I'll happily respond. Kind of merging things here, but bear with me.

I am not here at Scientelensia's bidding. Their post to my talk page alerted me to your behavior. I don't ever go after someone because it appears someone wants me to. Scientelensia came to me at the suggestion of User:Butwhatdoiknow [15]. Scientelensia asked for advice, which I gave.

Subsequent to that, I conducted my own look (my links above show that) into your editing history to see if there were problems. As I noted above, there have been. I'm not saying this to make you feel upset; I am laying out what I did and why I took the actions that I did. I chose not to act further, other than to bring User:Johnuniq's eyes to the problem. Today, I found the problem with the edit warring which I noted above, which prompted me to place the final warning regarding the toxic/insulting language and the edit warring.

You might consider the past behaviors "old shite", but it is pertinent and relevant to the ongoing behavior issues myself and others are seeing. It's not the content of your edits that are a problem (from what I've seen in my review). It's your conduct in applying those edits. A considerable number of people are finding it difficult to work with you due to the toxic nature of your commentary on them and their edits. For example, referring to my edits here on your talk page as "ridiculous comments" [16] is not in any way collegial nor done in the proper etiquette we expect of people here (

WP:5P4

). I am not bothered by your edit summary as it pertains to me, but it is overtly hostile and wholly unnecessary. Can you see that? I am not asking as this is a rhetorical question. Some people do not have a strong ability to understand the impact of what they say. That doesn't make them wrong, but it does present particular problems most especially in an environment where people are expected to edit in a collaborative and collegial manner. So, my question of if you can see how your edit summary is hostile stands?

Also, I'm aware that you previously banned

WP:AN/I

requires editors to notify other editors of discussions they start about them. So, I hope you will forgive them for making the post here on your talk page alerting you to that.

I'll be responding at the

WP:AN/I thread next. I would ask you hold responding here until I've had a chance to respond there. Just give me a few minutes. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I can see some people may get upset but I am not their mommy and this is the big ol' scary world, not kindergarten. If I genuinely think something is 'ridiculous' I am going to say that it is. I cannot be responsible for their bruised ego and damage to their preciousness. I am not calling them as a user stupid or dumb, I am not attacking them as a user. I am focusing on the comments specifically. This is not grade school, this is the grown-up real world. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:5P4 expects better than that, wouldn't you agree? If you think some people might get upset, it is better not to say it here. If you think it was inline with 5P4, how about "Get stuffed and grow up."? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah ok that one I may have been irked, but I do think it is a two way street, with some users expecting to be treated with kid gloves when they know fully well they are just being antagonistic and are doing so intentionally. That user also was not the most collaborative user as they posted on the wrong talk page and then misrepresented me by lifting my comments, when I had said not to do so. There does need to be some two way understandings here that other users are not clean here. The maxim of clean hand comes to mind with some of these users. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok progress :) So let's work from that one. We agree it was hostile. With respect to two way street; no it isn't. If someone is extremely rude to you here, it doesn't give you permission to violate

WP:5P4. Nothing in those policies grants that permission. So, it doesn't matter how hostile someone is to you. You are expected to abide by those policies regardless of the provocation. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That is patently absurd and gives them a blank check and Carte Blanche to be as provocative as they like because they can then go oh look I successfully wound them upon and won. It goes against human behaviour. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may find it absurd, but that is how we operate here. If someone is acting in the way I described, you are welcome to remind them of the

dispute resolution. That's how we work here. Otherwise, things just descend into yelling matches, which are never productive. If someone attacked someone with "Holy fuck you are an imbecilic demonstration of human flesh! You are a fucking worthless speck of life!", I think it's patently obvious that responding with "You're just a fucking clueless jerk who hides behind a keyboard!" will not resolve the matter favorably, don't you agree? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC) (not saying that anyone actually said those things; it's just a scenario)[reply

]

This is a case example of the sort of posts that you make that are toxic in nature. "Complaining about"? How about "Referring to" instead? That would be less toxic. People don't like to be referred to as "complaining". Further, referring to this edit as "rude" is hardly helpful. Lastly, indicating they are complaining and running is (a) false and (b) hostile. You are commenting on the editor, not on their posted content. That is a direct violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks as it says "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Please, can you see how hostile you are being? I am sure that Tvx1 would have answered your question without you being overtly hostile. Another post like this and I will block. The only reason I'm not doing so now is that hopefully this serves as an excellent example of how you are being quite toxic. This MUST stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You really are OTT here. I'll comment more later but that is [atently absurd and I feel like this is eggshell land mate.Sparkle1 (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a WP:Clean start option and i'll leave all of you well behind. This is like editing on the timer of a bomb, with every edit I make being threatened with me being blocked. That kind of environment is unbearable for editing. Sparkle1 (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• To be frank, WP:Clean start isn't going to work for you. Sure, you qualify for it, but it won't work. I'm saying this because you would have to do a number of things in order to make it work. First and foremost, you would have to amend your behavior that has been outlined recently here on your talk page and in the various WP:AN/I threads concerning your behavior and in your edit warring. You don't appear to be willing to do that. Thus, while starting a new account might temporarily remove scrutiny it will eventually lead to the same problems you are experiencing now. Your best course of action is, therefore, not a clean start, but to amend your behavior on this account. If you have to amend your behavior on the new account anyway, why not do it here on this account? It's your choice of course, but I don't think starting a new account will work. In fact, it's likely to be worse, once the connection to the new account and the old account are made. Once made, this account and the new account would probably be blocked, with this one being indefinite and the new one having a much longer block on it than this one would have for the same behavior problems if you didn't do a clean start. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank I feel this is simply sitting on a time bomb with too many people breathing down my neck I just want you all to frankly leave me alone. I feel like I’m beating treating like a moron and frankly think this is over the top and completely unnecessary. I also feel that you are very threatening continuing to come here and go do this or I block which feels abusive. All of this is how I feel and don’t go apoplectic and block happy as a result because you would be proving my point. I feel like you are waiting to pounce to just block. I am frankly fed up with editing on a tone bomb and want you all to leave me alone. Sparkle1 (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I left an explanation

Comment on content, not the contributor. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Let’s leave this as that and please all leave me alone. I also point out Wikipedia is clear talk pages for users are not walls of shame and they can remove what they like. The fact I removed what you posted while you dislike it is perfectly valid and well within the rules of Wikipedia. Sparkle1 (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to the appropriate section for the avoidance of doubt

Nothing in my post suggested you were not entitled to remove my comment. I remembered that I had posted something and saw that it is not there now, so naturally I wanted to find the message and determine why it is no longer visible. You might like to address what I wrote, both a year ago and now. I don't understand why there would be a reluctance to say something like "I see what you mean". Actually, you don't have to say anything. We are asking that you not say certain things. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may think that is what you did but that is not how it came across. What you have said came across to me as 'you removed it who dare you remove it'. You need to think about how these things come across to others. Your perception may not be the way others interpret things. Hammersoft pointed that out to me and I have taken that on board and am actively trying to see things from others' perspectives. I hope you can as well. I found the post you made to be patronising and I found it to say "you removed it and you clearly to no notice of it." Please reconsider how you interact with others as it comes across as very patronising. Even if you don't intend it to be. Sparkle1 (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I won't be posting here much, if at all. I'll leave you with this; the only Sword of Damocles is the one you made by your actions. However, while Damocles did not have a choice to remove the sword, you do. It's very simple. It takes embracing two words; "be kind". --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to say a clean start couldn't work, but honestly you seem to be both very hypersensitive to what others say to you while at the same time very insensitive to what you say to others. It's not a great combination for getting along on Wikipedia.

To succeed with a clean start you're going to need to change your own behavior to avoid ending up in the exact same place, with people objecting to your talk posts, your edit summaries, your reaction to others' complaints, your deflection of responsibility. Before you make the clean start you first need to be aware of your own responsibility in creating the need for it. If you can't get on board with that, you might as well not bother. Valereee (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I ran into you based on the RFC you started on the Scottish gender bill...but after reading the above, maybe consider creating a quick user page and put {{retired}}? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about it. The toxicity on the page you gave input on has done me in. It amazes me how articles some users seem to want to use Wikipedia as a platform for frankly, propaganda against minorities. Just my opinion and not any aspersions against anyone (talking to all of you who have watchlisted this page). I feel exhausted by it. Especially when there is no good reason from an encyclopedic point of view for some of the inclusions. This is not a forum or a tabloid or a debating chamber, and frankly, the article you commented on some users in my opinion were doing so even,but I cannot say they were aware they were doing so and may have been blind to it. Sparkle1 (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC) @InvadingInvader:[reply]

I can personally relate; just check out the infobox debate for a slice of toxicity if ur interested (lol). But in the end, keep civility at the top. If you think someone is being overly toxic, tell them, on their talk page first privately but if they continue, don't be afraid to say something. I just hope y'all will be able to get along, but it's clear to me that is a very tall request. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thanks it’s nice to see others noticing the misuse of Wikipedia and the treatment of Wikipedia as if it were Twitter. Sparkle1 (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added a new section, but there seems to be an overlap with the existing section Richard Rufus#Legal issues. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sparkle! The difficulty with seeking help at ANI is that it is about incidents, not about general advice. I wish it was a friendler place, but it is an awful place to ask for help on, unless you can point to a very specific issues, editors and articles. I don't know if you've been introduced to The Teahouse, but that's a better location for general advice. Otherwise, some of the noticeboards can help, but they too tend to be more about managing incidents, and the Wikiprojects can be good if you find out that fits. Anyway, I feel your pain - I've also tried to keep thing general, so as not to need to drag a specific incident into the discussion, only to watch as goes exactly where I didn't want to go. - Bilby (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]