User talk:Crème3.14159

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:Crème3.14159 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: ). Thank you. SMS ^Talk 03:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In editing a highly controversial BLP I suggest you be very cautious, slow and thoughtful in your edits.

Hi, IRWolfie. Thanks. I get the impression that many people are trying to sanitize the article, so much so that one administrator was censoring Jimmy Wales over the issue.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that admin was only censoring BLP violations, regardless of whoever committed that. It may be the case that his understanding of BLP was wrong to some extent but he was doing it all in good faith. Besides I suggest you take IRWolfie's suggestion seriously. --SMS ^Talk 09:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of being thoughtful and slow around BLP issues is gaining consensus for every addition to the article that involves a claim that may besmirch a living person, especially when you are reverted. Discuss additions on the talk page and make sure you have consensus before making changes. Be aware that we don't need to cover every twist and turn in the incident, but rather we should cover the main issues which will be relevant to the article years from now. If we get the article wrong it can be highly damaging to people. Also be aware that admins can impose sanctions at their own discretion when it comes to BLP issues,

talk) 10:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

All right, Wolfie. I will keep that in mind but exactly what needs permission and what does not remains unclear.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that appears in any way controversial about a living person. Particularly opinions or allegations,

talk) 10:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Point taken. How is "sexual assault" a better way to describe the charge of "rape" (Indian Penal Code, section 376) under which someone has been arrested? If you look at the article, there are numerous newspapers reporting rape charges.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 11:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's 2 things I'm not sure of right now (maybe it's because you don't understand this project yet): 1) why you would advise Bbb23 that there is a NEW

WP:AN discussion, when you merely commented on an existing one (I removed the notification); 2) why you would even make an inflammatory/derogatory and even FALSE statement on AN like that anyway ES&L 13:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. I added the notification because there was a big bold warning above that I must do so. And I do not know which "inflammatory/derogatory" remark you are referring to. Don't you think you should hound Jimmy Wales instead for actually making strong remarks against Bbb23? Is it because I am not a Wikibigshot? --Crème3.14159 (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The big bold warning is quite clear that when it's an existing thread that the user is already aware of, there's no need for notification. I'm not hounding anyone - you appear to be new, and you seem to be making some big errors that might bite you in the butt - I'm simply trying to help you ES&L 13:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That Bbb23 is still involved in the Asaram issue. --SMS ^Talk 13:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To expand a little, You claim in your ANI post that Bbb23 didn't take the break that they said they would. Unless you can show where they said they were going to take a break from Wikipedia instead of from the article you are wrong. I far as I have seen Bbb23 said they would stop editing the article after removing the full protection and they have. I would consider striking your comment. GB fan 13:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Crème3.14159 (talk · contribs). I noticed that you recently changed your name from User:Pee3.14159. I was mulling that over, when I realized that 3.14159 = Pi = ratio of the circumference to the diameter etc. That means that your username is very close to "cream pie." A junior member of our household told me with an embarrassed smirk to look it up in the urban dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/ I will assume good faith (that you are not playing an adolescent, "see how smart I am and what I can get away with" joke), but your username could be offensive, especially to women, once they make the connection that 3.14159 = Pi. I suspect that is the reason why there is no user:Cream pie on Wikipedia. I suggest that you change it in a hurry. Given that you are already edit warring on Partition of India, that various IPs are sprouting up and edit warring after you, you might be looking at a block if not a ban. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS Given also that "peepie" is also not unambiguously inoffensive in the urban dictionary, I urge you to read: Wikipedia:Username policy. I am still assuming good faith, but less surely. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree ... "cream pie" is not an appropriate username, as per the
  not here to build an encyclopedia ES&L 14:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Template:Tabari has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]