User talk:DrawingLol
A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Editor's index to Wikipedia
Also, when you post on
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Again, welcome! BeywheelzLetItRip (What is it?) 22:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Foolish of you to cut and paste
In most cases, once your account is
- I was unaware on how to properly move it. DrawingLol (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Alt-right template
Hello! Please use discretion and restraint when adding the {{
- FYI, I removed the additions that weren't already struck by other editors, pending the outcome of the discussion at Template_talk:Alt-right_footer#Criteria.2C_again. You should probably engage in that discussion. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Counter-Currents Publishing
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read
the guide to writing your first article.to help you create articles.You may want to consider using the Article Wizard
A tag has been placed on
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by
- Yeah, I don't see a whole lot of material about them, other than, e.g., "In the United States, Greg Johnson's online outlet for the North American New Right, Counter-Currents Publishing, has made heavy use of Pound's writings since 2010" (from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137396211_2), a mention at https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2014/financing-hate ("In the case of the white nationalist book-selling site Counter-Currents Publishing, the site’s operators reported in December that it had earned nearly $20,000 through its referrals to Amazon."), etc. Smooth alligator (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions
Please carefully read this information:
The
Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- Is this an automated message, or are you trying to say something more? Confused. DrawingLol (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- I was curious too, so I looked it up. It's not really a warning but more of an alert, so that if something happens, you can't say later that you didn't know the sanctions were in place. Smooth alligator (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)]
- Agreed that it can be vague and confusing, but the template doc says it must be posted as-is, so that's what I did. And yes it serves as a notice so that for example if you violate WP:1RR sanctions could be applied immediately. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)]
- Agreed that it can be vague and confusing, but the template doc says it must be posted as-is, so that's what I did. And yes it serves as a notice so that for example if you violate
- I was curious too, so
October 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Alt-right footer. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Identitarian Movement
Template:Identitarian Movement has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Edaham (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
It's such a politicized topic, and so touchy and highly scrutinized, that it can be hard to make headway. It takes a lot of patience. What makes it worse is that people say that the rules will be more strictly enforced with regard to these topics, yet the rules can often be pretty vague because editors are supposed to "use common sense" (aka ignore all rules). Dealing with templates is the worst of all because there's not a routine practice of citing sources like there is with articles, yet people are apparently expected to follow the same WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV rules, so now we're coming up with these ad hoc processes for adjudicating that. It's pretty chaotic. Smooth alligator (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Our policies, which you characterize as vague are designed so as to open discussion to any and all editors, some of whom may well have the foundation on which our project is built. None of our policies apply more to one article than another and reminders placed on articles about their contentious nature, or discretionary editing practices are designed to aid discussion, maintain civility and caution against adding content which may infringe policy, not to alter the emphasis of any particular policy related to a specific article. Ignore all rules is not equivalent to saying "don't abide or try to abide by policy". To ignore something without being at fault, means first very carefully understanding what it is you are ignoring. I suggest you make an effort to take in this info and read our guidelines before offering any more advice to editors. Edaham (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)]
- I wasn't really offering advice as much as, I guess, empathy (i.e. an "If you're getting frustrated, I feel ya man; it can be rough out there").
- When I say Wikipedia rules can be vague, I mean, for example, how Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources is worded: "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense". At the end of the day, if other editors decide that an editor isn't exercising good editorial judgment and common sense, they can decide there's a competency issue; but this is subjective. If it were possible to objectively determine what constitutes "good editorial judgment and common sense" it probably would've been written down more precisely in the rules, but it isn't possible, and so therefore determining competency also is a matter of "judgment and common sense".
- It takes patience to learn what all the unwritten rules are and develop this kind of "common sense" (since common sense is derived from hanging around and absorbing a community's culture and having everyday experiences from which one can eventually figure out the way to do stuff that will get the desired results). Wikipedia values and norms are incredibly complex and can even vary from one part of Wikipedia to another, so it's fairly normal for anyone who edits boldly to make what others regard as a mistake, or run into trouble, etc.
- The processes aren't perfect, and a lot of times editors are making up the rules as they go along, plus those passing judgments on other editors aren't perfect either, but with patience, it's possible to be successful at improving the encyclopedia. So basically I just came her in the spirit of, "I like that you come here with such high energy; hang in there, keep observing and seeing how stuff works, and figure out ways to work through or around the obstacles to improving the encyclopedia, and you can make it." Smooth alligator (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
There's a discussion on renaming the Richard B. Spencer article
I figured out might have some helpful insight into this, since you seem familiar with the alt-right. Judging by what he said in his famous "hail victory" speech, he does almost seem white supremacist, but some say it would be better to call him white nationalist. Smooth alligator (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Richard Spencer claims to be a member of the white supremacist. Whether he is simply saying that to cover up his true beliefs, or not, I don't know. However, he is definitely not allergic to associate with some pretty unsavory people... (See the people headlining the Unite the Right rally for a good example) I'm going to stay neutral in this, as I simply don't know his heart, but it's pretty suspect to me. Spencer being widely called that shouldn't be whitewashed in the article however, as a lot of the opposing side is saying. Thanks for asking. DrawingLol (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)]
Brittany Pettibone
The article
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see
Brittany Pettibone
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read
the guide to writing your first article.to help you create articles.You may want to consider using the Article Wizard
A tag has been placed on
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by
]October 2017
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: