User talk:Kcmastrpc
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
Catharine West
Hi, thanks for the message. I had a look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography and I felt that the style is fine. Would you mind providing specific examples where you thought the expected style was not followed? Thanks, ~Earthianyogi
- I would take a look at some biographies of her peers or prominent researchers in an adjacent space and attempt to model those in styling. Just from a cursory glance, the bolded titles with punctuation, eg. "HELLO THERE:" seems unencyclopedic. I'd also think about creating an infobox for the persons most relevant information. I'm heading to my sons birthday party but when I get back I'll see if I can't find some examples. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- thank you! Earthianyogi (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Calling other users' edits "vandalism"
On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: it is editing that is deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. Any edit made in
- I would say adding a contentious label to the lead sentence without discussing the edit or even making an edit summary qualifies. I also discussed these actions in the wiki IRC channel before taking them. Nevertheless, thank you for your concern. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Came here to say the same -- that edit re-added something that had already been in the article and had been removed by the immediately previous editor, a WP:SPA who seemed to be trying to whitewash the article in a series of large removals of content. Looking at edit histories helps see this kind of thing. Discuss at article talk, not at IRC; other editors can't see the discussion if it's not at article talk. Valereee (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)]
- Would you disagree that given the nature of the edits and their application across multiple BLPs, including the lack of any edit summary, they couldn't be mistaken for vandalism? WP:GOODFAITH works both ways. My apologies for the mistake. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)]
- Would you disagree that given the nature of the edits and their application across multiple BLPs, including the lack of any edit summary, they couldn't be mistaken for vandalism?
"Burial garden" vs "cemetery"
I agree that the former is more popular in the sources used at
- It sounds like the child is already buried in a cemetery but they were raising funds for the memorial garden. Nevertheless, would this conversation make more sense on the BLP talk page? Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bodies are moved from one plot to another often enough (though that usually involves already established, registered and/or sanctified land). I'm fine with your revision if you are. Just saying, perhaps answering who prefers to call them "cemeteries". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Traefik (March 30)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Traefik and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Hello, Kcmastrpc!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CNMall41 (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
|
Nomination of Waldo's Chicken and Beer for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waldo's Chicken and Beer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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 until the discussion has finished.
Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
AOC
On the edit notice that appears on this page when you edit it, it clearly says "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message". As such, you may want to self-revert your last edit. Black Kite (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- I’m aware of the policy, which also includes WP:RS, perhaps instead we should focus on improving the article, not yeeting things we might not like? Kcmastrpc (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)]
- This is a Contentious Topics page restriction, which you must comply with per the contentious topics policy. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 08:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)]
- I think you're missing the point - you can be blocked now as on this page the discretionary sanctions mean that you cannot violate BRD at all. If someone were to take this to WP:AN3 now you would be blocked - hence my suggestion that you self-revert. Black Kite (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)]
- WP:GOODFAITH, per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, specifically,
:::An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.
I’ve self-reverted, but not after being bullied here by an admin and another editor. You could have just taken it to to the articles talk page like WP:BRD suggests. Kcmastrpc (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)- You been the very opposite of bullied; after all I could simply have blocked you but gave you a chance to comply with the DS restrictions (mainly because I know many people aren't familiar with them). Your edit may very well be acceptable but the history of this article means that the restrictions are necessary. Black Kite (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- And now Kcmastrpc is bullying on the Twitter Files article, including shame tagging when not getting their way. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- You made a claim that wasn't true, there is no healthy discussion, the only contributor to it was the editor who was edit-warring with me. I stated I'm willing to drop the tag once there is a healthy discussion, then you continued to claim I was shame-tagging without any evidence. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- You tagged the entire article over one paragraph that you don't like and have attempted to change multiple times. By healthy, I mean active and it is certainly active. But yes, you are edit-warring. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- You made a claim that wasn't true, there is no healthy discussion, the only contributor to it was the editor who was edit-warring with me. I stated I'm willing to drop the tag once there is a healthy discussion, then you continued to claim I was shame-tagging without any evidence. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- And now Kcmastrpc is bullying on the Twitter Files article, including shame tagging when not getting their way. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- You been the very opposite of bullied; after all I could simply have blocked you but gave you a chance to comply with the DS restrictions (mainly because I know many people aren't familiar with them). Your edit may very well be acceptable but the history of this article means that the restrictions are necessary. Black Kite (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- WP:GOODFAITH, per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, specifically,
- This is a
April 2023
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Andre🚐 19:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)