User talk:LightProof1995

I have a question about your experiences with the Vital Level-5 (or other level) system, prompted by your edit here for example. Do you find that after putting that label on the talk page, more Wikipedians become active and start editing that article? Does it usually prompt a flurry of activities, or not really? What is your broad philosophy or vision with this? Is it similar to the system of "high importance", "top importance" labels that WikiProjects add to the talk pages, see e.g. here for the overview of articles of WikiProject Climate Change. EMsmile (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Unfortunately I'm a newer editor so I'm not sure I can provide the best insight on this -- I only discovered the Vital pages last month and have been updating mostly the Vital-5 Science sections with articles, as those were the only sections really missing the required amounts and I have a science degree that is helping me fill it in. The Vitals are useful for page navigation, and I'm sure what I'm doing will be useful to Wikipedia in the long run, but I don't think the Vitals are at the level to where a "flurry of editors" comes in at every marked page -- yet. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Always good to see more Wikipedia editors with an interest in science type articles so welcome to the team! Hope you enjoy Wikipedia editing. Feel free to reach out to me if you ever need any support or someone to bounce ideas off etc. EMsmile (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your tireless work at Land. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think that while your proposals at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles, I think your contributions would be much more valued if you actually go and improve these articles. After all, isn't that the list is all about? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol @CactiStaccingCrane! How am I supposed to focus on improving the articles themselves when the main vitals list isn't even at its target of 1000 articles...????

All of my edits to Wikipedia have been because of "knowledge for knowledge's sake" in that I'm only making contributions that are driving me bonkers if I don't edit them myself. The vitals lists not being at their target counts is far more glaring an issue to me than anyone one article not being GA/FA. I've been adding articles as Vital-5 to sections like Earth science, Biology, and Physics because it was driving me crazy to see the lists in their incomplete states.

I came to Wikipedia to write about reincarnation and its absence on the Vital-3 list is another issue I hope gets resolved one day. I have ideas for reasonable swaps to get it up there, your support for such a swap would be greatly appreciated :)

Best,

LightProof1995 (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, the list exists because we want editors to focus on improving them, not editing them and debating about what entry is worthy or not. Plenty of scholars has spent years trying to classify what topics is important or not to no avail (see the

Dewey decimal), so how do you expect that casual Wikipedians would do a better job than them? For me at least, the list just needs to be good enough so that we could actually work on and improve these articles. Plenty of people at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles are focusing on the wrong thing. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with you “the list just needs to be good enough so that we could actually work on and improve the articles.” Currently I do not feel the lists are good enough. For example, I made ten “History of…” draft articles that I want to add as Vital-5. They were identified as needing to be created based on their absence on the vitals list. I feel me finishing my “History of mining” draft is just as important, if not possibly more so, than say getting The arts to GA. I’d hardly call the Dewey Decimal System “no avail” lol.

The vitals lists present information to a viewer and the entire purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information. Therefore, isn’t working on them just as important a use of my time as improving the articles? Each of those vital articles links to the lists. When I tried to improve The arts, I listed arts to add and was told it’s not an outline article. So I went and improved the outline of the arts article and put it as a “See also” on The arts page. So maybe I just like organizing and sorting things like lists, and a lot of my contributions to Wikipedia are going to be end up being organizational edits. Instead of letting this bother you, why not just go support my proposals on the Vital talk pages? Don’t you think that would be the easiest way to get me to edit the articles with you? If you wanted me to edit an article, why come to my Talk page to criticize my work on the vitals lists, instead of coming here to say “Hey! How are you? I noticed you’ve been making lots of proposals on the vitals page, and wanted to let you know I’m considering voting on them but haven’t made up my mind yet, anyway I was impressed and wanted to see if in the meantime ya wanted to be friends and help get Land to GA again?” But no, instead I received a message from you saying you don’t appreciate my efforts because you think my time would’ve been better spent improving the articles themselves, when I literally just edited Land the other day.

Please support Reincarnation as Vital-3 when I propose it, thank you :) LightProof1995 (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, I have nothing against this vital articles stuff. I just don't understand its use (what it is good for). In my twenty years at Wikipedia, I learned that it exists... that's all I know about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Shades of green#Emerald instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Already covered sufficiently in the shades of green article. If you want it to be separately notable you should make a split proposal request on the talk page there.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Emerald (color) 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.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Picts is a distinct discussion from warnings re your disruptive behaviour, this being the appropriate place, for the latter. The warnings are still visible in your edit history, so blanking only serves to support that you have something to hide. 13:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you felt the edits were disruptive. As discussed at Talk:Picts because we agreed to discuss there on your Talk Page, I've already reverted what I believe you had suggested as not as constructive. Also I'm still a newer editor I've never had to use a sandbox before. LightProof1995 (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it in totality, as you well know. Again, please revert accordingly. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Picts. Stop bludgeoning on this. You have no consensus for your patently off-topic additions. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is ridiculous to call my edits vandalism. Go ahead and try to ban me. I'm confident all I've been is kind as I've explained my point of view and contributed to the project. You think I'd care if they banned me over this? I'd be mad, but I'd gladly sacrifice my rights to edit the Picts page if it means I get to say I fought as hard as possible to correct the Picts page to say of course they had tattoos and war paint as they fought the Romans and of course they are Celtic just like their brothers and sisters in the South are. If the universe decides this information is going to have to be recondite because of ?????? (I actually don't know what the issue is) then whatever I don't care, at least I know that I'm awesome, and at least I know the Picts are awesome. LightProof1995 (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Picts. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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 and 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. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Don't worry, we're using the Talk page. We may need dispute resolution. LightProof1995 (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:

This draft is a draft on a subtopic of an existing article, Mining. Discussion as to whether a separate article for the subtopic is warranted should be on the talk page of the parent article, Talk:Mining. Please discuss the suitability of creating a separate subtopic article on the talk page of the parent article. Please resubmit this draft if there is rough consensus at the parent talk page to create the child article, or with an explanation that the child draft satisfies either

general notability on its own or a special notability guide.

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Mining

. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:History of mining 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 00:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is mostly for LilianaUwU, since I upset her, but also for others.

I don't feel my statements apply to all trans people.

If you were the reincarnation of a woman, and that caused your gender dysphoria, you'd know.

Gender dysphoria can be caused by other things. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umm… how…? Dronebogus (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dronebogus! Thanks for your question :) I'm not sure if you are asking how one would realize they are the reincarnation of the opposite sex, or how gender dysphoria can be caused by anything except reincarnation. Luckily, the answer to both questions are similar, although keep in mind I'm no expert on gender topics.

If one's gender dysphoria were caused by reincarnation, I assume it would be the kind where you knew from a very young age your gender identity didn't match up with your body. I assume, if I met someone who were actually the opposite sex in a past life, and because of that they've had gender dysphoria their entire life, upon hearing this idea from me that reincarnation could've caused it, it would just "click" for them, like "oh wow, I can totally see that being the case with me."

If one's gender dysphoria came about later in their life, I don't think reincarnation would be the cause. Some argue

societal influence can cause gender dysphoria, but many argue this is transphobic to say, or at least controversial. According to this source,^[1] some experts believe gender dysphoria may be caused by hormones, genes, or environmental influences. I'm assuming hormonal-related causes tend to occur during teenage years, while a gene-related cause would be from birth. I guess it would actually be difficult for a trans person who had gender dysphoria their entire life to truly know whether it was caused by genetics or reincarnation, but not impossible. Meditation and other spiritual practices can help you connect with your past lives -- this would be a direct way to discover the sex of your previous life. Dr. Ian Stevenson and others made plenty of connections between living persons and their previous lives by interviewing children about their past-life memories; this would be another direct way of doing it. Similarly, it may be possible to have genetic testing done to determine if that could potentially have caused your gender dysphoria. Epigenetics

have been shown to effect sexual orientation and could also possibly affect gender dysphoria from a young age.

One last thing to keep in mind is that some of these causes could be related, in ways we don't yet understand. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Catfish and Statement on ban/unban

I've stated the reason I joined Wikipedia was because I felt

androgynous, and gender as a performance/expression, roughly along the views of this guy, who has caused a great rift in the transgender community (it's like half praise him as being a transgender advocate, while others accuse him of being transphobic. I feel his Wikipedia page currently and wrongly is biased toward the latter; you'll need to view trans blogs to find those in the trans community defending him as cool and an ally.) and this lady, who the trans community generally accepts as an ally. I couldn't have believed gender dysphoria could be caused by reincarnation until I figured out reincarnation is scientific fact,^[2] which I only figured out a couple of years ago. Then, I came across this source,^[3] which you're already aware of. That created the great weight. It did not matter this publication existed as this information is so recondite -- I had to try to get it on Wikipedia so lives could be saved. @Robert McClenon has got it wrong about transgender violence -- it's not just the right-wing nominal Christians (thank you Robert for agreeing they are in fact, not Christian!!) that are transphobic. Violence and discrimination against trans/queer people is global.^[4] Even countries with a large belief in reincarnation, like Buddhist-majority Myanmar^[5] and Thailand,^[6][7] and the birthplace of Hinduism and Buddhism: India,^[8][9] have countless horrifying stories of violence and discrimination against anyone who isn't cis. And besides, a quarter of Christians do believe in reincarnation^[10]

, although probably not the transphobic right-wingers.

I did not know any of Wikipedia's policies when creating my account. I didn't even know about

WP:NOTHERE, which clearly would apply to me. But, @jps and I got the Reincarnation

page to a much better state than it was before. While perhaps ideally we'd include more sub-headers such as "Sexuality and gender (across the transmigration)" or "Quantum mysticism" under the "Reincarnation and science" header (or something like that), I still hadn't made up my mind what that would look like exactly, and I don't think I'll be able to build consensus to include the Childhood Gender Nonconformity source anytime soon anyway.

The fact I wrote about this on my User Page several days ago and then was brought to ANI was pure coincidence. I'd read

WP:UPNOT

last year, when I made my account, and simply forgot about it when I wrote up my views. If I ever make my User Page again I won't use it promotionally again, and I'll do the cute Userboxes thing.

I write all of this to explain who I am and how I feel about things -- I don't give up. I keep going until the end, because that's the only way to know for sure the outcome of what I could have done.

So, now I've completed the task that was assigned to me. I came to Wikipedia, I've done my very best to use it to advance this view (far more than I actually intended to!!), and now the weight is lifted. I couldn't possibly go any farther than this since I was banned from editing over it (and I didn't intend to take it this far anyway, it just happened).

I understand this really isn't the place for it, and I am now 100% here to here to build an encyclopedia, if I am ever un-banned. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd completely forgotten the rules about User pages (I joined over a year ago) and I agree with the deletion of my user page. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LightProof... you're clearly an enthusiastic editor. Rosguill has placed an indefinite block on you and I'd like to explain what that means. Blocks are never made as a punishment and indefinite does not mean "forever". Blocks are placed to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, an emergency stop if you like. There were various policy issues that kept coming up in the ANI discussion that, if they could be solved, might render this block unnecessary.

I would like to offer to help you understand how to be a better editor. It'll take some time and effort and will require some work from you. Are you willing to give it a go? As it stands you are not likely to succeed in a block appeal. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And just in case you're tempted, attempting to circumvent the block by creating a new account or editing as an IP will result in a lifetime block that will be near-impossible to appeal against successfully, so please don't do that. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware sockpuppetry is futile and stupid (in regards to getting around bans). LightProof1995 (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good... there's a few things to bear in mind at this point:

1. To avoid unrealistic expectations, I'm expecting this to last for several months. My goal is to get you to the point where no topic ban is required and I'm confident that you don't need any supervision.

2. If I'm not comfortable with your block/topic bans being lifted, and I can't see any further route forward, I will regard this process as failed and I will not endorse any unblocking. You are free at that point, or at any other point in the process, to seek mentorship from another experienced editor. You will probably have difficulty finding a willing volunteer as they will view your case as very difficult.

3. This is not a debate. Everything I present will be per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We can discuss things and you are free to ask questions for clarification, but arguing your position probably won't be constructive.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions...

1. What are the processes of mentorship? What steps are we going to take going forward, that will take months to complete?

2. I think it will be extremely difficult to get me unblocked and unbanned. The entire community banned me. Even an editor that I worked on the Land article with came in to recommend a site ban, I think because they took an edit of mine personally (re-adjusting the headers)^[1] just because they had re-adjusted them the previous day.^[2] Clearly they felt attacked by my edit summary for saying "rules" but this is just a word? They claim I should've used the Talk Page instead of the edit summary, but it's not like I knew that, or that that's even stated anywhere (isn't this the technique I was technically using?) It felt like they all ganged up on me, out of nowhere. From what I can tell, my only options are to appeal to the community again, or to the Arbitration Committee. Which route were you envisioning as the best to get me unbanned, when used in conjunction with an endorsement from you?

Thanks :) LightProof1995 (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can unblock you with a couple of mouse clicks. Any admin can. I could have also blocked you without resorting to the ANI discussion, but there are right ways and wrong ways to do things. You would not last long if you were unblocked without some mentoring.

There is no formal protocol for mentorship. I will be taking you gradually through Wikipedia policy and pointing out where you're going wrong. Sometimes I will be blunt, but it will never be personal... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think just clicking and unblocking me is going to work, my friend. You can

unban

me.

Another question -- have you mentored anyone before? LightProof1995 (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were site-banned because there was consensus that your editing was at odds with policies that have been put in place to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. If, at the end of this, you can demonstrate that you understand this and that you can edit within policy in collaboration with other editors, I will start a discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard. It would have to gain consensus and there would probably be caveats imposed, but I won't start that discussion until I feel there is a chance of it succeeding. We have a bit of work to do in the meantime.

Yes, I have mentored many people. It is part of my job. It's usually not necessary to formally declare a mentoring agreement on WP, but this is a somewhat unique situation. If you don't feel comfortable with my ability then we can halt this now. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jim, I wasn't suggesting I was uncomfortable with your mentoring ability. I was just asking if you've been a mentor before :) LightProof1995 (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Jim,

Thank you for this offer. Assuming you're referring to

this

, I accept!! :)

Feel free to tell me a little more about yourself here, and to ask me whatever you'd like about myself.

I am 27, per my username, lol. Happy St. Patrick's Day :) LightProof1995 (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to tell really... I'm head of a scientific research group based in a university (one reason I wasn't particularly impressed with Counihan's credentials). I've been working in universities for just over thirty years, started editing on Wikipedia fifteen years ago and have been an admin here for twelve years.

My first piece of advice would be to slow down. A lot of the mistakes you made (and there have been a lot) are down to you rushing. You're not taking time to read sources properly (or at all) before citing them. You're not taking time to try to consider other editors' views. You're not taking time to understand Wikipedia policy. I think we can work on this. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing a little about yourself! I find your credentials extremely impressive and relevant, and your advice substantial :)

I have a

R

, etc.

I've found a couple of essays I've now read that I think apply to my situation. I just felt I was being

beyond bold, i.e. I am a tiger, or possibly one of these

.

I think it will be difficult to learn how not to be this way. I think it is a part of who I am. My

instincts tell me that when I see inaccurate information, fix it right away, and if someone disagrees, fight!! Because I'm bold, not timid!! It's inaccurate information, and since what I say is true, surely it will be what is left on Wikipedia, in the end

. However, it seems this is not Wikipedia policy.

On Wikipedia, the strong and passionate may be able to get their views on Wikipedia, for some time. But the patient and easygoing win the war. They may seem like they are simply not reading my sources or my arguments, so as soon as someone does, my truthful information will go live, right? Wrong. Not only are they not reading my arguments, they can't even focus on them because they are too keen on seeing me out the door. By ignoring everything I say, they seem stupid, like they just don't understand what I'm saying at all. However if it's some editor that's been here 10+ years, it is guaranteed they are cunning, even as they are boring and uncooperative. (I'm not talking about you here, although I am sure you are cunning.)

Their view is not to get accurate information on Wikipedia

consensus on Talk Pages, before a single edit is even made. Anyone who makes an edit without asking the community first is being quite bold, and if that edit is the Picts were tatted and covered in war paint? When the article hasn't said that for a decade? What a laugh that editor is. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

TLDR

Okay, the first thing we're going to address is going to be crucial if we're going to make any progress. You have a tendency to write far too much and to pack too much information into a reply. There was no need to write an essay with twelve references as a reply, a sentence would have done. People find it exceptionally annoying to have to wade through a wall of text in a talk page discussion. It can be seen as disruptive, attempting "win" by overwhelming the opposition.

Have a read of

Hahaha. I suppose I have a lot to say. I've split my reply in two parts so you'll have an easier time reading them when you have time :) LightProof1995 (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the two essays? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and

WP:WIKILAWYERING

(although I totally read it as "Wiki-layering, haha, like there are layers of rules on each other...)

To summarize the two paragraphs to you:

1. I have

WP:STRONGVIEWS

, and

2. I'm WP:Here to build an encyclopedia LightProof1995 (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, interesting that you bring up

WP:WIKILAWYERING. What did you learn from it and what relevance do you think it has here? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You don't have to make three reverts in a 24-hour period to

WP:3RR LightProof1995 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

There's a bit more to it than that, but it's essentially the misuse of policy to achieve aims that are not in the spirit of the policies. It's an essay to explain one of the aspects of

WP:GAME (which is a behavioural guideline). Worth a read. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Waiting for an answer on the above before moving on.... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith

Okay, moving on... one of the issues that came up a few times in the ANI discussion was your misreading of other editors' intentions towards you. This was a moment of clarity...

Fair enough. I agree with Mutt’s assessment of their comments to Salvio, i.e. that they accused Salvio of being too harsh toward them. I suppose I found Mutt’s tone potentially insulting, but tone is difficult to read over text, so I can understand saying that’s an insult is a mischaracterization and retract that statement, and apologize for the mischaracterization.
— User:LightProof1995 13:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are bad faith actors who sign up to Wikipedia... most don't last long. There are also grumpy people who are sometimes a bit uncivil, but it's best to try to maintain your own civility and assume that none of it is personal.

Yeah, I think I take things defensively a lot :( I will read these essays! LightProof1995 (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It never hurts to take a minute to see if you were correct on your first reading, whether someone's message can be read in a non-belligerent way. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the essays. I also read

WP:CANVASSING. I suppose I should just extend "assume good faith" to "assume good tone" and see where that takes me? LightProof1995 (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Absolutely. If you act per

WP:CIVIL at all times it will avoid all sorts of issues. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Assuming you're still here (you've been quiet for a couple of days), can you give me an outline of what you think Wikipedia is? (Not a trick question, there is a follow-up) Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Catfish!

I'm a fan of outlines. Here's a brief outline of what I think Wikipedia is:

Foundation of Wikipedia --

The Five Pillars

:

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
2. Wikipedia is neutral.
3. Wikipedia is public.
4. Wikipedia is civil.
5. Wikipedia has no firm laws.

Composition of Wikipedia

• Wikipedians

1. Exopedians -- Those who focus on adding content
2. Metapedians -- Those who focus on community interactions and maintaining the site, e.g.
   admins

(Note it may be better to make this distinction by edit rather than by editor)

• Content

1. Encyclopedic Content
   1. Written Content
   2. Images
   3. etc.
2. Non-Encyclopedic Structural Content
   1. Code
   2. Metadata
   3. Talk Page Discussions
   4. etc.
3. Encyclopedic Structural Content
   1. Outlines
   2. Overviews
   3. Vital Lists
   4. etc.

• Purpose of Wikipedia

1. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present and distribute
   educate the public for the common good, or "knowledge for knowledge's sake". LightProof1995 (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Nice one... I've been on a road trip, so haven't had an opportunity to respond. Can you sum up section 1.1 of

WP:NOT for me? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey! Haha I've also been away on a retreat!

I read

NYC to load for editing on a below-average mobile connection? Without numbers like that how can we know the best size for a page in regards to digital usage? Everything else about it, i.e. the philosophy of short summaries vs. conciseness/relevance vs. splitting articles can apply to paper encyclopedias too (or at least would if they were endless like Wikipedia; I suppose each one has a physical limit of number of pages). Shouldn't it focus more on the expansion of Wikipedia to use its virtually endless amount of data available, compared to a single paper encyclopedia? LightProof1995 (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hey @CactiStaccingCrane, I agree with limiting voting of vital articles so that we we focus more on improving the articles themselves. In order to do this, I suggest we implement the limits as follows:

For lists/categories at quota, only swaps should be proposed.

For lists/categories over quota, only removals should be proposed.

For lists/categories under quota, only additions should be proposed.

I understand proposals take time and some proposals may still be ongoing even after the status of their lists' quotas has changed e.g. from under-quota to over-quota. I only feel proposals should be limited at the time of their initial writing and post, instead of never letting the lists go over or under quota by not closing passed proposals if that would make them be over or under quota.

In addition, we can make a rule to only accept proposals from individuals if they have done something to improve the articles they are proposing to add or remove. In the case of swaps, both the one added and the one removed should be improved by the nominator in order for their proposal to be considered.

These rules would both stop superfluous proposals that are only bogging down the lists by taking them farther from their quotas while also encouraging and even mandating the articles be improved as well as the lists.

Feel free to copy/paste this on the Vitals pages or talk pages as a recommendation. I can't do it myself as I am banned from editing anything on Wikipedia except for my Talk page. I hope this finds you well.

Best, LightProof1995 (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Cobblet and @Thi,

Both of you have been involved with archiving discussions on the Vitals articles lately. (Cobblet undid an archive of a proposal, and I undid Thi's archiving of my proposal). I had this idea about them I felt I should share.

I was banned from Wikipedia for having

This would require someone to keep track of going back to proposals that were automatically archived to actually close them as passed/failed/no consensus, however this task may be alleviated if we write something somewhere that assigns that task to the initial proposer. For example, "Do not manually close proposals. Let them sit to their auto-archiving period. This is so each proposal is treated equally, and the lists represent a true consensus. Once a proposal is automatically archived, it is up to the initial proposer to go in and properly close it as passed/failed/no consensus, and to adjust the lists accordingly (however a volunteer may also do this if they see a proposal was automatically archived and the initial proposer has not properly closed it yet)."

Let me know what you two think (or you Cacti). Thanks, LightProof1995 (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Activity on these pages waxes and wanes over time. There are many times when they clog up with dozens of stale proposals (you yourself have been responsible for this recently) and manual archiving is necessary. I don't see a problem with the latest reverts: they did not spark edit-warring or controversy. What we need is not more rules, but more considerate, thoughtful, and patient contributors. Cobblet (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cobblet this editor doesn’t understand that banned means banned. I’m taking away their talk page access as editing by proxy is still editing. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Doug Weller talk 20:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Catfish Jim and the soapdish: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LightProof1995. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LightProof1995. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LightProof1995. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hello, LightProof1995. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LightProof1995. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• is open. @Doug Weller, Courcelles, and Catfish Jim and the soapdish: For feedback and suggestions on how to proceed. And what advice to give to appellant. Thanks

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a community ban, not something I could undo on my own even though I pressed the original block button. I say take it to AN, and reopen this talk page for the duration. Courcelles (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not sure it's ready yet. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't impressed by the short period of editing at SImple Wikipedia last June that I viewed. I see no evidence of a block there either.. The use of a travel site for Indigo dye was disappointing. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I might not circle back till late Monday. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CJ&S found the same problems at SIMPLE as led to the ANI thread, so I cannot see an unblock soon. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was somewhat dismayed to see that LightProof's first edit there was this... [1], the same misinformation and lack of understanding that triggered the original ANI. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed ticket. Will see user back after six months and 500 edits. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]