User talk:Struthious Bandersnatch

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Struthious_Bandersnatch.

This user is aware of the discretionary sanction topic area(s): post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people the English Wikipedia article titles policy and Wikipedia:Manual of Style they should not be given alerts for those areas. This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Jedi Archives

Aughts archive 𐂃 2010s archive

Category:Article-specific Wikipedia tables has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article International Congress on Tuberculosis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It existed, but didn't meet

WP:NOTABILITY

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FDA CDRH reg list DB search link has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Hangsun.576 (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

What is up with your obsession with me and my edits? I did not violate the topic ban (which itself was unwarranted), and you know it. If you want to complain about someone who is editing with a clear agenda, and is abusive to other editors, I can offer plenty of suggestions. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​I notice that there's a new edit warring warning on your talk page from yet another editor who has had to deal with you. This thing where you completely ignore the rules, then protest with doe-eyed innocence that you've got no idea what you did wrong and are really just being martyred for your agenda... it does not seem to be working so well for you. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 23:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...Aaaand for posterity's sake, that user was indefinitely blocked for the edit warring soon thereafter. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 07:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for not edit-warring. You're absolutely correct, BRD says, "While discussing the disputed content, neither editors should revert or change the content being discussed until a compromise or consensus is reached." The exact policy I should have referenced is

Where is Yan in the video you are determined to include? Can you give me a timestamp? In response to your edit summary, we can only consider it a self-published source if she was clearly the publisher. Although I'm not sure if you were genuinely arguing that it is her channel/she uploaded the video. CowHouse (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:WEIGHT

is the closest thing that would govern inclusion of facts in an article and if that were applied here it would be arguing that two words about an interview are undue weight in the article of a person whose notability, at the point of creation of the article at least, was based on publicizing her opinions in such interviews.

The whole salient thing here is that Yan, a scientist with the access and capacity to publish things in international peer-reviewed publications, broke her story in a self-published Youtube channel (self-published by LuDe Media, not Yan, Youtube serving the role of a vanity press) and then publicized that story in a series of questionably reliable or non-reliable news sources. Applying your personal "only the existence of noteworthy coverage must be mentioned" principle to the article is making a quack seem more legitimate than she actually is. (And to be clear it's the content of the article—the undisputed facts—I really care about here, not the refs, although the LuDe Media one in particular cost me a great deal of time to hunt down as I have only a rudimentary command of written Chinese.) --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 00:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you watch the YouTube video you cited, you will notice that Yan is not in it. If I am wrong, please provide a timestamp of her appearance in the video.

You also said she broke her story in a self-published Youtube channel (self-published by LuDe Media, not Yan, Youtube serving the role of a vanity press). According to

WP:BLPSPS

: "Never use self-published sources [...] as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article."

Regarding the Daily Mail, you initially added that she was interviewed with the Daily Mail without providing any source mentioning this. You then linked directly to the Daily Mail, which is a

WP:BLP. Your third and final attempt cited a source which did not say she was interviewed by the Daily Mail, but instead mentioned that the Daily Mail reported on her Fox News interview. So far, you have either provided no source, a deprecated source, or a source which does not mention that she was interviewed with the Daily Mail. CowHouse (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@CowHouse: Aargh, I have definitely watched at least one LuDe Media video in which Yan appears but I have clearly mixed something up because you're right that she does not appear in the January 19 video and I can't confirm whether she's even mentioned by name in it. So all we've got is the Deutsche Welle article saying that she "通过流" LuDe some time in January, which doesn't mention Youtube, and hence you were right to keep the reference to the January 19 video out of the article. I apologize profusely and I'm horrified by the possibility you watched that entire 80-minute video to no avail. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 05:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I didn't watch the entire 80-minute video. I just looked at the progress bar preview. By the way, you will be pleased to know a recent article in Vox mentions that Yan was interviewed in the Daily Mail so feel free to add it to Yan's page (without worrying that I will undo it again). CowHouse (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Haitian Revolution

added a link pointing to WGBH

Slavery as a positive good in the United States

added a link pointing to WGBH

United States and the Haitian Revolution

added a link pointing to WGBH

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rest in peace; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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

To be clear here, on the

WP:AN3 if he actually has any evidence of edit warring. We will see if he or she does. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 14:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

When you add citations, as you did to

Sure RexxS, will do. Thank you for fixing my contribution in that article. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 14:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. They changed the handling of formatted dates in CS1 templates a little while ago, in order to read the {{Use dmy dates}} & {{Use mdy dates}} templates, and so we generally don't need the |df= parameter any more (other than in rare cases). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The breonna taylor search warrant was not a no knock warrant,see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth

revert and cease edit warring

'The warrant was not served as a no-knock warrant,' Kentucky AG says https://www.whas11.com/article/news/investigations/breonna-taylor-case/breonna-taylor-decision-no-knock-warrant-louisville-officers-announced-attorney-general/417-7dd8174f-53f1-4af6-8baf-c36eb4bd7cc1

it is off the breonna taylor page itself for a reason.

Not sure what happened that two of the links that I posted went 404.

It was super helpful that you posted those links to the other WP articles.

They all fail to reflect the minority POV in the slightest which obv exists.

For instance If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist, why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? This is a funny sort of white supremacy. Even Jewish Americans are incarcerated less than gentile whites. I think it's fair to say that your average white supremacist disapproves of Jews. And yet, these alleged white supremacists incarcerate gentiles at vastly higher rates than Jews. None of this is addressed in those articles. None of this is explained, beyond hand-waving and ad hominems. "Those are racist dogwhistles". "The model minority myth is white supremacist". "Only fascists talk about black-on-black crime", ad nauseam. These types of statements do not amount to counterarguments: they are simply arbitrary offensive classifications, intended to silence and oppress discourse. Any serious historian will recognize these for the silencing orthodoxy tactics they are, common to suppressive regimes, doctrines, and religions throughout time and space. They are intended to crush real diversity and permanently exile the culture of robust criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:F5BB:3B86:E159:625A (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For instance I noticed this study was missing even though it is more current than much of the material? Do White Law Enforcement Officers Target Minority Suspects? To answer this question, the authors construct a data set of all confirmed uses of lethal force by police officers in the United States in 2014 and 2015. They find that although minority suspects are disproportionately killed by police, white officers appear to be no more likely to use lethal force against minorities than nonwhite officers.

It is RS and clearly says non white officers are just as likely to use lethal force against minorities as white officers. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/puar.12956

A NPOV WP includes such material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:F5BB:3B86:E159:625A (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is

WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. Please hold discussions about specific articles on their respective talk pages and general discussions about the entire encyclopedia or sections of it on pages and talk pages intended for that purpose under the Wikipedia: namespace, such as the Teahouse, the Village pump, and the many "discussions and collaborations" pages linked to from the Wikipedia:Community portal which is in the left-hand menu, rather than here on my user talk page. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 06:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The WP is about collaboration, I am merely here collaborating. SO very helpful again. We will be holding them there too. In addition, I will be working on the pages regarding race and socio economics which may be of some interest to you as well. The US is home to more successful poc and women than any country in the history of earth. They enjoy more freedom and have achieved greater economic success than anywhere else in this history of earth. They're in positions of authority in everything from the justive system to billion dollar hedge funds to hospitals. In particular several US black zip codes are the wealthiest black zip codes or like on earth. I'm going to need some of that systemic racism material to balance this stuff out. TYIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:DDB:D4EE:D223:5F4B (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2020 (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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

For additional information, please see the

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.

Doug Weller talk 15:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if you look at my logs I have delivered this alert to other editors, so I already count as Aware™. But thank you for the notice anyways. I believe I was able to get a disruptive user blocked with less red tape because of your proactive delivery of these alerts, Doug Weller, so thank you for all the work you do too. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 15:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I use Twinkle and it normally informs me. I've got {{Ds/aware}} at the top of my talk page. Glad to see my work today has helped you! Doug Weller talk 16:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks, but the nutshell needs to be as concise as possible. In addition, your formula "if you are responding to a comment beginning with a colon (:), begin your own comment with at least one colon." fails because, for example, replying to :*:: with ::::* fits your formula, but causes the "unwinding" from the second level onwards. Also there is absolutely no problem with having a line composed entirely of colons or asterisks, as the Wikimedia software ignores them and many editors use that to separate their post from the one above in the wikitext while having no effect on the rendered html. --RexxS (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: Ah, you're right, I misread something in the main MOS guideline about lists. The essay presents lots of technical details about HTML and other things that I think will bewilder non-technical editors, so I was trying to distill it into practical rules and contextually imply what accessibility is.

Ever since I started using MediaWiki back in the aughts I've been astounded and confounded by the choice to use semantic-type <dl><dd></dd></dl> markup for this stuff. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 17:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...oh, wait, duh—non-technical editors are probably using one of the visual editors anyways and there's no use in trying to explain anything about colons or asterisks to them. ::facepalm:: I give up ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 18:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The misuse of definition lists to create indents dates back to the 1990s when designers were just looking for a simple means of indenting text, long before CSS, semantic markup and screen readers were considered. Sadly, the early implementations of the MediaWiki software used the same trick and it became so ingrained that we've never been able to kick the habit on Wikipedia. One day, maybe ... --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​I was actually a software engineer working on web-based systems at that time, back in the ol' nineteen-hunnerts... CSS1 was a W3C recommendation in 1996 and already partly implemented in IE3 that year, with adjustable margins and padding for paragraphs, plus there were XSLT stylesheets too by 1998. But development on MediaWiki doesn't seem to have started until 2001. Very short-sighted. Alas, I weep, for the majestic and splendid commenting systems that might have been.

But they've accomplished so much, I can't really complain. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 23:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<insert Barnstar of Justice here>--Jorm (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. --JBL (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Struthios, I noticed you reverted my edit to the

The pseudo-medical commentary needs to stop. Acroterion (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​No problem—I shan't continue even if the feigned medical problem does. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 21:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you shan't, not even here. Acroterion (talk)

@

WP:JIMBOTALK

is still there.

I acceded to your request above because I was done with the conversation in that section, but strangely you didn't seem to to want to take an immediate “yes” for an answer, and you didn't explain why you were making the request in the first place.

My best guess would be that it's something like a concern about the possibility of someone being misinformed about medical information. If I'd thought the comment was going to be taken as serious medical advice, instead of just being called “nonsense” like the preceding comment laying out part of the FAST (stroke) protocol, I would not have made it.

If you really think I've done something dangerous I would urge you to oversight or even just regular-delete the whole conversation, or even selectively remove my comments, even the ones harshly critical of the Biden hoax stuff if you really want to. But since you haven't done that, maybe there's a different issue?

I've glanced at your edit history and I can see that you deal with annoying people all day, which I sympathize with. But I would like to understand why you came to my talk page to write these imperative unexplained threatening things. (Which I'm assuming you did in the context of the use of admin tools, right? As opposed to the guise of a concerned fellow editor? I've never bothered to look up how to check for sure whether a user account currently has admin privileges, so I'm asking.) Just briefly, unless you want to write at length—I really do just want to understand, not fight about it. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 19:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struthious Bandersnatch, Maybe don't pretend that your "concern" isn't personal attacks, to start.

It's not removed as that's not standard fare with insults and attacks. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior on Jimbo's talkpage had crossed the line from banter to obnoxious, and it was not apparent from your response here that you fully understood that. "I shan't continue even if the feigned medical problem does" comes across as a watered-down disclaimer rather than an "OK, I'll stop." Wikipedia brings together a broad range of people from all kinds of backgrounds, and what may be meant as a light or bantering response frequently falls flat or can be just plain misumnderstood. Your amplification of a remark into a superficially serious response about a serious medical condition was straying into crassness in a public forum. When warning people that they've crossed lines, it's best to be firm and unambiguous about it. You stopped (as far as I know, I haven't checked) and that's the end of it. Acroterion (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Well, that's a considerably less directly-medical-related, and a more asymmetrical, reason than I'd expected. Thank you for explaining yourself, and I applaud your vigilance against what you see as crassness.

But my response to you was not watered-down; I simply was not behaving in a chastened or cowering fashion because I did not think I'd done anything dangerous, despite respecting your prerogative to have a differing opinion (believing, at that point, that you were expressing some kind of safety concern.) “Insubordination” is not a Wikipedia thing (yet), is it?

As far as being firm and unambiguous, and the possibility of being misunderstood, I note that you still have not clarified whether you are speaking here ex cathedra in the context of wielding admin tools or as a concerned fellow editor. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CIVILITY but you have not made such a connection and rather left it as ambiguous, which is kind of a no-no

while using language appearing to bring up safety-related concerns.)

I value the work you do on the project and as I said above, I sympathize with the frustrations you must encounter. But you have allowed some emotion or habit to get the better of you here.

We don't have to discuss this any further but since you refuse to clarify whether you were acting as an administrator here or as a regular Wikipedia editor, I have to point out for the record that

WP:INTIMIDATION states, In particular, it is unacceptable to threaten another with some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken. If you come to me with concerns like this again, please explain yourself clearly at the outset. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not interested in discussing a moot court version of wiki-litigation. Your were veering into personal attacks, which are very much an administrative concern. I saw that the discussion was going off the rails into a potentially nasty direction, which was not nearly as funny as you appeared to believe, at the expense of people with genuine medical issues, and that you didn't seem to be heeding more gentle comments from other participants in that thread. Sarcasm and snideness do not translate well in text on the Internet. I understand that you like to debate things, and that you find the minutiae of Wikipedia policy bluelinks fascinating to pick apart. I warned you, and you reconsidered the manner in which you were arguing. Thank you. If you had continued or amplified, the discussion would have been more extensive and we would have gotten into consequences. In this case it did not and does not need to continue. Acroterion (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Now you're claiming that I'm wikilawyering, for daring to bring up Wikipedia policy in one comment. But I was very explicit beforehand as well without referring to PaG—your words have been imperative, vague, and threatening, in pursuit of what appears to be arm-twisting to get me to follow your commands without question, and now to upbraid me for my scandalous sense of humor, a superlative impropriety no doubt, and put me in my place.

Clearly your disinterest in what was happening in the interaction led you to not seek out the context—and I sincerely can't blame you on this particular count, as it's a sprawling, circuitous conversation thanks to lots of repeated feigning of incomprehension on the part of many users. A considerable amount of my writing on that talk page currently is argument that because of the resurgence of contemporary Nazism and racist ultranationalism worldwide, Wikipedia policy should specifically take a position against the expression of Nazism and racism, not just in an essay and not just when the content of the expression is insults or vandalism. This is what my interlocutor was referring to as nonsense and gibberish (in addition to the nearby comments), and they've been rather unsubtly, yet indirectly, expressing at least acceptance of racism besides that. (Have a look at what some of the diffs proudly linked to from their user page point to, too.) So no, not actually funny at all.

Despite your vehemence and DEFCON-1, bend-or-break-all-the-conduct-rules reaction here, simply taking my interlocutor at their word that all they could see from me was gibberish was an extremely mild pre-crime “veering into personal attack” compared to my actual objections to their behavior, and was a sign of me giving up rather than escalating the situation. (Though again, while I'd maintain that characterizing the cited, source-material-quoting prose of an encyclopedia editor—on an encyclopedia editing project—as gibberish is at least on par with any “crassness” of mine, if not a more severe display, I wouldn't expect you to pick up the full breadth of what that attack was aimed at from just the few surrounding comments.) Perhaps you can see why I wasn't simply going to be cowed by crude threats and pressure when you showed up here, though.

You are obviously quite comfortable with the sort of behavior you've exhibited here in the role of an admin. I am not comfortable with it, and I think that it is by far the more serious issue here compared to a handwavy inarticulate unevenly-enforced accusation of crassness—especially such an accusation where my initial response was compliant with your demands anyways despite believing that you were making a different request from what your wording represented, while you continue to portray what you say here as forthright and unambiguous.

We aren't going to convince each other, but I'm not just going to remain silent if you keep bringing up completely different rationales in an attempt to fault me from new angles in every comment you make here. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your positive feedback, at the user page for Jimmy Wales. you are welcome to add any comments you may wish. by the way, i have already gleaned a valuable item, just by coming here to your page. i will add the 2020 article on racial unrest in the US to the navbox. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Point I wanted to make was nicely explained in your revision wording. The ADL Board are the SOLE body deciding what is viewed, by the NGO, as "Hate" or Extremists. Just because you feel it represents xenophobia etc. doesn't remove the fact it is an arbitrary process and without appeals. Kinda like this Article!

1. 4thEstate #OGAmendmentOneDefense PVHenry 06:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry, P. V. (talk • contribs)

@Henry, P. V.: I guess I don't really understand you here. You didn't write anything about "an arbitrary process and without appeals" in the ADL article. But even if you had, what's stopping anyone from appealing to the ADL? It's a private organization, so there's no court system you'd have to move up through—anyone can just write them a letter.

You could do so yourself: if you want to argue that, say, xenophobia is a form of love rather than a form of hate, just write it up and send it to them. Or for example, petitions can have an impact too: if you could persuade a large number of people that xenophobia is a form of love, and get them all to sign a petition, and submit the petition to the ADL, maybe that would help to persuade them to regard xenophobia as a form of love rather than a form of hate. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 06:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. "Don't worry, though, there are still many options open in life, even to someone with such severe limitations and functional deficits as yourself. You could pursue a career as a mechanical engineer, for example."

"Aphasia and sudden confusion of consciousness, speech or ability to understand problems may be signs of a stroke. I worry for your well-being, PackMecEng. Please take care of yourself."

This is not OK. Behave civilly, you know better than this. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CIVIL says, Be careful with user warning templates. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Struthious Bandersnatch, I am not trying to intimidate you. I am making you aware of how this reads.

Comments like "Don't worry, though, there are still many options open in life, even to someone with such severe limitations and functional deficits as yourself. You could pursue a career as a mechanical engineer, for example." read as contempt insults of another user's well being and intelligence, not as concern. This isn't OK. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 12:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:HUH? can't see contemptuous comments from my interlocutor, and uncivilly dropping a warning template about damaging the community on my talk page, also does not read as concern, but as one-sided participation in and perpetuation of a conflict that had ended because I chose to walk away while my interlocutor made sure to get the last word nearly 48 hours before you came here to tell me to “stay cool”.

Sorry, but your chance to behave seriously or thoughtfully with respect to this issue was before you inserted the template and made your own accusation of “pretend[ing]”—tying logic pretzels now to try to make your past actions seem fair-minded and neutrally in pursuit of tranquility and respect on Wikipedia will get you nowhere here. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Struthious Bandersnatch, You're absolutely right about me not getting onto the other user too. I forgot to do this, and I sincerely apologize. It's a bit late now, though, and it was already a bit late when I posted this warning.

Their behavior is not acceptable either, and I recognize I made a mistake in forgetting to warn them. I simply prefer nobody be insulting each-other in the first place, and it wasn't necessary to start making attacks back. Just remember IAR does not apply to discussion with other editors. You can't ignore

WP:NPA

.

This applies here as well. Don't project who you want to think I am (an enemy) onto me, it's simply rude.

Thanks, —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonythedwarf: I appreciate you finally getting to the point of acknowledging part of my interlocutor's behavior. “It's a bit late now” seems like an odd excuse to make when you waited 48 hours to come cluck your tongue at me, but I concur that you shouldn't engage with them, as this is all simply perpetuation of the conflict I chose to walk away from.

I still think your examination of this is too shallow, though; see my exchange with Acroterion above for more context on what my interlocutor's remarks actually meant, if you genuinely care about rudeness (when, again, whether as “an enemy” or a straight-shooting altruistic communitarian, you have made some civility missteps yourself which you seem to be having trouble acknowledging as such.) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment about how minor edits work. I will follow that going forward. -Lmomjian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmomjian (talk • contribs) 04:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks for your “advice” on how to cite sources,

thread on the ATP about your supposedly-more-accurate wording from the source. (Spoiler: it's less accurate than what I wrote.) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 08:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

And the Banker, inspired with a courage so new
It was matter for general remark,
Rushed madly ahead and was lost to their view
In his zeal to discover the Snark.

But while he was seeking with thimbles and care,
A Bandersnatch swiftly drew nigh
And grabbed at the Banker, who shrieked in despair,
For he knew it was useless to fly.

He offered large discount — he offered a cheque
(Drawn "to bearer") for seven-pounds-ten:
But the Bandersnatch merely extended its neck
And grabbed at the Banker again.

Without rest or pause — while those frumious jaws
Went savagely snapping around —
He skipped and he hopped, and he floundered and flopped,
Till fainting he fell to the ground.

The Bandersnatch fled as the others appeared
Led on by that fear-stricken yell:
And the Bellman remarked "It is just as I feared!"
And solemnly tolled on his bell.

So you see we're not so bad—we can be scared off by crowds. But beware the Jabberwock, my son. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 17:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

You’re not understanding so if someone is Irish are they not allowed to comment on anything Irish? If someone had cancer are they not allowed to comment on anything cancer related? You’re uninformed in this space you’re not acting in good faith you’re the accuser it’s your job to prove my COI. I tried to explain this to you and gave you evidence to make you understand but you refuse to accept it because you have already made up your mind. Like I stated before if you have evidence bring it to whoever you need to. Don’t bother me anymore you’re harassing me. Leave me alone. Robjwev (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to ping you, but in the mien of the many other orders you've been trying to give me and others, you can't prohibit me from defending myself from accusations made against me on my own user talk page.

As with other policies and guidelines you've tried to use in your arguments, I think you have not fully read or are not properly applying

WP:COI. As I've also said before I hope that you continue participating here, but there are rules. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 21:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

You are the subject of a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Struthious Bandersnatch. You are welcome to participate in that discussion. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Atlantic slave trade

added a link pointing to Wachusett

Captives in American Indian Wars

added a link pointing to Wachusett

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Struthious, during a recent AN/I thread, I asked you not to accuse people of lying, after which you came to my talk page and effectively did it again. Now I see Jehochman has closed an AE thread and asked you to tone things down, and now you've gone to his talk page to keep things going.

It's therefore worth making clear that you're likely to be blocked if you continue posting accusations, and especially if you do it in place of edit summaries. Please start creating separate (non-accusatory) edit summaries, rather than copy-pasting your replies. Doing the latter makes the watchlists fill up with your accusations, which is disruptive. Continuing with these attacks is likely to lead to blocks and topic bans from the articles you're talking about, so please proceed carefully. If you choose to respond to this, please do it here rather than on my talk page. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 22:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONAZIS essay which states, Editors making reports for extremist racism or edits with more subtle expressions of racism that can be substantiated with diffs should bring them forward to administrators without fear of sanctions or blocks. If this was not a “more subtle expression of racism” supported by “clear evidence” I am having difficulty imagining what could possibly fit that description and actually get dealt with. I'm also having difficulty seeing the focus on my behavior and my reaction to racism—confined to AE, a forum specifically dedicated to discussing user conduct, until the issue was closed without comment on that aspect, whence I mentioned it without a name or link here and on Jehochman's UTP—and an instruction to “tone things down”, without even a single comment directed towards the racist behavior itself other than my own comments—I'm having trouble seeing that as anything other than refusal to deal with racist behavior by an editor on the talk page of an article which is specifically about Black civil rights in the U.S.

At ANI and here, your instructions about responding to what I perceive as lying also appear to amount to “don't talk about it”. I'm entirely willing to modify the phrasing I use, but since I already tried simply ceasing all use of that particular word (apart from the use–mention

issue of explaining what I was asking you about in my very first comment on your talk page, then I didn't use it anywhere on Wikipedia subsequently) yet you have accused me of “effectively” doing it again, I'm going to need some rather specific guidance as far as what I can and can't say; for starters:

1. to look at the instance which began all of this and headlined at ANI: if an editor deletes fifteen words from an article, including a terminating citation, yet claims in the edit summary that they are deleting “unsourced” content, and refuses for a week and through an entire ANI case specifically concerned with the edit and edit summary to even acknowledge that this was untrue, am I at least allowed to call the edit summary “untrue” as I did here yesterday? Can I say “they'd claimed a sourced statement was unsourced” as I did at your talk page? Or do I have to characterize this as an accident or typo or something along those lines, even at this point? This is, you may recall, the edit which the user simply did not reply to a question about on the talk page for nearly a week, and then deleted the same content again five or six times IIRC with different deletion rationales over the reverts of myself and two other users.
2. If an editor claims in edit summaries in the course of deleting cited content that their deletions are supported by talk page consensus when it is not, as I observed at your talk page is something which two different editors are now doing at the article in question, am I allowed to, as like at your talk page, say that their edits “plainly are not” supported by consensus? In this situation, would I be allowed to link to the
   WP:SHAMCONSENSUS
   essay at all?
3. As I described on your talk page, if an editor actually speaks for me in saying that all of the editors who have been involved (on both sides) in the discussion support deletion of content, while referring to another account's edit in which the edit summary specifically mentions me opposing the changes, can I call this “untrue” or “lying”? As this is putting words in my mouth I really feel like I should be able to denounce it more strongly than just that it's “untrue” or “wrong” here.
4. And as I also pointed out on your talk page, if an editor invokes BRD as justification for deleting the same content eight times in the face of reverts from four different editors, right above an actual quote of
   WP:BRD
   literally showing that it explicitly says, BRD is never a reason for reverting, do I really, seriously, after all of the above, still have to pretend that it's just a tremendous coincidence or an accident? Particularly when, after I immediately pointed out what the quote from BRD below said, the editor made no comment on their “error” and went on without skipping a beat? Could I at least say that's “misleading” or if not that it's “untrue”? (I didn't actually say either of those things)

I'm going to refrain from responding in discussions where I'd otherwise be mentioning these issues for the moment, so please at least let me know soon if I can use the word “untrue” in the aforementioned contexts.

I also have to admit that I'm quite baffled that you don't appear to regard the behavior I've described as disruptive editing (and possibly not even as lying? The statements you have made do not actually make this clear one way or the other), in particular using edit summaries to mischaracterize the actual edit made when you're saying here that placing the actual wording from an edit in its summary is disruptive (though I'll certainly write more descriptive summaries, as you ask; I apologize, I didn't quite understand what you were saying about watchlists at ANI, but it's clear now.) I think this user is going to take your non-commentary on all of the above as carte blanche to ramp up their deceptive edits; I could give examples from today but I don't want to make this longer.

I am, as they say,

WP:NPA, I assume you're saying), I guess I'm okay with that. But as I said, I really need specifics to properly understand what I can and can't say in describing this kind of thing, after I have laid out all of these behaviors in detail, with diffs, repeatedly, to no comment on your part.

I'm sorry this is so long, but it's the product of you repeatedly not addressing the same questions at ANI—or even responding to the issues named in the title of the case—and then not responding on your talk page, and simultaneous involvement of the AE case against me as a topic of discussion here. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 15:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• SarahSV, sorry to take up yet more of your time but I have to add context to the above: (1) the part being quoted from the
  WP:CRYRACIST section of NONAZIS is being taken out of context. That whole section makes clear that their behavior is inappropriate (even though it is an essay). A "subtle expression of racism" has to actually be racism; heck, why didn't they just suggest "black civil rights" (which was used above) in place of "black liberation"? Now, no less than three different administrators have dismissed their claim that I am racist and basically said to stop making it, yet the editor is still trying to get me denounced as one. (2) With Stonkaments, while I thought they had maybe a couple different times reverted when they shouldn't have, the accusations basically hold no merit in my recall because the consensus on the talk page was fast-evolving from certain to less-certain, etc. I won't go over it again as Stonkaments explained the matter elsewhere. (3) The editor above appeals, as it were, to their 'age and experience'. They have been around since 2008 but are not that experienced. For comparison, per meta:Special:CentralAuth, I have 9,163 edits on this Wikipedia and 9,286 globally; Struthious Bandersnatch has only 5,538 on this Wikipedia and they have 10,966 globally. Even I have much more first-hand experience with en-wiki than they do. All the same, they are experienced enough to absolutely know better. (Normally I wouldn't be for this kind of "who knows more" comparison, but their framing above means it has to be pointed out.) (4) In case they play the victim in their response to me: this page is still on my watchlist from when I notified them above, and I have every right to comment in any case since they are still groundlessly trying to get me denounced. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Again... for someone who says they're afraid of being harassed by me, it's awfully strange that you keep joining conversations I'm a part of, Crossroads, watchlist or not.
    I'd love to hear who these administrators are who have supposedly dismissed my claims (which, again, as I said above, are not that you are somehow fundamentally a racist... so many people made such a big stink about this sort of distinction and made other tone arguments during the twentieth century, as a prerequisite to actually taking any action against racism, that here in this century very specific delineations are made between racist behavior, actions, and individual attitudes and people somehow being integrally racist) given that, as I point out above, Jehochman has explicitly said in response to my inquiry that their remark upon closing the AE case did not signify a finding that I didn't present “clear evidence” that calling “black liberation” meaningless and a platitude and all the other contradictory stuff is, as I characterized it at AE, articulating a racist attitude towards what our encyclopedia should say.
    But you know, presumably an AE decision can be appealed to ArbCom itself. You could do that, instead of just complaining all over the place, if you are really confident that the case I have made is “groundless”. I was also quite disappointed with the AE outcome and would welcome an appeal or further official resolution on these matters that is not just general advice, as I think that they are very important. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 17:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as I predicted. I see that you are still taking things out of context, this time part of what Jehochman said. You also are cherry-picking what you said about me at AE; you said that I was being brazenly and blatantly racist and watching it play out has been extremely disgusting (and you picked this choice bit for your edit summary). [3] And you still think AE should have denounced me. Yes, the three admins never endorsed your accusations and also made statements obviously aimed at you about not calling people racist without good reason, with SarahSV above being particularly clear. It wasn't me making accusations of racism. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, I think it's better if you stop responding. Struthious, I haven't read your long post. If you're saying you don't know what disruption is, then your days here are likely to be numbered. Instead of dissecting other people's work, please return to your own editing. If you find editing in one area too stressful, then choose another area to work in. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ETIQ probably needs to be amended, if that is indeed what you're saying. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 11:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:INTIMIDATION—...it is unacceptable to threaten another with some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken. That essay gives Don't do that or you will be blocked as an example of an unacceptable threat; though I will concede that, despite completely refusing to address the issue of whether the claim of mine you reference have been accurate or not, you have couched mention of blocking here in conditional terms.

I appreciate that being an administrator is a difficult and burdensome job out of the many that are required to keep this project going. But you have cut way too many corners here. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 12:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Struthious Bandersnatch: One thing I've noticed is you make a lot of bad faith assumptions and claims about other editors' intentions. Here, for example, you call SarahSV "intentionally insulting". And of course you've repeatedly accused me of lying (lie, definition: "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive"[4]) and intentional deception. Of course you cannot actually know another editor's intentions[5], and such speculation and accusations are highly disruptive. Stonkaments (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ROPE, you interact in good faith and provide second chance after second chance, but at some point you get to the end of the rope. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 18:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Atlantic slave trade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wachusett.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2020 (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 the English Wikipedia

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

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.

Izno (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read

Thank you for reverting yourself. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 15:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found your "not-taking-responsibility-for-your-own-words" remark at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Mathematics#External_practices rather offensive. Someone not taking responsibility for their own words involved denying that they've ever said such a thing, or disavowing responsibility for harm they may have caused. This is a style discussion which is hurting no one, and I'm aghast at the suggestion that I'm a callous person that would say things carelessly or without regard for consequences. I'm not denying anything I've said. I'm trying to understand your point of view and accommodate your requests, but every time I do, I'm smacked in the face by personal accusations like this, implying I'm somehow arguing in bad faith. With other remarks like '"wasn't entirely clear", eh? Right.' you're clearly failing to assume good faith and just making that discussion painful and sharp-elbowed and hard to read.

I also found the "Beland gets what they want" remark to be unwarranted and hurtful. I started gathering evidence on an issue you were complaining there was a lack of evidence about. Had I started to find the non-ASCII encoding was common practice, I think that would be one argument against adopting my proposal. Gathering this sort of evidence is exactly how we approached the great "should ships be called 'she' or 'it'" question last year. Yes, if I find evidence that other editors judge supports my proposal, it's more likely the proposal will be adopted. That's what is supposed to happen in a rational and fair-minded discussion. If you don't find that evidence persuasive, that's fine. But making it personal and snarky is just generating anger and resentment, and is not helping resolve this controversy in a civil fashion, and alienating other editors who might be sympathetic to your arguments. We can't we just focus on the actual merits of the pros and cons? -- Beland (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You want to change the Wikipedia styling guideline under discussion but you have repeatedly written as though it's somehow my wish to have an RfC on the matter, which is blatantly and shamelessly deceptive. And you are doing so amongst a hail of logical fallacies which, as I have meticulously pointed out, in at least one case was debunked as a Sophist rhetorical technique by Classical Greek philosophers thousands of years ago, which you haven't relented on even once I'd demonstrated your logic to be fallacious and gone to the effort of linking the relevant Wikipedia article.

So no, I am not just going to allow those things to go unremarked-upon as if you're carrying out a straight-shooting collegial discussion “focusing on the actual merits”—to do so would have required approaching the topic neutrally and empirically, which you explicitly rejected doing and said that NPOV only applies to article content when in fact it is very clearly called for in

WP:HUH? --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 15:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure you think I'm trying to "deceive" and make think the RFC was your idea. Or why it matters who proposes an RFC, as they should generally be judged on their merits. Especially since I was trying to offer you the chance to control the wording. I was basically asking you if, given the 2-1 !vote, you wanted to allow the proposal to be adopted despite disagreeing with it, to ask for a formal closure based on the discussion so far, or for me to make the proposal an official RFC. I'm sorry the question was apparently unclear, and I'm sorry I could not accurately discern whether "If you still seriously want to proceed further here" was referring to an immediate formal closure or an RFC, even if when you wrote that it seemed clear to you. Please understand that even though I disagree with you, I'm trying to somehow cheat my way to a victory on this tremendously unimportant question. This is me trying to build consensus in the wiki way; I don't know why you see nefarious motives in every tiny and largely irrelevant detail.

I have not contradicted myself on the issue of NPOV.

WP:NOTPART

explains, style pages need not be neutral, just as they need not be referenced to third-party sources.

On the question of external practices, it was your remark "you have not exactly demonstrated yourself willing to put much effort into doing research", and your reference to "argument from silence", which I took to be complaints that no evidence had been produced in support of my contention that external sources don't do those. I thought you would be pleased to see your concern had been heard, understood, and acted on, so I'm rather offended that you turn around and call that openness to dissenting perspectives as "shameless, unmitigated bullshit". I don't know why you use personal and condescending language saying that I want to be coddled by having you pretend logic doesn't exist, especially when I'm actually responding to your claims of logical fallacy. You can make your point and be much more likely to find agreement simply by pointing out, if you think it's warranted, that a response doesn't adequately address a problem of logic you previously pointed out, and calmly giving a reason or two. My original contention was "I doubt that any style guide anywhere explicitly recommends using the precomposed Roman numerals in English prose", though as you rightly point out, style guides might not mention this point because it's obscure, which is why I started gathering information about actual practices. Certainly a reasonable objection is that more sampling needs to be done before we have high confidence that what I'm thinking never happens actually never happens. But if not in this way, how would you rather that I respond to your "argument from silence" and "Beland hasn't done enough research" concerns?

I'm sorry the health care system in your country is not adequate and fair, but I'm not sure what that has to do with me. I honestly do not understand why you say I am holding the Wikipedia style guide "at gunpoint". Do you see proposing a change to the style guide with which you disagree to be an immoral act of force? -- Beland (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your remark "I guess this is all new stuff for you" I also found gratuitous and needlessly personal, and also not factually accurate. Explaining your own background like "but as I said I've been doing this since the last century" is helpful, but insulting the intelligence or experience of another editor is an unnecessary personal attack which just makes it harder for that person and other editors who see such ugly remarks to digest and appreciate the technical and usability argument you were making.

My apologies if this is not an accurate inference, but I get the impression that you think that appearing smarter or more technically knowledgeable makes your point of view more valid or persuasive, and hence making other people look stupid or ignorant in comparison helps undermine their arguments. Personally, I don't think that's how discussions about web publishing guidelines should work, and in my experience on Wikipedia and working for web companies, it generally doesn't. Many times non-engineering folks are involved in such discussions, and despite sometimes being completely unfamiliar with the technical issues at hand, have important perspectives and in some cases are actually the decision-makers. If one of my coworkers in say design or customer service or sales is unfamiliar with the technical aspects of a question, as an engineer I find it's my responsibility to educate them about the technical issues at least to the degree they want or need to in order to understand what the consequences are for customers, employees, or business processes. I don't berate them for being ignorant or inexperienced or ignore them or tell them to be quiet, and those would be good ways to get fired. Non-engineers have valuable familiarity with how products are being used by people, which engineers often lack. Even engineers who are new to a problem can be helpful in that they have a perspective untainted by history and can look at things with a fresh set of eyes. Likewise, here on the wiki, I find that non-programmers and less-experienced programmers have enormously useful perspectives. They have every right to be politely informed by other editors about the consequences of technical decisions and help weigh the good and bad consequences, like for search engines and web browser searches and machine readability, even if they don't have a deep understanding of the technical mechanisms. In this case, Roman numerals aren't commonly used in math articles, and outside of chemists talking about compounds I expect the vast majority of editors who use them do not have STEM backgrounds. Does the idea of including people of all backgrounds make any sense to you?

I raise that because some of your comments have persistently tried to goad me into working on certain things:

"in case you're actually sincere about any of the things you're saying regarding wanting Wikipedia to work better"

"So you could put your money where your mouth is, as it were, and work on some issues surrounding implementation of MathML"

"usability issues you seem curiously uninterested in solving despite my pointing to active efforts to do so"

It's fine, and indeed actually quite helpful to point out that there are efforts underway and to encourage other editors to contribute, but super demotivating to claim or imply that other editors aren't doing enough work. That's how I understood these remarks which were directed at me; given I have over 100,000 edits and years of work on the project, I found not that implication only disrespectful but insulting. Maybe I will look into these issues later, or maybe I will focus on my multi-year spell check of the entire English Wikipedia. Either way, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY is a policy, not a guideline or an essay, so I ask you to please follow the policy and refrain from any further comments on whether or not other editors are putting in enough effort or working on fixing problems you've pointed out. -- Beland (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you genuinely just can't understand why I would object to you portraying me as wanting comment from the community about making a change to a Wikipedia guideline I don't want to make, after I have said a bazillion times that I don't want to make the change and that I want you to follow

WP:NOTCOMPULSORY to oppose your attempt to add a guideline rule mandating removal of information from articles. As usual, you are the one violating the P&G you're trying to cite in criticism of me—you're not simply mentioning in passing that working on a part of Wikipedia would be consistent with stated values as I did, you're trying to portray your RfC as something I want and repeatedly attempting to act as though I'm somehow obligated to do the work of making it neutral and compliant with P&G, instead of you! Just another repeated "accident" or "misunderstanding" in total violation of Wikipedia policy, I guess. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 14:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I certainly did not intend to portray you as being in favor of the proposal, and your position against seems pretty darn clear. I was asking you if you disagreed with it strongly enough that you wanted me, the proponent, to go to RFC, as opposed to simply letting it be added to the MOS or asking for early closure. If that was not clear to you, I apologize for wording that was hard to understand. I am happy to clarify that to anyone else who you think may have been confused about your opposition to this proposal.

I have never been under the impression you affirmed you "wanted to allow the proposal to be adopted despite disagreeing with it". I did ask if you felt that way, because I thought it would save a lot of time, and it's a common consensus-building technique I learned from my time living in an anarchist commune. If every time I ask a question like "do you believe X", you explode in anger at the lies being spread that you believe X, I'm not going to be able to discern your opinions and it will make reaching consensus that much harder.

You complained I'm "repeatedly attempting to act as though I'm somehow obligated to do the work of making it neutral". You are certainly not. Several times I have offered you the opportunity to do so in order to avoid later complaints that I wasn't actually neutral or that I'm trying to ram things through by force. It seems you had enough time to inspect the neutral summary for neutrality. If you have changed your mind and no longer want to write a summary of arguments against this proposal, you don't have to. If you want me to summarize your arguments for you, I'm happy to do so. If you want to run the RFC with that part blank, that would be weird given how many missives you've already written, but I would respect your wished. I just expected that if I summarized your arguments for you, no matter what I wrote you would consider it a moral outrage and an attempt to somehow rig the results of this very unimportant poll.

Yes, neutrality is required when starting formal RFCs and when advertising move requests off-page. I don't see how either of those implies that neutrality is required when starting a new talk thread on an MOS talk page. If you look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, for example, in some cases the thread starts because someone has no opinion and is asking for advice or pointers, but some start out with strong opinions or a specific proposal for an MOS change. I don't see anyone objecting that the latter violates some sort of policy or practice of always stating a neutral question when starting one of these threads. It seems obvious that my comments fall completely within the social norms of MOS talk pages, and this grievance that I've somehow violated a neutrality requirement does not make sense. Even if it did, I'd still find your accusation that I'm an "immoral" person with "a low character and unexamined social privilege" to be an outrageous personal attack not befitting the perceived offense, but the fact that I haven't even done anything wrong just makes it feel that much more like an undeserved slap in the face.

That fact that you think you have to use personal and condescending language to make your point with me or anyone else means that you have not committed to conducting a civil conversation, which is required by

WP:CIVIL

. Openness to dissenting perspectives does not necessarily mean agreeing with them. It means taking them seriously and evaluating them fairly. I sought out evidence to support your arguments, but ended up finding what I consider to be more evidence against. I solicited comments from other editors who might have agreed with you, but they didn't. I'm not claiming these are "virtuous", just that I'm being reasonable.

You said I want "want to mandate all other editors must follow your own wishes down to the choice of individual characters in writing Wikipedia articles". Well, they aren't my wishes alone, and the editors in favor of that have come up with literally a dozen considered reasons why, none of which are "to whimsically suppress the freedom of uppity editors" or "to ruin Struthious Bandersnatch's day". We are just trying to provide the best experience for readers, which happens in this case to involve squashing a practice you happen to favor. It happens. Some of the things I would prefer that Wikipedia do have also been squashed by consensus, and that's not a cosmic injustice I feel resentful or angry about.

You wrote: "As far as the accessibility issues being new to you—sorry, again, no—saying that to you, that the accessibility problems you bring up are clearly novel in your experience, is not a violation of WP:NPA. I can very easily demonstrate this to be true. You have demonstrated no intention whatsoever to appreciate any technical or usability arguments I've made, but have instead thrown everything against the wall in attempts to dismiss them to see what sticks; I'm not going to pretend that you've exhibited in-depth knowledge or precision or genuine concern about accessibility in the course of your campaign to force me to accept what you want by getting MOS:MATHS changed."

I never said this was a violation of WP:NPA, and even if it were true, it would still be, as I did say, "gratuitous and needlessly personal". I said "insulting the intelligence or experience of another editor is an unnecessary personal attack", and that's true even if the person who is the target of your attack is in fact less experienced than you, and has demonstrated that in the conversation. Doubling down on this attack indicates intentional incivility and more desire to be offensive than constructive with regard to the merits of the disagreement. Your treatment of me has not been a polite sharing of facts that would fill in gaps in my knowledge. If insults and personalized snark is how you "educate" a fellow engineer, I am very concerned at how you might treat a non-engineer in a similar situation, and the systemic bias that would introduce to participation in the project.

You wrote: "ease whatever pangs of conscience may have brought you to my UTP." To be clear, what brought me here was your offensive personal language and false accusations that I've violated Wikipedia policies. My conscience is clear. Excepting, of course, the gratuitous amount of chocolate I've eaten this month.

You've complained that I've made "uncited generalized pronouncements about the efficiency and operation of NLP systems, even after a month of discussion still not bothering to cite these things in your proposed RfC text." This is an odd complaint. I cited three examples of real-world systems which I think could benefit from the proposal, but you haven't cited any, and your claim that avoiding "destroying information" benefits NLP systems is just as "uncited" as my speculation that maybe it wouldn't. The discussion is not an article; there is no policy or guideline requirement for citations. If other editors don't trust our expertise or don't find our reasoning persuasive on their own, and find our lack of citations to make our arguments dubious, then so be it. They can come to their own conclusions accordingly. If other experts or even non-experts disagree, I'm happy to read that and likewise come to my own conclusions.

You wrote "(And btw, note also that you just faulted me for supposedly boasting of my own experience, but now you casually drop your edit numbers?)". What I said above was "Explaining your own background like 'but as I said I've been doing this since the last century' is helpful" which is encouraging, not faulting, what you call "boasting". Disclosing your background can help save time and awkwardness compared to letting other editors assume that you are naive or have no background in the field in question.

-- Beland (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the recent POV edits there. Think that person may be the guy on the talk page saying he'll fight his block? Earth's gate (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2020 (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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.

For additional information, please see the

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.

Crossroads ^-talk- 04:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fictive kinship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anda.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2021 (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.

Hi, I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#"white people" and historical editing on Wiki as an editor appeared to be commenting on your editing albeit without naming you. Nil Einne (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

toast sandwich Rosedaler (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Janet Elizabeth Dyer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable magazine writer

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PepperBeast (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Struthious Bandersnatch, I've noticed that following the link generated by the EIN template now gets a 404 result (https://www.irs.gov/404). Assume it's caused by a change by the IRS but is it something that can be fixed here? Gab4gab (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Struthious Bandersnatch! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to