User talk:H Remster

Sir[edit]

Sir, I can but agree. I was genuinely staggered to discover that the gentleman in question had not written it all himself as it certainly sounds as if he did. Why else would you include all those risible quotes? If I were the gentleman being Bio'd I would want to remove it all in haste in case anyone thought I approved of the content. Or more embarrassing for him even than that, perhaps he actually does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.150.203.193 (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, H Remster. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of helpful observations, I hope.[edit]

You are just as much an "officially sanctioned editer" as I am, you became such when you agreed to the Terms and Conditions when you registered your username. we are all volunteers who do it for fum, or because of belief in the worth of the project, which is huge btw. The only difference between us is in experience here.

Your other observation made me realise you may not know what a "watchlist" is. We use our watchlists to see all the recent changes to pages we are particularly interested in, I have over 7000 articles on my watchlist, and without it, I couldn't monitor the articles I am interested in particularly. You may have some articles already on your watchlist, as wikipedia initially sets itself to save pages you have edited to your watchlist. When you are logged in on a PC, your watchlist link is on the top line of the page - click it and see what happens. (I have no idea how this appears if you are on a mobile platform.) with that watchlist, I saw you had made an edit to the Transwoman Talk page, and here we are!!

The other thing you should take a look at is the "Recent changes" link on the left of the page, which is a "brute force" list of every edit to the project, maintained as a live updated link thing.

I hope this helps. Feel free to ask any questions you may have. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 12:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - all new and helpful information. H Remster (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy on logical consistency across articles[edit]

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia! And kudos on your argumentation at Talk:Trans woman. ~~I did not realize until just now that you are new here, and probably would have gone a little easier, with a lot more explanation, and links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.~~ The "Welcome" message above threw me off. Doesn't matter, really; Welcome, anyway. So, my apologies if anything came across as too harsh.

Regarding your comments at Talk:Trans woman and Wikipedia's policy on logical consistency across articles, the answer is simple: there isn't one. Wikipedia has no policy on logical consistency across articles. This is on purpose, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not hold opinions on anything. We are a tertiary source, and what we do is fairly simply stated: we go find reliable sources about a topic, and we summarize the gist of what they say, at the corresponding articles, taking care to reflect differences among reliable sources in proper proportion to their weight and number. That's it. Everything else is window dressing. If some AI genius comes along and writes a program that can scour the world for sources and summarize them, we won't need volunteer editors anymore.

So, in areas as rife with disagreement as Trans woman is all by itself, let alone in comparison with related topics such as Transgender, Woman, Female, Feminism, and so on, the fact that the preponderance of reliable sources for each of these topics, viewed separately, may not all come to a perfectly synchronous definition of related terms across articles, is hardly surprising. It would be pretty surprising, if they did.

Given the imperfect, inconsistent reality of the world we live in, or rather, of the way that reliable sources reflect that reality on a number of different topics, the articles about these different topics will each reflect their own set of sources, and even if executed perfectly by volunteer editors in each case, may well end up having inconsistent definitions across different articles. This is an inevitable consequence of our role here as summarizer/reporters, and not mathematicians or physicists attempting to organize all the world's information on a formal, logical basis. That is simply outside our remit. Given that, and the consensus-based guideline about the purpose of a Talk page, namely, to discuss how to improve the article, it is therefore not appropriate to use an article Talk page to try to enforce consistency across articles. That's beyond the scope of an article Talk page, in that no Wikipedia policy calls for such consistency.

If there were, a WikiProject Talk page might be a better venue for cross-article discussions, or perhaps, the Village pump, or you could try to get Wikipedia's policy changed by taking it up at one of the policy pages, so that we *do* have to have logical consistency between articles. (Spoiler: a very rough row to hoe.) But not on the article Talk page, where it generates a lot of heat, and little light, and just ends up taking up everybody's time on a futile, fruitless path to nowhere. (Wikipedia policy and guidelines, like article content, are *also* determined by consensus; i.e., you can change the rules here. In theory, you cold just go into a policy page right now, and alter it to say that articles have to be logically consistent. You'd get reverted rapidly, but it's possible. There is very little here that is set in stone and *must* be followed; usually only when it has to do with laws of the United States where Wikimedia is based, and includes such things as avoiding WP:LIBEL, legal threats, Wikipedia's licensing requirements such as copy attribution (when you copy from one Wikipedia article to another), and so on. Everything else is up for grabs.)

Anyway, sorry for taking up so much space on your talk page (by WP:OWNTALK, with rare exceptions, you can delete anything on your Talk page) but I hope some of this helps bring you a little further up to date with the arcane thicket of "rules", such as they are, at Wikipedia. I think you'll be a great editor, so keep up the good work. And once again, welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Redact, due to misreading your seniority here. Mathglot (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot, thank you for this. It's very late in my part of the world, but I'll try over the weekend to digest what you've written. In the meantime: no more comments on the Trans woman talk page. I succumbed to the urge to defend my honour when I really should have left it alone (although I did learn a bit in the process too, so it's not all bad). — Preceding unsigned comment added by H Remster (talk • contribs) 22:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither; I'm done with it for now; have other fish to fry. No worries, get some sleep! Happy editing, Mathglot (talk) 09:17, 9 July 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 discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the 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.

Rab V (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rab V: This is good, but why have you posted it here? You've mentioned personal opinions a couple of times but have yet to be drawn on what you have in mind. H Remster (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed posts that seemed to violate WP:FORUM and other editors have pointed to it personal opinions as well. This is just a notice doesn't mean you have done anything wrong. Rab V (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I've been given one by Rab too, and neither of us has done anything wrong. It really is just a little shot across the bows for future conduct enforcement. I do believe that your post was soon put back though. We are certainly not in notforum territory, as I stated on the page. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 21:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: Thank you. I've woken up feeling a bit more pragmatic today, and I'm going to resist visiting the page if I can. There do seem to be efforts afoot to misrepresent what I've said, and I don't quite understand the motivation - it certainly isn't to make the article more informative or accessible. H Remster (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of returning to that talkpage or article in any substantial way. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please, if you disagree with content, discuss at Talk:Trans woman and do not edit war to protect your version. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging[edit]

I am very much not an expert at this kind of thing, so perhaps I shouldn’t be giving advice, but I’m pretty sure that if the username comes up in red, then it’s failed. (Your username is always in red because you have not created a userpage.) Bobfrombrockley’s username is different from his signature (BobFromBrockley), and the username is case-sensitive. So if you want to ping him, you need to use the actual username: Bobfrombrockley. If you want to do it again, you would have to do it in a new post, on a new line, and the post should be signed. Regards Sweet6970 (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the tip. I'm thinking of giving up on this one, anyway. I've been conducting some OR today, and it seems that even the Spiked team are aware of the "right-wing" claims and pretty much scratch their heads and shrug their shoulders at them. H Remster (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not giving up – please don’t give up. It seems to me that there is scope for agreement on a possible wording, as I have been discussing on the talk page today. If it is the case that the sources saying it is right wing are considered left wing, and the sources saying that it is left wing are right wing, I would be content with a wording saying this. The important thing is that there is not agreement amongst the sources as to the orientation of Spiked. And what the Spiked team may think about it is irrelevant – Wikipedia is written for its readers, and they are currently being misinformed. And there is, of course, the danger of the echo-chamber – if Wikipedia says it is right-wing, then lazy journalists will also say it is right-wing, so then there will be more sources saying it is right wing….. Regards Sweet6970 (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice[edit]

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

I see the last notice on your page was in 2020, so it has "expired". Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, I've no idea what this is about, but I'm fine with it. H Remster (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Dylan Mulvaney. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]