User talk:Jayen466

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Signpost: 03 September 2014[edit]

Another alt name hoax/vandal[edit]

Hello, Jayen! I am posting on your talk page out of frustration with WP. Regarding past instances of faux alternate names such as the "Brazilian aardvark" and "Azid" that I first noticed on that badsite, here's another one in the same vein:

Megalopyge opercularis (a.k.a. the puss caterpillar) is in the news recently and some big time news sites are picking up the story for the fear factor I guess. This moth has been listed with an alt name of "pussy moth" since 15 Apr 2007 (over 7 years!) introduced in this edit where changed "puss moth" to "pussy moth". I found two outside websites referencing this: [1] and [2]. (Googling "pussy moth" is kinda dangerous.) So far, no mainstream references yet. I hope this gives you a chuckle, no need to respond with anything other than indifference, I was just documenting this. Rgrds. -- (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, it's starting. Expect flocks of pussy moths descending upon us over the coming days. Note [3] and [4], both published well after that edit. Intriguingly, though, there is another species of moth, Cerura vinula, that has been described as a "pussy moth" in two books published BW (before Wikipedia), although "puss moth" is much the more common and standard name in that case as well. At any rate, I cannot find a single book published BW that describes Megalopyge as a "pussy moth". No doubt that will soon change. Best, Andreas JN466 08:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Respect of my gender[edit]

Hello, at one of the WP:ANI pages you commented and used male pronouns to describe me or subsequently used a comment like, 'Pretending to be something they're not'. I would like to note that I am a woman and referring to me by male pronouns by mistake, and fixing it later is perfectly fine, however given the context of the situation, I don't approve of it happening when I've made it clear several times that I am a woman. ArbCom especially has already set a precedent on this in the Manning case, where editors should respect other editor's gender identities, gender, backgrounds, and the like. I would like to be respected so I am going to ask that you edit your comment to use female pronouns. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC) See below.

Diff? Andreas JN466 17:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, it was this bit but now that I look at it, I am wrong. 'who complained that that edit reverted an addition he had made.' I read as referring to me making the edit, not the apparent reddit user. Struck original comment; though another concern did come up: You insinuated that if site banned, I would sock. Why did you make that comment?
Yes, I thought you might have misread that. Do you deny you made [redact outing] (highlighted in yellow) on Reddit? I see it has now been [redact outing]. Andreas JN466 18:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)These redactions were made by Tutelary. Feel free to consult the edit history. --Andreas JN466 19:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not what I asked, I asked you why you thought I would sock if I got site banned. Tutelary (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It's what I asked. So – ? Andreas JN466 18:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I will not answer questions where you are apparently outing me. You should redact that comment, btw. Tutelary (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
If Ging287 is just some random internet user who is nothing to do with you, then this link is not outing you in any way, shape or form. If it is you, however, then you have lied to the community. I would advise you to stop doing that; there is really no need for it. Andreas JN466 18:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not it is true, you are associating it with me as if it were true and attempting to use it as evidence. That is still considered outing. I've redacted it as the information has been OS'd before, and repeating it on Wikipedia is outing; whether it is true or not. Per The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. I will not be harassed. Tutelary (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
You seem to labour under a misapprehension as to what WP:Outing is. I quote: Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. You yourself saw fit to state, on Wikipedia, that you do not have a Reddit account, so I think it is not unfair to ask you about it. Cheers, Andreas JN466 19:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
This is obviously going to go nowhere, but as I said, the information has already been OS'd and repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing. Tutelary (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It's just a link to a public Reddit page, a site on which you have commented here, and which was involved in a canvassing incident not long ago. There is no personally identifying information on it whatsoever. Andreas JN466 19:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014[edit]