User talk:Tutelary

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

Hey. Welcome to my talk page. It's a place where you can leave me messages. Please do not leave templates unless it is absolutely necessary. See also the essay WP:TEMPLAR. I am a lady, so please do use female pronouns, but I won't fault you for not doing so accidentally. (I can be a bit masculine sometimes!) But anywho, don't hesitate to give me some critiques, invoke some discussion, or anything like it! Thanks.

List of music considered the worst[edit]

Users are continually removing Sgt. Pepper from this list on the grounds that the Beatles are beyond criticism. You yourself were involved in restoring this material after a sweeping deletion. Can anything be done to stop this happening? Thanks.

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Tutelary. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your user page[edit]

Tutelary, I have removed some commentary from your user page--the section about your block. It falls foul of WP:POLEMIC, "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." You may collect such material and interpretations in a subpage if you are preparing a case in some forum or other, but you can't put it on your user page. And I considered this to be an attack, since you claim that Dreadstar was involved when (I clicked through the diffs) it was pretty clear that they were enforcing the BLP by redacting inappropriate material. Dreadstar can't comment on those allegations since it's your user page, and since you made it clear, in your hidden comment, that you would pursue Dreadstar if they removed it. In other words, it's just not fair. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: would it be acceptable if I removed all mention of Dreadstar including the 'involved' and 'unjust' block bit? Tutelary (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Tutelary, that's a tough one. If you take out what I see as polemic there isn't much left but "I was blocked and then the same admin unblocked me". If you take out the name and replace it with, I don't know, "Darth Vader" the accusation still stands and your block log makes it clear immediately who's being discussed. I don't really wish to argue the rights and wrongs of this block with you--or make you relive painful memories since being blocked is no fun--but what I see as problematic is a. the charge that Darth Vader was involved and b. the charge that they abused rollback. If I follow you correctly, you're saying that the fact that they rolled back those edits makes them involved, but that is not correct--INVOLVED requires more than that, and an admin is allowed to roll back edits (or hit "undo", whatever) if, for instance, they spot a BLP violation or some such thing--in this case I guess the point is that it was a FORUM violation on a BLP-related matter--and then take action pursuant to that edit. I suppose all that can be phrased very neutrally, but I'm not sure what the point of it would be. Plus, I think that keeping that content might turn off some editors/admins, though undoubtedly it might generate you some support as well. But really, I think it would be wise, for various reasons (POLEMIC, but also a collaborative spirit), to not reinstate the material. For the record, I don't think I have had much to do with "Darth Vader" here, though I've made an edit or two (I think) on the Quinn article and/or the talk page. But I offer you this advice in all honesty, in hopes of future productivity and collaboration. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, I have been working a little bit on the article that dare not speak its name, and found, in the history, something that puzzles me. First of all, I think this edit is far from an improvement--I mean, citing wiktionary in such an important article?--but secondly, I can't help but wonder what on earth you mean with that edit summary. Lightbreather shouldn't be editing that article why? because she's of the female persuasion? because she is a feminist, or not a feminist, or a feminist of the wrong kind? what could you have meant that doesn't smack of bad faith? Drmies (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Check out the talk page, Drmies rather than an edit summary which I cannot edit. Tutelary (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I did, and I'm trying to wrap my head around what you said there. First, you said Lightbreather has a "WP:COI due to their established viewpoint of what had happened with them", which makes no sense to me, if only because the antecedent of "them" is unclear--the only possibility I see is it refers to "Lightbreather's edits", which makes no sense. Or, all of a sudden you're using singular they, and "them" refers to Lightbreather: so she would have a conflict of interest because she had argued against the use of the word "cunt" on Wikipedia, and "something" happened to her. Which also makes no sense. Then, when Gobonobo called you on it, you're attempting some sort of shift: "you of all people" is "against" her supposed COI (a ridiculous invention), not against her. That's rich.

Oh, edit summaries can be edited; it's best to do it beforehand. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me try to express what I felt at the time; You pretty much got it right, though. so she would have a conflict of interest because she had argued against the use of the word "cunt" on Wikipedia, and "something" happened to her. The something having had the word thrown at her. Though really I shouldn't have used the terms COI to describe it, that's reserved more for paid editing, what I should have said that the fact that Lightbreather would edit the 'Cunt' page to express the term's powerful meaning and even editing the lead to make sure that that was stated left something to be desired. This is due to her earlier affair with the word. I suppose that a good analogy for what I felt at the time is if I edited the 'doxing' page to include that it especially harms the person's ability to be interactive with other people and that it is oh so nasty. Well, you can see that I personally got doxed so that would be a bit difficult and leave something in my editing to be desired. So that's what I saw at that point. I can see how it was problematic, the edit summary was is a bit terse and succinct, leaving a false impression. Though that's also a bit of a flawed analogy considering that Lightbreather did have a source for it, so consider my example where I had a source for it as well. Tutelary (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@Drmies:I looked at that and . . . I am not sure why you would say it was about a BLP violation. Dreadstar did not say it was about that when reverting or when reverting Tutelary and the comment did not seem to be a BLP violation. Saying Quinn was subjected to an unprecedented online misogynistic harassment campaign that is arguably more noteworthy than anything else about her is not really a BLP violation. That is an opinion about due weight. It is clear the editor who made the statement was sympathetic to Quinn and there were no other living people named in the statement. Any claim of BLP would be contentious in that situation even if it had been made. We had a huge kerfufflypse if you remember when an admin shouted BLP in a crowded editing environment while using the tools and did not explain it until days later with severe consequences resulting. An admin who does not even implicitly invoke BLP when reverting an action on a completely non-obvious case until after blocking the party on the other side of the edit-war is clearly not on the right side of WP:INVOLVED. Not that the WP:POLEMIC point about Tutelary's user page is not valid, but Tutelary's description of events is not wrong either way.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kevin Sorbo[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kevin Sorbo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Cookies![edit]

Thanks Lixxx235, it's really been a stressful week given I've been doxed, harassed, my name dragged through the mud, and everything else. Though cookies on a monitor may be just a silly thing to smile over, you can take solace that I did. Tutelary (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Test ?[edit]

It was not a test, I am accustomed to wikis. "Digest" is better than "Plot" for a book. --24.122.234.224 (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Generally, we use 'plot'. 'Digest' is sure to confuse some people. The reason why I marked it as 'test' is because I thought it was referring to stomach functions, so it didn't seem right for the article at the time. Tutelary (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hi Tutelary,

Thanks for undoing those unfortunate edits made to my talk page and user page. For what it's worth, I have no animosity towards the editor who made them. I understand their frustration, so hopefully it was just a one time blowing off of steam and will not be repeated. Despite how they may feel, I am personally not out to get them or any other Wikipedian. I merely began a discussion on a file whose copyright status I believed to be inappropriate. Regarding their "I'm gonna go through every single post you ever made until I find a copyright error.", they are free to do so. I am just as accountable for my edits as they are for theirs. Like everyone else, I make mistakes, but such mistakes, whatever they may be, are always made in good faith. I have no problem with anyone pointing them out and correcting them, as long as they too are acting in good faith. I've thought about posting something like the above on this editor's user talk page, but you have already warned them twice and I don't want to seem to be piling on. Thanks again. Face-smile.svg - Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eagles (band)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Eagles (band). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

First of all, I said that it was my last revert. Second of all, you're edit warring as well, so you have no right to warn me. I only reverted twice in the 24 hour window, while you reverted 3 times. So there's no way I'll get blocked without you being blocked as well. JDDJS (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop edit warring to include BLP violations on a person's page when it's been made clear that consensus is in the other way. Tutelary (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no consensus. Two editors is not a consensus. And the editor only said that it needs better sources. I am not violating BLP. It does not say to never include things like that. Just to consider not including them. JDDJS (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be better if we continued this at the talk rather than here. Tutelary (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's the link to the discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Skyler_Page, I know you'll want to weigh in on it. Hopefully more editors will join in so we can have a real consensus on the matter. JDDJS (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Reinstated speedy tag[edit]

Hello Tutelary, this is about the CSD tag you reinserted here after it was initially removed by an unregistered editor. Before reinserting a speedy tag, please ensure that you personally would stand behind the speedy deletion request. In this case, the article was previously deleted as a CSD-A7, and is not eligible for speedy deletion; the original removal of the tag by an unregistered user was quite correct in this particular case. I've declined the speedy, but if you still feel that the article should be deleted for other policy-based reasons, please start an AfD. Risker (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Note, I've just discussed this further with another editor, who has identified the key AfD relating to this; the article had a different title at the AfD so that would not have shown up using a template to create the CSD tag. In short, the policy-based reason was identified, and the article is now deleted and semi-salted. Risker (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tutelary, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Grewia (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't let the turkeys get you down![edit]

Hi. Cheer up! Don't let them get you down!

(You asked HJ Mitchell "What the heck did that editor do?" and the response was (sadly, humorously) non-responsive. What was the topic? Thanks.)

SeattliteTungsten (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor's first edit was to Jimbo's talk page and was subsequently hard blocked (no email, talk, a violation of WP:HARDBLOCK) by HJ Mitchell. I asked the admin about it and as you can see the response, he's not responded to the hardblock violation. Though it really is low on my list of priorities, it's disheartening to see. Tutelary (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn versus Skyler Page[edit]

For Zoe Quinn, you argued for inclusion of allegations that she cheated on her boyfriend (reliable sources were reporting on that allegation in the boyfriend's blog). For Skyler Page, you argued against inclusion of allegations that he sexually assaulted a co-worker (reliable sources were reporting on that allegation from the co-workers Twitter feed and elsewhere). These seem to be kinda similar situations, yet you arrive at different results. Can you explain why Quinn's allegations should be included but Page's should not? Kaletony (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for Tutelary but from a quick glance I can see a material difference. The fact that the allegations against quinn were of that nature was the spark that many claimed caused GamerGate they also didn't imply any criminal activity. With Skyler the implication is of a criminal act and it would make little difference to the content of the article whether it was that criminal act or any other or even if it was just a violation of work policy. SPACKlick (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hang in there[edit]

Just wanted to pop by and say hang in there. I've no idea what it's like to go through the week (or two) you've been having but I hope it gets better soon. SPACKlick (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your words, it's a hearty relief to a sea of vitriol still standing tall at WP:ANI. It really is awful. I've forced myself to scramble away from Wikipedia for some time due to it affecting my blood pressure and my heart rate. The day or so I've been off of it have been beneficial. Tutelary (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Kaletony has been identified as a sockpuppet and has been indefinitely banned[edit]

The SPI. The ban. Memills (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping me in the loop, Memills. Tutelary (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Flow[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Flow. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ganguli page[edit]

He's not notable. How can I nominate him for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.100.106 (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ursinus College page[edit]

I once again changed the Ursinus College page to reflect Terry Winegar as President. Your recent change to Ursinus College page is incorrect as President Bobby Fong has died already. I have cited my source. You can revisit that wikipedia page to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.246.57 (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

IP editor, the source is all that was needed. Thank you for keeping Wikipedia updated. Tutelary (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)