User talk:AlexAndrews: Difference between revisions
→Block: Reply |
AlexAndrews (talk | contribs) →Block: Reply |
||
Line 209: | Line 209: | ||
::::How is my understanding of vandalism incorrect, as you say? [[User:AlexAndrews|AlexAndrews]] ([[User talk:AlexAndrews#top|talk]]) 20:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
::::How is my understanding of vandalism incorrect, as you say? [[User:AlexAndrews|AlexAndrews]] ([[User talk:AlexAndrews#top|talk]]) 20:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::::The emphasis is on "deliberately". When someone removes content because they believe the article is better off without that content, it's not vandalism. You can disagree about the merits of the removal, but you can't call it "vandalism", unless you have some way of showing that their intentions were to harm the project. "Removal of encyclopedic content" is not vandalism, but "''malicious'' removal of encyclopedic content" is. The removal you're objecting to was obviously not malicious. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 20:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
:::::The emphasis is on "deliberately". When someone removes content because they believe the article is better off without that content, it's not vandalism. You can disagree about the merits of the removal, but you can't call it "vandalism", unless you have some way of showing that their intentions were to harm the project. "Removal of encyclopedic content" is not vandalism, but "''malicious'' removal of encyclopedic content" is. The removal you're objecting to was obviously not malicious. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 20:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::::The first reason @[[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] gave for removing the content was that I hadn't provided reliable sources for it: |
|||
::::::{{blockquote|Unless there are WP:RS that states "Hey, this thing in this piece of fiction is incorrect!" or "Hey, this bit is inconsistent!" it doesn't go anywhere on this website |
|||
::::::}} |
|||
::::::But that reason was false because [[WP:RS]] only applies to '''contentious''' material, which he eventually conceded the material I had added wasn't. |
|||
::::::<br/> |
|||
::::::The second reason @[[User:KJP1|KJP1]] gave was that no "expert" source had bothered to mention the facts that I had added to the article: |
|||
::::::{{blockquote|The point, for me, is not really whether the inconsistencies are “facts” or not, it is that no RS appear to have thought they warranted mentioning. As they haven’t, I really can’t see that the section is appropriate.}} |
|||
::::::KJP1 has drawn his own conclusion from the absence of the facts having been mentioned in RS - which is therefore '''original research''' on KJP1's part. But you can't base article content on original research, so again another false reason. |
|||
::::::<br/> |
|||
::::::So there has been no genuine reason for the removal of the encyclopedic content that I added, just false reasons. So the removal was based on falsehoods - ie malicious. |
|||
::::::<br/> |
|||
::::::It was therefore vandalism, as I said. [[User:AlexAndrews|AlexAndrews]] ([[User talk:AlexAndrews#top|talk]]) 20:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:54, 26 April 2024
Your submission at Articles for creation
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/AFC-Logo_Decline.svg/50px-AFC-Logo_Decline.svg.png)
Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rose Hill School, Alderley was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}}
to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Chzz ► 15:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Chzz ► 02:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have replied again, in the same section. Cheers, Chzz ► 10:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/AFC-Logo_Hold.svg/50px-AFC-Logo_Hold.svg.png)
Thank you for submitting an article to Wikipedia. Your submission has been reviewed and has been put on hold pending clarification or improvements from you or other editors. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rose Hill School, Alderley. If there is no response within twenty-four hours the request may be declined; if this happens feel free to continue to work on the article. You can resubmit it (by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}}
to the top of the article) when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you. Zachlipton (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Crystal_Clear_action_edit_add.png/50px-Crystal_Clear_action_edit_add.png)
Rose Hill School (Alderley), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
- The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
- Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Zachlipton (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 18:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Renaming article "Rose Hill School" to "Rose Hill School (Tunbridge Wells)" ==
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I have just had a new article added to Wikipedia: "Rose Hill School (Alderley)". It was necessary to create this article because the school used to appear under the "Rose Hill School" article (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rose_Hill_School&oldid=321370155), but this has since been taken over by Rose Hill School, Tunbridge Wells. It therefore seems appropriate for reasons of consistency and disambiguation for the current "Rose Hill School" article to be renamed to "Rose Hill School (Tunbridge Wells)". I presume such action would need to be performed by an administrator?
--Alexandrews (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, anyone with "autoconfirmed" permissions, including you, can use the [move] tab at the top of the page to change the title of the page. I'm not sure that's really a good idea though. If my understanding is correct, the Rose Hill in Alderley no longer uses that name, so there is really only one school in existence on Wikipedia that uses the name. But other people may have a different opinion, so I'll leave this help request up for the time being (but change it to a regular help since an admin isnt really needed). —Soap— 23:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hatnotes have been added , which is the usual practice, so I'm treating this one as settled. --SPhilbrickT 23:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Chzz ► 14:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Rose Hill School (Alderley)#Names of new owners of the building and Talk:Rose Hill School (Alderley)#Links to maps - and please post any further comments about it on that page. Thanks, Chzz ► 16:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Discussions
Hi there.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Vector_toolbar_with_signature_button.png)
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
I've been looking over events, and I wanted to express my extreme gratitude for your exemplary attitude to the debates.
I know how intimidating all the Wikipedia rules and guidelines can appear, to new users; and I truly hope you don't feel "pounced upon". I moved the discussion to the talk, to get more opinions, in a very genuine wish to get a discussion going; I see that, as it happens, they've all supported my view, and rejected your suggestions.
This sort of thing can often discourage new Wikipedians - so much so, we even have a page about it, WP:BITE.
I absolutely abhor scaring off new users, and I go to enormous lengths to make them as welcome as possible; therefore, I am genuinely concerned that you feel "bitten" at this time; that the entrenched community has pounced upon you.
I really hope that is not the case, but it would be a perfectly normal reaction. I hope you will stick with us, and continue to show such openness to discussion as you have, thus far.
With respect, Chzz ► 22:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Reliable sources.
See WP:IRS - Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. You need a reliable, published source.
Also see WP:VERIFY - To show that it is not original research, all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. But in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question. Geoff B (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you're incapable of understanding the policies of Wikipedia, you shouldn't be editing it. Geoff B (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Geoff B (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
If you had bothered to take more than a cursory glance at the pages I linked you to, instead of merely looking for an excuse to include your unsourced information, you would have seen this. Inline citations are what you need to use. You cannot use your emails. Geoff B (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Read the policies again. I think you'll find there's no "need" about it... Alexandrews (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Alexandrews, you are misinterpreting some policies and guidelines.
- As an encyclopaedia, we do not publish anything new. We only publish material that has already been published elsewhere. Everything in Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources.
- "In practice not everything need actually be attributed" refers to things such as, "The Earth is round", or "...in London, which is in England". It does not refer to any claims, and particularly not for claims about people.
- References must be available for the reader to check. That's why books, newspapers, and some websites (which have a 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy') can be used. People - word-of-mouth - can never be used as a reference. Chzz is 103 and won 18 Gold medals in the Olympics.<ref>Chzz</ref> is not acceptable.
- When other people remove your edits, do not repeat them. Instead, discuss it with the other users. Otherwise, we get edit-wars, which leads to articles being protected from edits, and users being blocked.
- I hope that helps clarify. If you have questions, please do ask - use a {{helpme}} here, on your talk page. But most important is, do not keep repeating edits, if other users are removing them. We work on the principles of consensus.
- Cheers, Chzz ► 13:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Chzz ► 18:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Alderley House
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Modify User Name
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please replace the code {{help me-helped}} on this page with {{help me}}, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Could an administrator modify my user name (slightly)? I'm sure when I created my account that I specified "AlexAndrews" but that this was then automatically changed to "Alexandrews". I presumed that the Wikipedia software didn't allow and therefore removed any mid-user name capitlization, but I have seen that there are users with capitals in the middle of their user name. So, I would very much like for my user name to be changed to what I originally specified, ie AlexAndrews.
I should be very grateful if my user name could be so modified.
Alexandrews (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- You can apply to change your username at WP:CHU. JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Plan of Trinity College, Oxford Grounds.jpg
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/32px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Plan of Trinity College, Oxford Grounds.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the file description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Please don't revert, without explanation, to re-insert unencyclopedic and improperly verified information. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a webhost for organizational information. Below, I will paste a templated message regarding what I think is a conflict of interest; please read it and follow the links, if necessary, because your edits suggest you have a conflict of interest and that always needs to be declared. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I did provide an explanation.
On the article's Talk page.
As the annotation you added to the article's page instructs: "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page."
I have - AT BEST - a minor conflict of interest because I happen to be a member of the Oxford Union Society. The only (significant) material I have added to the article is a more detailed (and fully sourced) explanation of the various types of membership as specified (in a fairly complex way) in the Society's Rules, which was pretty essential and was necessary because the previous material was both deficient and entirely unsourced. Other than that, I have provided references for unsourced material. I have done some rephrasing and reorganisation to improve how the article reads, but I have not added any subjective material.
Please don't destroy hours of other contributors' work without prior consultation. AlexAndrews (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, AlexAndrews. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Oxford Union, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I have now added Template:User_Oxford_Union to my user page to declare that I happen to be a life member of the Oxford Union which is, at best, a pretty minor conflict of interest and has zero bearing on any of the FACTS (not opinions) that I have referenced for the Oxford Union article. AlexAndrews (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Single article edit rate
You have made 16 revisions in 8 days to the The Merchant of Venice article. If you intend to continue modifying this article, perhaps you could draft and consider all your changes in your sandbox, and then do a single update? Thanks. Masato.harada (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Merchant of Venice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Projection. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Procedures
I noticed the edits at The Merchant of Venice but have not examined the details. Please be aware that at least superficially it appears that an edit war is occurring. Edit warring is not permitted and violations can result in a block. Regarding the plot summary (diff), please do not insert "Short" in the heading just because it has been pointed out that WP:PLOT requires a short summary. A consensus on article talk will be required to determine what is appropriate. Regarding inconsistencies and errors (diff), it is very unlikely that a list of issues in a fictional work would be acceptable at Wikipedia unless secondary reliable sources have highlighted the points as having some significance. Applicable policies are WP:DUE (is the text due?) and WP:NOR (no original research by editors). There is no need to discuss anything here. I am posting mainly to let you know that sanctions will occur if there is further edit warring, and what the applicable policies are. Johnuniq (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
April 2024
![Stop icon with clock](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Block
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Appointment_blue.svg/48px-Appointment_blue.svg.png)
AlexAndrews (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have apparently been blocked for "personal attacks" without any evidence at all of this accusation |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I have apparently been blocked for "personal attacks" without any evidence at all of this accusation |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I have apparently been blocked for "personal attacks" without any evidence at all of this accusation |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
AlexAndrews (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- You repeatedly called the good-faith contributions of other editors "vandalism", for example here and here. You were warned against such conduct here and here. This block is not just for vandalism, but also for edit warring, which you resumed soon after the protection expired at The Merchant of Venice, despite a warning here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- The so called "good-faith contributions of other editors" that you mention were the removal of encyclopedic content; the removal of encyclopedic content is the definition of vandalism. Calling a spade a spade is not a personal attack, it is simply stating a fact.
- And the alleged edit-warring that you mention is me repairing that vandalism, namely reinstating the encyclopedic content that had been wrongfully removed. How can you ban a user for repairing vandalism??? AlexAndrews (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Your understanding of vandalism is incorrect. I'm not sure that it's worth it to re-explain it to you, since I see multiple editors have already tried. I would be happy to answer specific clarifying questions.
- You are now aware that continued personal attacks of this type will result in a block. I urge you to adjust your behavior accordingly. I won't block for the above comment, but if you repeat the attacks again your block will be lengthened and you may lose talk page access. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- According to @Valereee:
@AlexAndrews, Wikipedia has a very specific definition of vandalism which is editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. You can find more information at WP:vandalism.
- So my understanding of "vandalism" - from the definition supplied by @Valereee - includes the removal of encyclopedic content from articles.
- How is my understanding of vandalism incorrect, as you say? AlexAndrews (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- The emphasis is on "deliberately". When someone removes content because they believe the article is better off without that content, it's not vandalism. You can disagree about the merits of the removal, but you can't call it "vandalism", unless you have some way of showing that their intentions were to harm the project. "Removal of encyclopedic content" is not vandalism, but "malicious removal of encyclopedic content" is. The removal you're objecting to was obviously not malicious. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- The first reason @Gråbergs Gråa Sång gave for removing the content was that I hadn't provided reliable sources for it:
Unless there are WP:RS that states "Hey, this thing in this piece of fiction is incorrect!" or "Hey, this bit is inconsistent!" it doesn't go anywhere on this website
- But that reason was false because WP:RS only applies to contentious material, which he eventually conceded the material I had added wasn't.
- The second reason @KJP1 gave was that no "expert" source had bothered to mention the facts that I had added to the article:
The point, for me, is not really whether the inconsistencies are “facts” or not, it is that no RS appear to have thought they warranted mentioning. As they haven’t, I really can’t see that the section is appropriate.
- KJP1 has drawn his own conclusion from the absence of the facts having been mentioned in RS - which is therefore original research on KJP1's part. But you can't base article content on original research, so again another false reason.
- So there has been no genuine reason for the removal of the encyclopedic content that I added, just false reasons. So the removal was based on falsehoods - ie malicious.
- It was therefore vandalism, as I said. AlexAndrews (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- The emphasis is on "deliberately". When someone removes content because they believe the article is better off without that content, it's not vandalism. You can disagree about the merits of the removal, but you can't call it "vandalism", unless you have some way of showing that their intentions were to harm the project. "Removal of encyclopedic content" is not vandalism, but "malicious removal of encyclopedic content" is. The removal you're objecting to was obviously not malicious. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)