User talk:AlexAndrews

Your submission at Articles for creation

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)

You have new messages

Hello, AlexAndrews. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 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

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

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

Hello, AlexAndrews. You have new messages at Zachlipton's talk page.
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)" ==

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)

You have new messages

Hello, AlexAndrews. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 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.

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)

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:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. 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)

You have new messages

Hello, AlexAndrews. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  18:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Alderley House

Hello, AlexAndrews. You have new messages at Gene93k's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Modify User Name

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

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:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. 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

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Oxford Union

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

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for personal attacks and edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AlexAndrews (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have apparently been blocked for "personal attacks" without any evidence at all of this accusation

Decline reason:

You have, indeed, been making personal attacks, and I see below you have not agreed to stop, so I am declining this request. There is some useful information in WP:Guide to appealing blocks, if you want to try again to get this block lifted early. If not, then if you just wait for it to expire but continue the approach you're using now, you'll just be blocked again. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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)

In short, the contributions were not "good-faith" as you stated. AlexAndrews (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Unblock #2

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AlexAndrews (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been accused of apparently making "personal attacks". I have pointed out that encyclopedic content I have added has been removed based on falsehoods, ie for bad-faith reasons - the direct opposite to the reason #Firefangledfeathers gave for blocking me.
Why have I been blocked for other users acting in bad faith???

Decline reason:

Doubling down on previous behavior is not one or the recommended appeal procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This has been explained to you by several people now. I am going to block you indefinitely and remove talk page access if you continue to post ridiculous unblock requests. Time spent by admins reviewing unblock requests is valuable, as is time spent by editors trying to answer your questions and explain how you are interpreting policies wrong. You will not be allowed to further waste anyone's time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Although you've been here for over a decade, you've only made 388 edits. I would ask that you take some time to reflect on what a range of editors have been trying to tell you. Basically, you want to make two additions/amendments to the Merchant article - having both short and long Plot summaries, and adding a Plot inconsistencies and factual errors section. For a variety of valid reasons, at least five other editors don't support making these changes. No one but you currently does. Therefore, your additions were reverted to the last version that enjoyed broad support. That is the essence of Wikipedia:Consensus, which is how we reach decisions here. You dismiss this consensus as Groupthink, re-revert, throw around accusations of "bad faith" and "vandalism", and start a hopeless Wikipedia:Administrative action review. All this has led to your current block. Can you try and reflect on this, and understand why your current approach is unproductive? KJP1 (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Editors have not given valid reasons. That is the point. If there were legitimate grounds for opposing my changes, I would be perfectly happy to accept them - as I did with the removal of the efns.

But I don't understand how editors can be allowed to defeat the express purpose of Wikipedia by arbitrarily removing encyclopedic content from an article just because they personally don't want that encyclopedic content included.

Consensus can't legitimise illegitimate actions. That is mob rule - which is anarchy. AlexAndrews (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued personal attacks and the stated intention to continue edit warring.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that a temporary block was not enough to stop this misconduct. Do not continue to label good-faith edits as vandalism here, or your user talk page access will be revoked. I am open to unblocking if you express some understanding of the issue and commit to avoid it in the future. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Indefinite ban

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AlexAndrews (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been banned indefinitely for pointing out that the removal of encyclopedic content from an article directly contravenes the express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia, namely to be a complete source of encyclopedic content:

the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.

On his talk page, @Johnuniq has recognised that I am adding encyclopedic content to an article, but that for some reason other editors don't want that article to include the encyclopedic content I have added:

It is evident that you want to add what you believe to be good encyclopedic content to an article. The problem is that others disagree.

Their disagreement directly contradicts the express purpose of Wikipedia.
How can editors be allowed to defeat the express purpose of Wikipedia?
Or is this not really Wikipedia??? AlexAndrews (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You seem to think that, as long as an editor believes that something is encyclopedic content, that it can be present in an article and no one else can disagree or remove it, and anyone removing it should be deemed a vandal. That's a recipe for anarchy, not consensus. Editors discuss content and how Wikipedia policies may or may not apply to it- and sometimes even agree to disregard Wikipedia policies when editors generally agree there is a benefit to doing so. If discussion and consensus are too chaotic for you, this is the wrong project for you. That doesn't make you a bad person- this sort of environment isn't for everyone. Perhaps there is another encyclopedia writing project out there that is more to your liking- one that allows contributions from others but less opportunity to edit them. Regardless, you've given no reason to remove the block on you in this request, so I am declining it. I'm not yet ready to remove your talk page access, but consider your next move very carefully. It certainly will be removed if you continue to double down on your actions and views. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To quote what I have observed in another topic on this talk page:

Consensus can't legitimise illegitimate actions. That is mob rule - which is anarchy.

AlexAndrews (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:SCOPE, WP:BALASP, not that it matters. The question isn't content, it's your conduct. To quote somebody, "...If in pursuit of your destination, you plunge ahead heedless of obstacles, and achieve nothing more than to sink in a swamp... what's the use of knowing true north?" If you are not trolling, which it's beginning to look like you are, see WP:1AM, and carefully pick your next move. You have already been warned by admins that you are about to lose access to this talk page. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:SCOPE:

This is an essay.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

So not a policy.

WP:BALASP:

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject ...

Note the policy says "should not" not "must not".

It also states that "an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects". The addition I made of the errors topic gave no weight whatsoever to the existence of those errors: "The plot of the play contains what appears to be a number of inconsistencies and factual errors."

WP:VANDAL

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy.
On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: 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.

So it is a breach of policy to remove encyclopedic content from articles. AlexAndrews (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

(responding to ping) What I said about "adding encyclopedic content" was "It is evident that you want to add what you believe to be good encyclopedic content to an article." Johnuniq (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Indefinite block #2

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AlexAndrews (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@331dot has declined my previous unblock request on the following grounds:

You seem to think that, as long as an editor believes that something is encyclopedic content, that it can be present in an article and no one else can disagree or remove it, and anyone removing it should be deemed a vandal. That's a recipe for anarchy, not consensus.

His assertion that "You seem to think that, as long as an editor believes that something is encyclopedic content, that it can be present in an article and no one else can disagree or remove it" is incorrect. What I actually think is that if material IS encyclopedic content then it can be present and must not be removed (=censorship). To repeat an earlier comment I made, WP:VANDAL:

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: 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.

So it is a breach of policy to remove encyclopedic content from articles. What's more, nobody has denied that the material I added to the article is encyclopedic content. Had it not been encyclopedic content, I would not have added it, and if an editor disputed that it was encyclopedic content then "citation needed" tags should have been applied to the relevant part of the material - and that part of the material subsequently removed if no citation were provided.

@331dot then went on to say:

Editors discuss content and how Wikipedia policies may or may not apply to it- and sometimes even agree to disregard Wikipedia policies when editors generally agree there is a benefit to doing so.

So some editors do not abide by policy??? So what exactly is the purpose of POLICY???
If groups of editors can agree not to abide by policy, then that is mob rule. And THAT is anarchy.
So I repeat yet again: I have been indefinitely blocked for abiding by policy and then complaining that I had been blocked for abiding by policy.

Decline reason:

This unblock request takes no accountability for poor behavior. This block will not be lifted until you convince Wikipedia administrators that you understand why your behavior was not policy complaint (hint: read the block explanations by the blocking administrator) and why it bothered other editors, and show some genuine growth and self-reflection. Accusations of censorship are completely missing the point, because you weren't blocked for the content of your edits, you were blocked for your behavior towards other editors. WP:WIKILAWYERING is quite patronizing to the experienced administrators reviewing your unblock requests; you do not need to lecture us on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which you are (in my opinion) misinterpreting due to lack of experience. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

AlexAndrews (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: if the consensus conflicts with policy, then the policy needs to be amended appropriately, not arbitrarily disregarded. That is the correct process - not a group of editors taking the law into their own hands. AlexAndrews (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep, this isn't the place for you. Policies are policies, they are not commandments written in stone, but you seem to think they should be. Here, the spirit of the policy is more important than the letter. What matters most is improving the project, and if a policy prevents an improvement as determined by a consensus of editors, then it is disregarded. Doing that can lead to formal changes in policy, but not necessarily- many things here are done by convention, not based on written policies, in order to avoid writing everything down.

The larger point here is that you thinking an edit is proper is not enough reason for it to exist- you must make a case and convince others if they disagree. Sometimes that doesn't work, and if so, that needs to be accepted. If that's not how you want to operate- how this project has operated for over 20 years- then you should withdraw your request. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@331dot you said:

Policies are policies, they are not commandments written in stone

Indeed, from WP:PILLARS:

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time.

So if the consensus is that a policy should be amended it can be amended - as I said. But simply disregarding an established policy is the definition of anarchy:

1. a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.

— Google

However, the purpose of the project is axiomatic, ie it IS carved in stone. And that purpose is to provide a complete source of encyclopedic content:

On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: 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.

To defeat the axiomatic purpose of the project is ABSOLUTE anarchy - from WP:PILLARS:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a social network, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, ...

So please stop making it an anarchy.

The larger point here is that you thinking an edit is proper is not enough reason for it to exist- you must make a case and convince others if they disagree.

And that is exactly the point: nobody has claimed that the material I added was not encyclopedic - because it was (ie non-contentious, informative, and educational). As @Novem Linguae said: "... because you weren't blocked for the content of your edits ..."

The removal of encyclopedic content from an article because "some people happen not to like it" is censorship. That is the definition:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".

— Google

And censorship is how you promote prejudice and propaganda.

What matters most is improving the project

Exactly what I am doing. Or at least TRYING VERY HARD to do. AlexAndrews (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

AA, I'm going to try one more time: there is only one thing you should be thinking about right now, and it's explained at WP:GAB.

You were blocked because you were making personal attacks and you were edit warring. Period. It has nothing to do with content, so quoting content policy is at best irrelevant and at worst is digging the hole deeper.

In the discussion of your block, it does not matter whether your preferred content should or should not be kept. That literally has no relevance here in this discussion; this is about behavior. Admins do not care whether you're right about content. Admins don't make content decisions. Admins deal only with behavior. What admins care about is the edit-warring and the personal attacks. No admin will unblock you if you do not focus solely and completely on those two behavioral issues and how you intend to avoid repeating them going forward. Valereee (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

V, I was blocked because I (correctly) identified vandalism (as per its definition on WP) - which was then wrongfully classified as "personal attacks" - and then repaired that vandalism - which was then wrongfully classified as "edit warring". Facts are facts. And spin is spin. As I believe Winston Chirchill said:

United wishes and good will cannot overcome brute facts. Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is.

AlexAndrews (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Indefinite Block #3

@Novem Linguae refused my previous unblock request, citing my "behaviour towards other editors" as the grounds:

Accusations of censorship are completely missing the point, because you weren't blocked for the content of your edits, you were blocked for your behavior towards other editors.

And in my original block discussion, @Firefangledfeathers elaborated that he had blocked me for (a) classifying the removal of encyclopedic content as vandalism:

You repeatedly called the good-faith contributions of other editors "vandalism"

And for (b) repairing that vandalism by reinstating the encyclopedic content that had been removed:

This block is not just for vandalism, but also for edit warring

I had spent quite a lot of time adding encyclopedic content (material thst was non-contentious, informative, and educational) to The Merchant of Venice article to improve it. Nobody has claimed that the content was not encyclopedic.
According to WP:VANDAL, the axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia is to be a complete source of encyclopedic content:

the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.

WP:VANDAL also clearly defines "vandalism" as being the act of defeating the purpose of Wikipedia in being a complete source of encyclopedic content:

On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: 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.

Removing encyclopedic content from articles self-evidently defeats the purpose of Wikipedia in being a complete source of encyclopedic content, and therefore by definition constitutes "vandalism".

It was therefore perfectly accurate for me to describe the removal of encyclopedic content from The Merchant of Venice article as "vandalism".

I subsequently repaired that vandalism by reinstating the encyclopedic content that had been wrongfully removed; it is wrong to classify repairing vandalism as "edit-warring".

The "behaviour towards other editors" cited as the first ground for my block was therefore actually the identification of vandalism, while the "edit warring" cited as the second ground for my block was therefore actually the repair of that vandalism.

I have therefore been given an indefinite block for (a) identifying vandalism, and (b) repairing that vandalism. That is not right. AlexAndrews (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)