Jump to content

User talk:Scientelensia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ToBeFree (talk | contribs) at 22:28, 13 February 2024 (→‎February 2024: forgot one point in the timeline). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/Archive1 | /Archive2 | /Archive3 | /Archive4

A plate of chocolate chip cookies.
Welcome to this talk page!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Liverpool F.C. 7–0 Manchester United F.C. (November 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanderwaalforces was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Scientelensia! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for your efforts

The Death Barnstar
For your efforts contributing to the page Palestinian genocide accusation. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you so much! Scientelensia (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad

Like i said, my bad for not pinging all but i just checked the last 2 pages of history and should have done better than that. Kante4 (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we’re all human :) Scientelensia (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged Matty but he did not even took part in the discussion and was just mentioned. That's why i picked those three editors as others didn't participate there. There was no interntion to just ping the ones who agree with me (i hate when people do that as seen at times here on wiki ;) ). Hope all is good and we can work something out at the Bellingham article. Kante4 (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All is assuredly good :)
We’ll find a solution, I’m sure! Scientelensia (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

Hello there,

Just wanted to say sorry for a comment from early October. I deeply regret having said and pre judged you which wasn't alright. I haven't really seen you around since and I hope you're ok and that you're doing well where ever you are in the world :). Homerethegreat (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that’s alright! To be honest I did not even remember when or where this conversation took place, and I bear you no ill will. From what I have seen of you since I know that you are a kind and effective editor with the best in mind :)
I hope you are well also! Scientelensia (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) I hope I can live up to your kind compliment. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is POV tag in Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. The discussion is about the topic Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. The discussion doesn't mention you specifically, because it's about the relevance (or not) of the tag, not about you specifically. Thank you. Boud (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Reactions from Wizarding World Actors in Response to JK Rowling’s Comments on Gender and Sex

Hello, Scientelensia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Reactions from Wizarding World Actors in Response to JK Rowling’s Comments on Gender and Sex".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 06:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for habitually violating WP:BLPRESTORE after a block for the same behavior. 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 ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I think this is extremely harsh given the treatment of ChurCuz, who you appear to be favouring? Surely they have done worse than I? You only focused upon the user’s contact with me, and disregarded their overall conduct. Scientelensia (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no – please.
Please have a look at WP:NOTTHEM and try again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might wonder what @Doug Weller might think of this… Scientelensia (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I did not insert the tag correctly: @Doug Weller
Scientelensia (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your objection to my reply is valid, despite your apparently somewhat *patronising* tone. I understand what you are trying to do, but I will argue that I was acting in good faith and was genuinely trying to positively contribute. Scientelensia (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the patronising tone – I recognize this – but the response was so far outside of what a guide would recommend that I lacked any other words than "no" and "please". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that, I apologise also. I merely question the fact that my block is for so long when I personally believe that I am not in the wrong. Many of my edits have been wrong in the past, but surely it was clear to you that I have moved past that and could willingly admit this? Scientelensia (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I as stated earlier recognise the fault in my actions, but I do persevere in the assertion that the one edit that I was questioning the other user about was for a justifiable and good cause… but that’s just my opinion (though it was based on what I had seen in other, more widely-visited articles). Scientelensia (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I provided much evidence that I was trying to do what was right and discuss events, yet it appears this has been disregarded. I will soon request an unblock, as I do not believe this is fair… Scientelensia (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would be more happy if your unblock request wasn't about fairness but whether there will still be a preventative need for it. All I'd personally need to unblock is a (very) credible assurance of the block lacking a preventative need because the behavior will not reoccur independently of any blocks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scientelensia Please do as requested. It will show your good faith. Doug Weller talk 19:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am willing to demonstrate my good faith, but do you agree with the severity of both my punishment and that of the other user, in relation to what you have seen? Scientelensia (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have good faith, but question the severity of the punishment when I was not the aggressor and have always tried to act with civility on this site. Scientelensia (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that such a block is not required, and I want to say that I only went too far as I felt that the other user was being hypocritical. I assure you with all my heart that the behaviour, which stopped a few days previously once I considered my actions, will not continue. Indeed, when looking at the page in question you can see that my recent edits have had edit summaries of the utmost quality. Scientelensia (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To further say: in any case, I am always willing to discuss and resolve matters, bring others into the conversation if it is too hard to handle with fewer people. I had already resolved to steer clear of wrongdoing recently, as you can see, I (albeit eventually) accepted my mistake about sourcing when it was pointed out to me by the other user. Scientelensia (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scientelensia, I should explain, with diff links, why I'm calling this "habitual", and why it is not about a specific user or conflict. Looking at your list of "undo" clicks, I find these:
After all, I wonder why I limited the block to a month; I should probably have required an unblock request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not defending my conduct, just stating that I have moved past it. If you look at my recent edits here ([51]), you can see that I have tried from henceforth to act with greater civility. I am willing to show that I have moved past the actions of this damning list above. Scientelensia (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ChurCuz is interaction banned from Scientelensia; I'll collapse this interaction that happened while I was creating the ban template. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I’m pinged here that editing has nothing to do with civility. You just went right ahead and reverted me despite engaging on the talk page you go and do it again. ChurCuz (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I gave a valid reason and explained what I was doing. I gave examples of how footballing articles are written on other pages and applied the same format.
  • I know you are not receiving much punishment for your actions, but I have outlined many instances of you not being civil.
Scientelensia (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other footballing articles are written in the same format doesn’t mean that one should be - WP:OTHERCONTENT ChurCuz (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there was nothing to distinguish this one, also, the reverse can also be applied. Because others are written in the same format, there is no reason for deviation. What reason is there that gives this specific article the right to deviation? Scientelensia (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCONTENT ChurCuz (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a reason, is it? This is basically what happened before, and this is what irritated me. @ToBeFree
You can probably see how this might be somewhat infuriating, when reversions go unexplained… (not that I perhaps have not been guilty of this in the past)… Scientelensia (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly explained it, I don’t believe it should be on the page purely because it’s on another page. And you just went ahead and reverted me even after all the discussion on the talk page. ChurCuz (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you did not explain why it should be reverted. It was different info, just in the same format as on other pages, and there was nothing wrong with it…
I don’t know how to explain to you, as I am finding difficulty in getting through… Scientelensia (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing wrong with this (!) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Darwin_Núñez&diff=prev&oldid=1206948254 Scientelensia (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, just to clarify:
This (“There was nothing wrong with this (!) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Darwin_Núñez&diff=prev&oldid=1206948254”) was part of the above collapsible interaction. Scientelensia (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. The indentation confused me but you're right. I'll move these up into the collapse template. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate these things, but what about my other concerns which I expressed? Scientelensia (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say “All I'd personally need to unblock is a (very) credible assurance of the block lacking a preventative need because the behavior will not reoccur independently of any blocks”: I am willing to show you and assure you that I will do as directed. Scientelensia (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this. I’m not trying to sound annoying, but the other user has also done many of such things and has received no punishment, hence my calls of injustice/unfairness. Would it be possible for you to reconsider what I said on Doug Weller’s talk page, as I feel I made my thoughts clearer there… May I question what other noted administrator @331dot thinks also? Scientelensia (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I know that you blocked me before, and we have history (I would plead to you to ignore this), yet if you look at the articles on my user page you can see that my efforts are mostly invested well, such as my contributions to: Yusuf Abu al-Haggag, Alexis Mac Allister, Jack Grealish and Palestinian genocide accusation, for which I received a barnstar. Scientelensia (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent action. I would request that you read through this page to hear what I have to say, as I am still unsure about the magnitude of my sanction as opposed to that of the other user, whose wrongdoing was already listed. Scientelensia (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I have pinged 331dot through an edit summary now; the type of ping used above only works if it comes together with a new signature.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. Scientelensia (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scientelensia, sorry for the slow reply and the delayed action. I was still discussing ChurCuz's behavior on Doug Weller's talk page and then placed an interaction ban. While I was typing, the above collapsed interaction happened – I'd say it confirms the need for the ban and have placed it in a green box, but as my block is being discussed, I'm not in a position to enforce this collapsing. You may freely remove the "collapse top" and "collapse bottom" templates from above; they're only a suggestion for cleanup.
Regarding the "magnitude" of the sanction, I think you're mostly referring to the duration of a month. I was, and am still, unsure about which duration is appropriate. After compiling the list above, I felt it was too short; perhaps it now seems overly harsh; I don't know. This is what unblock requests are for, I'd say: Gaining an independent review. While I may not decline such a request, I can accept it myself, and my description of what I'd personally look for before doing so (19:36, 13 February 2024) is not strictly binding.
I personally think that the best arguments for unblocking are future contributions that are currently prevented by the block. Not others' behavior and not really past contributions unrelated to the block, although you can of course refer to them as a kind of proof that your proposed future edits will actually look as promised.
In the current situation, even if all appeals are declined, you're still automatically unblocked after a month. I think if I were blocked, I'd find this a comfortable and relieving thought. Unless there is gross misbehavior during unblock discussions or an announcement of continuing equally after the block, the worst case scenario is "the block expires in March". And perhaps, if you look at the list above, we can agree that this duration is at least not proportional to the duration of the behavior the block is meant to prevent. There was a two-week block before; why would the current block change this behavior in less than a day where a two-week block failed to do so? That's perhaps the main question to be explained if an earlier unblock should happen, and {{unblock}} (not individual administrator pings) is the default way for doing so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scientelensia&oldid=1207072956"