User talk:.Raven/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Orphaned non-free image File:The Untold Tales of Little Crowbone.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Untold Tales of Little Crowbone.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Your edit to Draft:William E. Pomeranz has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Diannaa:: (1) I had in fact invited help screening this draft for copyvio, so the above threat was utterly unnecessary.

(2) I am not able to see which text you removed for which reason because all those diffs have been removed/made invisible.

(3) I had never seen the Amazon item you indicated. I had rephrased (and cited) Wilson Center articles and Pomeranz's own book, e.g. regarding his on-news-media commentary and analysis. The Amazon item apparently quoted Pomeranz's "About the author" verbatim (without citation).

Cited Pomeranz book "About the author": He is a frequent commentator on current developments in Russia, providing analysis for [list] and other media outlets.

Wilson1: Pomeranz is frequently interviewed on TV and radio, and his analysis has appeared....

Wilson2: He also has provided commentary and conducted numerous press interviews with [list] and other media outlets.

My edit: He frequently provides analysis and commentary on current events in Russia for [list] and other media. [I was trying to wikilink the listed names when I ran into your edit.]

Amazon.ca: He is a frequent commentator on current developments in Russia, providing analysis for [list] and other media outlets.

When anyone lists the media he's been on, necessarily it covers the same ground; that list cannot have been copyrighted by Amazon, especially since theirs was a verbatim quote. (Cf. "facts that were discovered", rather than the result of a creative expression or judgment, in copyright law — see Feist v. Rural regarding phonebook info.) If there's any fact you removed due to the Amazon item that isn't in the Pomeranz book or the Wilson Center articles, then please tell me.

(4) I now feel unsafe covering any of the removed facts, because someone somewhere may also have reported them using similar rephrasing — or merely quoted the same source verbatim — and this will be marked "copyvio" with the above-threatened penalty. I do not think this was the intent of our copyvio policy; am I wrong? "Columbus discovered the New World in 1492"; only so many ways to say that, and doubtless they've been used already; yet we still need to be able to say that.

(5) Is it even safe to say "He frequently provides analysis and commentary on current events in Russia for news media." (Citing Pomeranz, William E. (2018). "About the author". Law and the Russian State: Russia’s Legal Evolution from Peter the Great to Vladimir Putin. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-4742-2422-2.), without Amazon having a claim to that? – _•Raven  ^.talk 16:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello .Raven.

1. I did see your post at Eran's talk page, but he is unlikely to help you re-write the content, as he is mostly active on the Hebrew Wikipedia.
2. I did revision deletion of the edits that contain the copyright content; that's why you can't see them any more.
3. Regarding the material I found at Amazon ("He frequently provides analysis and commentary on current developments in Russia for CNN, NBC, NPR, Reuters, Bloomberg, and other media"): The question is not where Amazon got the content; instead I need to ask, where did you get that unsourced detail?
4. There's no need to rephrase job titles, names of schools, or the like. In fact the current version of your draft still has quite a bit of overlap with the Wilson Center webpage, as you can see by this report.
5. No, you should not add that, as it's nearly identical to content already published in at least two places. Just say he's a political analyst. Cite your source. — Diannaa (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Diannaa: 1. That was also the (redirected) talk page for User:EranBot, which does copyvio screening, and I'd noticed it was frequented by human users who do likewise. IOW, a good place to ask.

2. Yes, but as a result I still don't know which text you removed for which reason, as you are not telling me.

3. I told you in my prior reply, quoted each source (three different phrasings), even linked the "About the author" section on Pomeranz's book page for ease of finding it. My phrasing was a different, fourth, way to communicate the same factual information. Amazon merely quoted that original section verbatim, which gives it no copyright on that quote.

4. The red-highlighted marks on that report are job and book and article titles, journal and organization names, and wikilinked wikiarticle topics like "Russian history" and "Russian law" — precisely the sort of thing you just said there's no need to rephrase. Please make up your mind.

5. "... it's nearly identical to content already published in at least two places. ... Cite your source."
(a) It is rephrased. The basic fact is not copyrightable. I welcome other rephrases.
(b) I had cited the book already, then in my last reply I specified and linked the site's section. Here it is again: Pomeranz, William E. (2018). "About the author". Law and the Russian State: Russia’s Legal Evolution from Peter the Great to Vladimir Putin. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-4742-2422-2. — How is that NOT "citing a source"?

6 (new). What we are down to is the names of news media, and of academic journals, where he or his work has appeared. Each of them has wikiarticles, which is why they can be wikilinked. How did lists of such things become copyrighted to the extent that I cannot name them in an article? – _•Raven  ^.talk 13:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online or in a book is copyright. You added the content "He frequently provides analysis and commentary on current developments in Russia for CNN, NBC, NPR, Reuters, Bloomberg, and other media" to the article without citing a source. You've now stated that you copied it from a book. That's not okay, as you've made no effort to paraphrase or re-order the content to comply with our copyright rules. If you're copying lists from your sources, please make an effort to paraphrase or at the very minimum alphabetize or re-order the list so that the content is not identical to your source, and leave out or alter the surrounding prose. — Diannaa (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Diannaa: "You've now stated that you copied it from a book. That's not okay, as you've made no effort to paraphrase..."
Once more, I did not state that I "copied" article text from a book; I said I had rephrased a cited source (and actually phrased it differently from the three cited sources stating the same fact). Where I did copy text was above in my first reply to you: the parallel texts, each truncated to be less than a full sentence and show the differences in phrasing... or the non-difference, where Amazon quoted verbatim from the Pomeranz book's "About the author" section. All that makes two of your claims quoted above flatly false to fact; misrepresentations. As I previously had to correct you on (mis)reading both my text and the copyvios.toolforge report, and you persisted in attributing copyright to Amazon after being shown they had merely quoted verbatim my cited source, I am now in doubt whether you do, can, or are willing to read carefully for understanding. My trust is gone. I am willing to merge list items from the Wilson articles in this case, but honest-to-goodness such a policy is stretching things. Many things are listed in a logical order for the context (alphabetical, numeric, chronological, geographical — like cities one passes traveling east-to-west on a highway); and re-ordering such lists gives false information. Note that predominantly real-world news agencies with online aspects "CNN, NBC, NPR, Reuters" are listed first and already in alphabetical order; chiefly online medium "Bloomberg" comes after that, alone. This is a logical order; putting "Bloomberg" ahead of any of the others would understate their footing. NOT using alphabetical order for the real-world group would raise the question of my basis for choosing a different order, i.e. was I expressing an opinion about their importance or market share, or...? – _•Raven  ^.talk 19:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how we can hold a conversation if we can't even agree on the definition of "alphabetical". I won't be responding here any further. If you have any questions about copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia, please consider one of the other people on this list. — Diannaa (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Diannaa: *sigh* Sorting is not in itself a "copyright" issue; it is an information-organizing issue. Here we have two sublists, separated by media type, alphabetical within sublist.

If I were to list US states and cities with particular issues, would it make more sense to alphabetize them all together, or as two sublists separately alphabetized?

Alabama, Boston, California, Delaware, Evansville, Florida, Galveston?

...or...

Alabama, California, Delaware, Florida; Boston, Evansville, Galveston?

– _•Raven  ^.talk 23:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shade Rupe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Funeral party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, because the publication has no article. But added a brief-description line of that [non-wikilinked] publication TO the disambiguation page, and wikilinked the editor (Shade Rupe)'s name there because I had at least one other place to link Funeral Party. – _•Raven  ^.talk 07:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Racist use of "tribe" to mean "primitive"

Your last couple sources are not RS. They reflect exactly the kind of inherited racist trope -- that primitive nations are "tribes" (even if they're not tribal) -- that I'm fighting against. If the Asmat are a tribe, as per that source, then so are the Germans. (I don't know offhand if the Asmat are tribal, but if they are they consist of multiple tribes. The nation is not the tribe.) — kwami (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: 1) A people or nation that consists of multiple tribes would still qualify for 'Category:Tribes [of...]', as then the constituent tribes would be the "tribes [of...]" of the category name.

2) You are simply projecting a "racist use of 'tribe' to mean 'primitive'". The word "tribe" has an article explaining its meaning; so does tribe (Native American); read them, then tell me where that's part of either definition.

3) Apparently you find *any* source that uses the word "tribe" to be therefore racist and not an RS. You must really have a quarrel with the *referents* of "Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Indians", "Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley", "Coquille Indian Tribe", "Delaware Tribe of Indians", "Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma", "Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe", "Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska", "Hoh Indian Tribe of the Hoh Indian Reservation", "Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma", "Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe of Washington", "Karuk Tribe", "Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony", and "Mohegan Tribe" (by no means a complete list, see "List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States"). Also see State-recognized tribes in the United States — "Accohannock Indian Tribe", "Beaver Creek Indian Tribe", "Cheroenhaka (Nottoway) Indian Tribe", etc. Your work of renaming should begin with them.

4) What do "tribal governments" govern? E.g. "Hopi#Tribal_government", "Resighini Rancheria#Tribal Government", "Zuni_Indian_Reservation#Tribal_government". How do they have tribal sovereignty in the United States? (By your "primitive brain" claim, they wouldn't have the capacity of self-rule.)

You really are at odds with the real-world occurrence of the term. Fight your "fight" in the real-world; don't make Wikipedia your battleground. WP:SOAPBOX, WP:BATTLE. – _•Raven  ^.talk 03:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Theban alphabet

Another version of the original chart

I found another printing of the original Latin Polygraphia at the Library of Congress website: https://www.loc.gov/item/32017914/. It includes a chart of the Theban alphabet which clearly shows the final character as W, not an ampersand or end-of-sentence mark. The W is even in a different color ink, so clearly not part of the Theban character (as interpreted by Barrett, Fuzzypeg, and others). It looks like the ampersand interpretation comes from a 1561 French translation by Gabriel de Collange. The letter W wasn't used at the time in French, so it makes sense that he would have misread it as an old-style ampersand (see figure 4 in File:Historical_ampersand_evolution.svg). The W had only recently been added to the Latin alphabet (initially in English and Germanic areas), so it didn't yet have a standard position in the alphabet. Thus it makes sense that Trithemius would have tacked it onto the end of the chart. The chart that we are currently using in the article has unclear provenance, as the book it was taken from has been mysteriously removed from the Internet Archive. If you manage to find it anywhere else, let me know. Nosferattus (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the chart we are using in the article comes from this 1600 reprinting: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Polygraphiae_libri_VI/mrZzmb0fMhoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA597. That's actually the exact copy of the book our chart comes from with the same stains and marks. So I think the chart above from the Library of Congress's copy is actually the original original chart (and perhaps best reflects Trithemius's original letter shapes). It's too bad it's such a messy printing with all that bleedthru, though. I actually prefer the 1600 version for the article. Nosferattus (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nosferattus: I think I have enough GIMP-fu to produce a bleedthru-free version of this pic. Would that be acceptable for use in an article? – _•Raven  ^.talk 21:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) (PS: Good detective work!)

As long as the cleaned-up version is clearly stated as such, and you do a copyright waver of the altered document when you upload it to the Commons. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

One more version of the original chart

@Nosferattus:, @Orangemike: Will this do? ... BTW, note the stylistic differences between this 1518 version and the 1613 reprint currently shown on Theban alphabet, e.g. in the small mark distinguishing "e" from "a", or the disappearance of the left-hook on "w"; numerous loops are open in 1518, closed in 1613 — by serifs, it would seem, so that may not have counted to the writers (just as our joining a double-t, "tt", with one cross-stroke does not make them a single letter). – _•Raven  ^.talk 07:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nosferattus: The chart you mention being used in the article seems actually to come from this 1613 reprint — https://www.google.com/books/edition/Libri_polygraphiae_VI/aN-uEaXeZN0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA597 — but it appears identical in text to the 1600 version, though the latter's page background is lighter. Should we use the 1600 version itself in the article, just for the date's sake? or for the lighter background's sake? – _•Raven  ^.talk 12:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Nice work! Yeah, I switched out the 1600 reprint for the 1613 one a few days ago just because the 1613 reprint was a lot sharper, but otherwise identical. Nosferattus (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Excellent, Raven! You did us proud, bro. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Deleted by Kwamikagami

What "simple statements" do you feel I misunderstood? – _•Raven  ^.talk 06:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That I said the word 'tribe' was racist, and that it was a racist trope to note that a modern people dated to before 476. You're clearly not processing what I wrote. — kwami (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I quoted you verbatim (word-for-word): "So, for example, do you have any evidence that the Khoekhoe or Ket as a distinct people date to before 476? If so, please share. Otherwise you're just buying in to racist tropes." Now THAT has to refer to the word "ancient", because 476 has nothing to do with "tribe"; so "ancient" is a "racist trope"?!

And earlier you'd insisted that the "Swagap people" article's only footnote was not just non-RS but racist ("Your last couple sources are not RS. They reflect exactly the kind of inherited racist trope...."), when all it had done was use the word "tribe". (How did it get used, and survive until now?) So "tribe" is a "racist trope"?

You've argued "I do have a problem calling nations "tribes" just because we judge them to be primitive...." — when there's no indication the term was used for that reason. You've repeated the accusation of "racist" without warrant. How can I assume your good will when you neither assume that nor show it? – _•Raven  ^.talk 07:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

______________________________

Yes, the Navajo article is in error. Not uncommon on WP. Which is why we don't self-ref WP and call it a RS. Please read WP:RS. — kwami (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

YOU made the assertion that "... WP capitalizes 'Tribe' only for the US...." — so I pointed to WP articles obviously NOT doing that. Direct, relevant evidence, not for an article but for this talkpage discussion. Now you want to disallow WP as a class of evidence, when that was exactly what you'd made the (false) claim of fact about. How disingenuous.

'"Yes, the Navajo article is in error." And all the other WP pages also not capitalizing the common noun "tribe" other than at the start of a sentence, or in a name/title? They're all in error, for not doing what YOU said they'd done? YOUR own claim was not in error, despite being visibly false to fact?

Oh, I see you want to close the thread now. No wonder. – _•Raven  ^.talk 07:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on disallowing use of the ʻokina in Chinese romanized article titles

There is currently a discussion that may interest you. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Disallowing use of the ʻokina in Chinese romanized article titles proposes that the ʻokina gennerally be prohibited from article titles derived from Chinese whenever it does not adhere to the English Wikipedia policy to use commonly recognizable names. Plese join the discussion. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Peaceray: Thank you. Should I say more there? – _•Raven  ^.talk 17:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's let others weigh in. Peaceray (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Script vs alphabet

Per our naming conventions, a set of written symbols is a script. The application of a script to a particular language is an alphabet (or whatever). Cf. Latin script and Latin alphabet, Arabic script and Arabic alphabet, Cyrillic script and Russian alphabet. If you wish to be precise, you could say "alphabetic script".

And no, the standard abbreviation for century in English is "c.", not "C". — kwami (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

> "... a set of written symbols is a script." - Yes, but that applies both to alphabets and non-alphabetic scripts, e.g. ideographic (such as written Chinese), syllabaries (Japanese kana), abjads (Hebrew, Arabic), and abugidas (Ethiopian Ge'ez). "Alphabet" is the more specific term; it refers to the type of sounds represented by the symbols, not any specific language or set of languages. The Old English Latin alphabet was a different alphabet due to having letters not in either the ancient or the modern Latin alphabet (Wynn Ƿƿ, Eth Ðð, Thorn Þþ, and the AE ligature Ææ), although there was massive overlap and the Old English language can be transcribed in both; cf. Middle-English's Yogh Ȝȝ. Likewise Theban had massive overlap in sound-values with the "Old" Latin alphabet... but had the W not found there and not familiar to the French (which is why the French translation took it for an ampersand)... yet is still missing the J and V of the modern alphabet. It completely corresponds to neither the old nor the new Latin (English) alphabet; it is different from both (as the Welsh and Esperanto alphabets differ from the English alphabet, not merely because different languages use them, but because they have different sets of letters). Encrypting English in Theban requires letting I also represent J, and letting U also represent V. (These two you may say were also true of the Old-Latin alphabet, but then what of the W?) This is its own discrete set of letters; its own alphabet. – _•Raven  ^.talk 01:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

> "... The standard abbreviation for century in English is 'c.', not 'C'." - If you insist on using "c.", then also use the ordinal number: "16th c.", not "16 c.". The shorter cardinal number is used with capital "C" and no space: "16C". – _•Raven  ^.talk 01:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I see you reverted my reversion two minutes before you posted here. It's supposed to be Bold, Revert, Discuss — not Bold, Revert, Counter-revert, Discuss. Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply: • No article exists at the new target title; • There has been no discussion (especially no recent discussion) about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move. / If you disagree with such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move. / Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. [Boldface added] – _•Raven  ^.talk 02:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion at Talk:Theban script#Requested move 3 April 2023. Raven: You may want to make an official vote there so that your opinion is counted by whoever closes the discussion. Nosferattus (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Magical alphabets

Would you be interested in working on an article about magical alphabets? There are several books on this topic: [1][2][3]. I think having such an article would boost our chances of being able to classify these writing systems as "alphabets", but more importantly it would fill a void in Wikipedia's coverage of occult topics. Nosferattus (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd be delighted. Some of the taller and wider-paged books on magic(k) use those large pages for such charts – I'm thinking of the late Raymond Buckland's Complete Book of Witchcraft (1986) (figure 3.9, "Theban alphabet", is the Francis Barrett version), and Oberon Zell-Ravenheart's Grimoire for the Apprentice Wizard (2004) (Magickal alphabets on pp. 144–146) — though he calls Theban both "the Theban runes" and "the Witches' alphabet", he refers to both the "Ogham alphabet" and a "Celtic Tree alphabet". [I've always thought of Ogham as forming trees, you read it from down to up, and it fits that the bardic "Battle of the Trees" was a war of words!] – _•Raven  ^.talk 14:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Awesome! I created a draft in userspace. Feel free to edit it boldly! Nosferattus (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it's ready to move into article space? Nosferattus (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

As a stub, maybe. We can probably lengthen the list of examples, and I think we should have some more exposition (though my head is blank right now as to what) after that list. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

edit-warring

There is an on-going discussion on these articles, which you are engaged in. Wait for them to resolve rather than edit-warring. I attempted to make a compromise; if you don't like it, restore the status quo ante.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — kwami (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

> "There is an on-going discussion on these articles, which you are engaged in." – There is on-going discussion on Move Requests for those articles, which does not bar anyone involved from editing their text; it hasn't stopped you, has it?
This warning is ultimately ironic, since you have repeatedly reverted good edits, leaving articles worse off than you found them, e.g.:
(1) Your reversion of my text on the Osmanya article removed an RS citation, either deleted or munged urls on external references (in one case removing the anchor to the specific section relevant to the article, and changing the correct "https" to an incorrect "http"), even deleted the helpful hint "(load included fonts to see the characters)", all with the comment "rv: turning the article into a mess". (Well, true, you accomplished that.) Not helpful to the encyclopedia!
(2) Likewise your reversion on the Bassa Vah article, commenting "rv. making a mess of the article, deleting refs, adding unneeded POINTy refs to the lead, etc.", is what deleted one ref and unformatted others; now two refs are bare URLs. Again, not helpful to the encyclopedia! If I fix those problems again, you call it "edit-warring" on my part, ignoring your own reversions of reversions in page moves (move‑warring per WP:RMUM).
(3) On 12 April you entirely deleted Magnesium from the "Mundane elements and later metals" list in 'Alchemical symbols', commenting "fails verification" with no other details. (Above and below that spot, such mundane elements as Bismuth, Cobalt, Manganese, and Nickel remained.) Not helpful! On 14 April I restored it, after finding character 26A9 marked, yes, "Magnesium" in a Unicode chart, i.e. your stated reason was disproven with an easy glance at an obvious source – which I cited in a well-formatted ref, commenting "restore Magnesium to the list, with ref.". Less than an hour-and-a-half later that day, you reverted, this time commenting "rv: claim has since been retracted; magnesium hadn't yet been discovered" – a new and ludicrously false claim which I refuted citing two RSs in the article, and commenting "Wrong: the *pure metal* was isolated in 1808; the alchemists' substance was the material magnesia alba, a term applied to one of the five minerals from Ancient Magnesia reported by Pliny, later naming a residue of the medieval process for producing saltpeter, per this article written *1975*: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00033797600200231". This restored the status quo ante of having Magnesium on the list. Rather than accept correction of your historically ignorant claim, you brought this complaint here later the same day. Apparently you want your mistakes privileged.
(4) I've also seen how far back your pattern of edit-and-move-warring goes (at least), attempting to enforce your zany POV that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are only one lake, definitely not a consensus view. Let's bring all the above to whatever forum you choose. – .Raven  ^.talk 13:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't be a troll. — kwami (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If you don't say what you're talking about, I can't tell what you're talking about. And if you're just going to play the troll, stay off my talk page. — kwami (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, you're clearly acting the troll, and not willing to engage in honest discussion. Stay off my talk page or I'll ask to have you blocked. — kwami (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

How peculiar. Warning you about behavior you've actually engaged in (e.g. your violations of WP:BRD, WP:AGF, & WP:NPA) is "trolling" in your view; while your assertion up top that page move requests bar my editing article texts is... what? Clearly not truthful. You've been around long enough to know better, so I can't put it down to simple ignorance. – .Raven  ^.talk 14:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — kwami (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Magnesium

The magnesium definition was in Unicode 4.1 to 5.2, but had been removed by 6.0. Its origin was the Swedish edition of Liungman (1995) Dictionary of Symbols, which is not a RS; Unicode removed that definition after feedback from the Newton Chymistry Project. So, a non-RS based on a non-RS that has since retracted the claim. If you're able to find a RS for a symbol for magnesium, by all means share it. — kwami (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

> "Unicode removed that definition after feedback from the Newton Chymistry Project. So, a non-RS based on a non-RS that has since retracted the claim." – How very interesting an assertion. "The Chymistry of Isaac Newton" Project's URL, http://chymistry.org, resolves to https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton, which oddly enough is the source of the PDF I originally cited at Alchemical symbol (currently footnote 6): https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/fonts/Alchemy%20Unicode%20Proposal---March%2031%202009.pdf – the very cite you deleted here. So is Indiana University's Newton Chymistry Project an RS or not?

And... are you able to cite and link an RS of that retraction? Given that you have steadfastly refused my repeated requests for an RS supporting your claim that the term "Theban alphabet" is "inaccurate", I won't hold my breath. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I've thanked you by click, and now thank you in text, for your addition of the chart from Histoire de la pharmacie a travers les ages by Louis Reutter de Rosemont (Peyronnet, 1931). I trust we both noticed the eighth item there, Magnesia, and its symbol. – .Raven  ^.talk 19:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Warning 2

Again, if your edits are reverted, as on N'Ko script, take it to talk.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — kwami (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

You're playing stupid (again). Once more and I'll file a 3RR complaint at ANI. Though that's a pain in the ass, so I'd prefer not to. — kwami (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Your own warning template says "please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted." Yet you have done precisely that, repeatedly, when yours was the removal of relevant RS content, and you've cited no RS to controvert it. Do you not understand the rules you thump at others, or do you simply feel they don't apply to you? – .Raven  ^.talk 05:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Ironic, since you have already reverted RS citations three times, and even the wikilinking of West Africa, which ought to have been entirely uncontroversial. As noted on your previous warning, you then cited a nonexistent rule (that editing an article's body text isn't allowed while a page move request is underway). Now you have again templated a regular when you yourself are reverting twice in one day... and when "rv. troll" again states a false premise. It's clear you feel very, very strongly that yours are the only correct edits... but this is not how Wikipedia works. You should cite RSs to make your case, and seek consensus, not bludgeon other editors with insults, threats, and false-premise deletions. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, you've reverted three times just today, in about an hour-and-a-half, with not a valid reason nor an RS citation in the set. This after telling me: "If you want to restore any improvements you made, I have no problem with that." Clearly what you said didn't express what you intended to do about it. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know, your playing right up to the 3RR limit does not mean you won't be blocked for edit-warring. — kwami (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the paragraph you replied to? Even the first fourteen words? You reverted three times in an hour-and-a-half, deleting from RS cites down to the brackets that made a wikilink. Are you oblivious to your "playing right up to the 3RR limit"? Are you oblivious to the fact that inviting someone "to restore any improvements you made". and then threatening to complain about it to ANI, is an archetype of entrapment, doubledealing, and hypocrisy? You don't have clean hands here. – .Raven  ^.talk 10:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

impartial decision making

Regarding this comment: yes, I am aware of the common root for the two words. The point is that I think we should be looking at whether or not decisions are being made impartially. isaacl (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay. – .Raven  ^.talk 02:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

'alphabetic script'

Whether it's a rd is rather beside the point. There are several Somali alphabets, each using a different script. One uses Latin script, another uses Arabic script, and some are scripts unique to Somali. In all cases, the lead should inform the reader which script is used for that alphabet. Gaj's alphabet for Croatian is Latin script, for example; just calling it "Gaj's alphabet" would not be sufficiently informative. Osmanya is its own distinct script, so that info needs to appear somewhere. Calling it an "alphabetic script" addresses your concern that calling it just a "script" somehow denies that it's an alphabet while at the same time identifying the script (that it's its own script, not Latin or Arabic).

Any problem with doing the same thing to the other articles, and deleting the 'fix' tags? — kwami (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

What did I miss? – .Raven  ^.talk 06:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I was responding to your edit of Osmanya. Looks like you got them all. — kwami (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Is Nooalf a real thing?

I'm wondering what it is Unifonisagoodalphabet (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Unifonisagoodalphabet: Its website is nqalf.com (formerly www.nooalf.com/INGLIs.htm), and the pre-redirect WP article is here. Note that the website author also created the article, a WP:COI. – .Raven  ^.talk 03:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

That looks intriguing Unifonisagoodalphabet (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Unifonisagoodalphabet: It might be, if people were actually using it. So far its creator/promoter seems to be the only one. From your username, I take it you're a user of Unifon – which actually has a userbase. Have you looked at other constructed scripts of the category:English spelling reform? Or the International Phonetic Alphabet, used here on Wikipedia to give phonetic spellings? (IPA characters are in some Unicode fonts, including Code2000, available here.) – .Raven  .talk 00:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Report at WP:AN

This is a message to inform you that a user has reported you to the administrator's noticeboard. The thread is #Request an Admin. Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nythar: Thank YOU for informing me! It's a real pity that reporter couldn't have done the same. – .Raven  ^.talk 08:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I apologize for not letting you know about this post at WP:AN. My thinking at the time was - I didn't see it as reporting you. I thought I was requesting Admin assistance. But I can see this was incorrect. And, I'll be honest here. At the ANI, when you posted your first comment and I replied I didn't have a problem with that. But when I saw that you started posting a few comments or questions, I thought that this was going to get out of control.

I didn't recall editing with you before and I wasn't sure if you were trying to drag me into a conflict. Because of this thinking, I also didn't take your questions seriously. So, I apologize for all of that. I was wrong. How do I know I was wrong? When I started typing this post I recalled seeing you around before, a long time ago. In fact we may have edited some of same articles or AfDs in the past.

So now I am embarrassed because now I recall you are one of the good guys. Anyway, if you have more questions regarding my post at the ANI, I'll be glad to answer them and reply to your comments. You can post your questions or comments here or at the ANI. Also, I did know - regarding trivial images - that guidance normally comes from WP:IMGDD and NOTGALLERY. However, I see JoelleJay beat me to the punch at WP:AN. Also, Red Rose64 posted MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, which I didn't know about. Again I apologize. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

One more thing. I am signing off now and will return later. So I can answer any questions or comments then. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: When you can treat actual strangers as well as you treat known "good guys" – that is, when you can equally extend to both the assumption that they are "good guys" until they clearly behave otherwise – you'll have grasped WP:AGF. – .Raven  ^.talk 21:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this feedback. I shall take it on board. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for getting so involved in the ANI discussion about my supposed transgressions and follies. When a few members act in unison while possibly being wrong and sticking to it, it's nice to see other editors actually research the topic. I thought each individual edit was defensible, except one, which I made while slightly irritated, but can see where other viewpoints could see more of them as disruptive (although if studied, as you seem to have done, that descriptor fades a bit). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I've been there. – .Raven  .talk 00:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Re:

By that logic, Relativity, Evolution, Plate Tectonics, and the Heliocentric Model could never have become NON-Fringe, because "the proclamation of their adherents" would always have been dismissed out of hand, and they would have continued to be judged only by their doubters' statements.

It's a super interesting subject. As serendipity would have it, I just listened to science journalist Sally Adee talk about this issue in reference to her book about bioelectromagnetics, in particular about the origins of bioelectromagnetic medicine. I think the key difference in regards to Leary and the eight-circuit model is that he is claiming it is based on science while not adhering to the methods, techniques, and rigors of science, but more of something like religion or philosophy. If you haven't already commented, you should lend your opinion over at Talk:Eight-circuit_model_of_consciousness#Straw_Poll. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. – .Raven  .talk 15:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Speaking of CHOPSY, it would be interesting to look at the treatment of exoplanets in the literature up until the late 1980s, when CHOPSY was forced to acknowledge such putative planets might really be out there. There was like one major news story on the phenomenon for that entire decade. Up until around 1986 or so, if you told your astronomy professor that you wanted to study exoplanets (or whatever they were calling them back then), you would have been politely escorted out of the classroom and told that if you even brought it up again you might be asked to leave the university. I might be exaggerating just a bit, but it wasn’t allowed to be entertained. And the handful of people who were studying it were doing so from university offices the size of closets and were treated as if they were lepers. We know now, as of 2023, that almost every star has a potential planet. Back then, this wasn’t even allowed to be talked about. It would be interesting to look into how CHOPSY undermined the progress of science by maintaining the conventional wisdom and status quo. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

And of course much of CHOPSY still teaches (and/or has clinics of) the pseudoscience Psychoanalysis. So much for trusting to academic consensus! – .Raven  .talk 01:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Request

I do think our last interaction was somewhat funny. Especially when you wrote: Because I've written to players of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Hilarious! However, I am requesting that you slow down in the "Fiction" section and the "Straw Poll Discussion" section. I notice that you have posted eight or nine posts within 15 hours. Also, it is not necessary to parse every response in your response. I get it that you are passionate about this.

However. the editors participating in these discussions have gotten past one on one arguing and tend to discuss available and potential sources instead (for the most part). It is not necessary to directly challenge other editors. Everyone is entitled to their comment and view. Also, in our last interaction I was trying to helpfully correct what I saw as a misperception with a little humor at the end. I hope you were not offended. I am not trying to get into an endless back and forth that will disrupt one of the threads.

May I recommend posting there only once or twice every twenty four hours. If you analyze the posting behavior of the other editors there, this request is consistent with that. And I will also do the same - I will make sure I limit my posting to once or twice every twenty-four hours. Thanks in advance. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Editing against consensus

Hello,

I just want to let you know your last few edits on the Eight-circuits article were against consensus, and contradicted FRINGE, PROFRINGE and UNDUE. Please don't do this anymore. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

> "your last few edits on the Eight-circuits article" – I have made, in total, TWO (2) edits there, of which the second was fixing several {{sfn}}s whose original problems I had not seen in edit/preview mode. Since I doubt that fixing faulty {{sfn}}s is "against consensus" anywhere on Wikipedia, that leaves "your last few edits" ONE, my first.

• WP:UNDUE says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."
  The one derogatory source I'd found so far – importing it from Neurologic (book)) – I quoted in a citation, attached that to a whole paragraph providing context for the criticism, and used the word "fringe" in body text for the first time. I've invited further critical references, which you folks should have been able to supply, since how else could you folks be so sure of your position? But silencing others' sourced statements isn't factually supporting your own positive assertion.
• WP:FRINGE says "... a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is."  WP:PROFRINGE (Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories) says "A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position."
  I was the one who changed the short description from "Hypothesis by Timothy Leary" to "Philosophical concept by Timothy Leary"; added "presented as psychological philosophy (abbreviated 'psy-phi')"; and clarified that "This model doesn't restrict its sources to just mainstream psychology or neurology, but uses concepts or metaphors from diverse modern sciences, transpersonal psychology, and Eastern spiritual traditions which perceive all objects and phenomena as various interrelated aspects of a single supreme reality. That blend has sparked criticism from some as 'fringe' science or worse."[cited] — which not only doesn't suggest that Leary's model is "more widely accepted than it is", but presents it as not being science at all.
  Compare Freud's "psychoanalytic theory", so called – which some call a pseudoscience because it is unfalsifiable (thus failing Karl Popper's test) – with its three-part model of the psyche (id, ego, superego). Is there more evidence for Freud's three parts than for Leary's eight? Or possibility of finding any? Arguably not even as much possibility, since at least Leary et al. invited experimentation, but what a discrepancy in treatment.
  See Berezow, Alex B. (July 13, 2012). "Why psychology isn't science". Los Angeles Times. — So calling any psychological model "fringe science" is actually unfair. You might as well call artistic styles like Impressionism "fringe science".

– .Raven  .talk 03:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, this editing behavior might be seen as STONEWALLING. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Have you not been reading the talkpage? There I was ***INVITED*** "to draft and add content to the article right this minute", and as my very first edit there (my first attempt, as I said in talk) did so, adding citations wherever "citation needed" had been marked, and adding cited critical responses to Leary's work – which you folks had complained were absent, but none of you had bothered to add yourselves – and, rather than ask for further text or documentation after that, or better yet adding it yourselves, all the group of you have done is delete the first of the very fixes the group of you had requested, indeed demanded; adding only a statement ("The model lacks scientific credibility...") that ironically you have offered no citations to verify – as the only reference you left after it quotes no "scientific" works, i.e. cannot verify that claim. Now I am forced to doubt the sincerity, the good faith, of both that invitation and those requests/demands, which previously I had assumed to be real. You disappoint me. – .Raven  .talk 00:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I just want to let you know your last few edits on the Eight-circuits article were against consensus, and contradicted FRINGE, PROFRINGE and UNDUE. Please don't do this anymore. Also, this editing behavior might be seen as STONEWALLING ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there some reason you are repeating the content of your previous two comments after I already replied to them?

Do you expect me to repeat my replies, or are you just playing? – .Raven  .talk 06:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you .Raven, for putting up with the slings and arrows of fringe editors on an article which arguably has nothing to do with fringe (see the commentary I've added on its talk page and on the ANI where you pinged me - I didn't even know that ANI was still in progress). Nice work on pointing out the obvious to them, but to each his own point-of-view, which is my triplely-pointed point. I hope this has not taken a Wikipedia or personal toll on you, and be assured that your analysis of the matter is one that takes logic into account (as I'm sure your detractors feel the same in their take on the matter). Maybe one thing to come of all of this would be a nice SMI2LE article in the future (and a pun or four). Randy Kryn (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I love puns; my wife _detests_ them — perhaps another point awarded to your triply-pointed-point.

Is that a d'k tahg (Daqtagh), by any chance? – .Raven  .talk 08:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The pun I was playing with was "a nice SMI2LE article in the future", referring to the SMI2LE formation coming about later (in both Wikipedia and according to its premise). I've not used the alphabet symbolism as a way of organizing a personal view of the overall structure, so haven't studied them (akin to the mountain having many sides that all meet at the top). Language as a map to these subjects falls outside standard English, although some forms come close. As you well know (another pun or four). Randy Kryn (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

A d'k tahg is a Klingon knife – triply-pointed – hence the link. – .Raven  .talk 08:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

A ha, Weapons in Star Trek#D'k tahg (AKA Daqtagh) (but please don't edit it too much lest it falls afoul of fringe). I clicked the link before replying above, because I've apparently never memorized the name of the thing, and I swear on a stack of Klingon bibles that it took me to a page which seemed to be only full of symbols so I thought it was a link to a magic alphabet. A nice triple-twist (and no, I don't usually write in puns but am used to it from communicating by text with a friend). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Page full of very BIG symbols? Usually means you have to clear the page through your browser security – NoScript, Disconnect, or whatever. – .Raven  .talk 09:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, big symbols, but I've never gotten that before and when I click on the link you gave it works fine both now and when I checked it before writing my last reply (without clearing). So I thought it was a magical alphabet page, but of course not surprised that that occurred (par for the course). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, well, it's not as though ***I*** ever had anything to do with magical alphabets!

But interesting to see where other things have ended up (see below). – .Raven  .talk 02:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Ex-marines and the Killing of Jordan Neely article

Hi Raven--apologies for the intrusion. Just wanted to stop by and briefly note I appreciate your marine nomenclature at the article, and I confess, I did a double take too. But two quick quibbles: first there are ex-marines; they have been dishonorably discharged from service. Obviously, not really applicable here. Secondly, you are, of course, totally correct on marine usage. But Wikipedia is not necessarily bound to follow marine conventions in this regard. That's not to say your edits are wrong, it's just a question of how this encyclopedia wants to address it. Food for thought more than anything! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't want us to be the organization that tried to take on the U.S. Marine Corps. Historically, not good odds.

• United States Marine Corps rank insignia#Enlisted, e.g.: with Marines of these ranks serving as the senior enlisted Marines in a unit
• https://styleguide.militaryonesource.mil/terms/m
• https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/editors-desk/marine-vs-soldier-theres-a-difference/article_98e94b76-ec25-11df-b7c9-0017a4a78c22.html
• https://archive.nytimes.com/afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/when-every-letter-counts/
  We will now capitalize Marine and Marines when referring to individual members of the United States Marine Corps. Under the previous rule, we capitalized references to the service as a whole, but lowercased “marine” in referring to individuals. We used to say, “Three marines were wounded in the fighting.” Now we’ll say, “Three Marines were wounded in the fighting.” (We’ll make a similar change to capitalize “Coast Guardsman,” though that comes up less frequently.)

– .Raven  .talk 05:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, if the battle boils down to the creation of an encyclopedia, I'll take Wikipedia over the Marine Corps any day. And please do note that I didn't actually quibble with capitalization at all. If I might make a suggestion, attempting to be a bit more collegial and work in concert with others would be beneficial. That definitely does not mean you have to agree with anyone else, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

No problemo. As for "I'll take Wikipedia", you'll note my first cite above *was* Wikipedia. These were in reference to your lowercasing "marine". The "ex-" part I addressed by copy/pasting cites from the article version I did NOT edit, here and linking that here, the latter to hopefully reduce the number of times I have this discussion. – .Raven  .talk 08:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Repeated bludgeoning on the Killing of Jordan Neely talk page

Hi, just wanted to drop in real quick and say it here instead of on the talk page: the repeated legal arguments, and overwhelming amount of your replies that employ this line of reasoning are beginning to get excessive, and I would strongly urge you to ease up and allow some space for others to engage in productive conversation. We've heard your very strong opinion that Daniel Penny shouldn't be named in the article, based on hypothetical legal concerns and potential future determinations. Thank you for your contributions, but please please WP:DROPTHESTICK and allow others to speak without the continued WP:BLUDGEON attitude. You have made your point, and I think that by re-asserting the same things over and over simply detracts from the argument you are making.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this, and have a good night! 72.14.126.22 (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven Several editors have asked you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Let other editors comment and walk away. Nemov (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

If I were repeating the same thing (even in different words) every time, there'd be stronger reason to say that. I believe I've said various different things. If these happened to be things with which not everyone agrees, that's... sometimes what happens.

Long long ago, I got told I'd be "a wet blanket at a necktie party". One of the nicest things anyone's ever said to me. – .Raven  .talk 00:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Many of your comments have been rather repetitive. I've been there myself – I've been in discussions where I felt other editors didn't get it, and I replied to every comment that I felt was wrong... It doesn't work. At some point, you just get on people's nerves, and you fill the page with noise. Stop it. Cool down. Stay away from the page for a day or two. Do something else. I know it's not easy at first, but after a while it actually feels good. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm also stopping by to say the same thing. You've made over 90 edits in the past few days to this RFC. Please step back for a bit, then limit your participation going forward. Take pity on whoever has to read the entire RFC in order to close it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

"Edits" ≠ "comments". Thanks to my lousy new glasses, I am not catching all typoes in preview mode.

ETA: gehhh, including in this comment. Number of apostrophes and other punctuation being a major example. – .Raven  .talk 15:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Come on. That's a silly excuse. Few of your edits were mere typo fixes. By far most of them, I'd guess over 90%, were new comments/replies. Just stop it. If someone says something you disagree with, even if you think it's really stupid, just ignore it. Take a few days off from that page. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

> "I'd guess over 90%, were new" — Over 20% of my edits, per your own link below, were marked "edit reply". To see the character-count-change in low numbers, e.g. single digits, often in the negative direction (i,e, deletion rather than addition) should indicate fixes, but by all means look at them. – .Raven  .talk 15:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I've now been told I'm being "too argumentative" even by replying here. Closing section.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ANI Notice There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Combefere ★ Talk 04:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Partial block You have been blocked from editing Talk: Killing of Jordan Neely for a period of one week for disruptive editing. Specifically, continued WP:BLUDGEON after being cautioned against doing so at ANI by multiple users, myself included (permalink). Since for whatever reason you seem unwilling or unable to take a break from that talk page, that break is now enforced. If you have any questions about this partial block (WP:PBLOCK), please respond below and please WP:PING me, rather doing so than anywhere else, like ANI or my own talk page. I prefer the discussion not to be split. Thank you. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  El_C 17:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC) @El C, for what it's worth, another user (Xan747) created a new topic on the talk page, to offload a portion of the discussion from the RfC. They specifically pinged .Raven to respond there. It looks like most of Raven's recent responses on the talk page were in this section, and were not a continuation of the repeated bludgeoning points made at the RfC after being warned. Combefere ★ Talk 19:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC) @Combefere, good point. On the other hand in the ANI, when I gave him credit for pertinent contributions but asked him to recognize the behavioral issue of them being out of place, he continued to justify the past behavior. So I agree with the block. But if he appeals, and if in that appeal he makes an unqualified statement recognizing his ill-behavior, I'd be happy lifting the block early in recognition that he'd already begun amending his behavior. Xan747 (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC) @El C: Interesting. I "seem unwilling to take a break from that talk page" AFTER having said (40 minutes earlier) "My last comment (and I very much hope I can mean last in both senses) noted WP:NOTVOTE..."? And see the comment by Combefere, certainly not someone who generally takes my side. – .Raven  .talk 03:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I guess the thing is that you posted five more comments on the page after you had been notified of the ANI, which was started after multiple users had asked you multiple times to take a break. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC) And did you read those comments? Were they repetitive, spamming, disruptive, as Combefere had complained? If what bothers you is simple quantity (79 comments total), did you do the same search on Combefere? Does that quantity bother you? – .Raven  .talk 15:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC) At least three of the five were unambiguously repetitive of points you had made previously. That's a very high fraction, even if we weren't taking a post-feedback sample. --JBL (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) #1: Notice what I was replying to, a comment which missed the point of that subthread. I clarified how, and that subthread ended... instead of circling endlessly as two different questions got mistaken for one. #2: Commenter said the denials addressed only intent. (Note that "not 'squeezing'" denies an action, not an intent.) #3: Asks whether preceding comment pertained to a comment just above it, as both referred to "anonymous sources." (It turned out, no.) #4: Comment included "Nowhere does the assailant say 'it wasn't a chokehold,'" I noted that the witness had insisted [X] was "not 'squeezing'" — which is pertinent. #5: In full, "So the closer may need to go through the extra step of clicking 'show', to measure policy/guideline compliance rather than simply counting what you call 'votes/comments': WP:NOTVOTE." You could argue that #2 and #4 were a repeated rebuttal... but then the comments they addressed had repeated the claim being rebutted. If repetition is the offense, then...? – .Raven  .talk 23:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Raven, I'm sorry, but even with you very much hop[ing] it'd be your last comment, I'm just not convinced. You've posted ~100 comments to that talk page recently, so you are likely to continue receiving pings about em, and I just do not feel confident that you'd be able to refrain from replying again. In that sense, this restriction is intended to remove any and all such temptation. You more than had your say for the time being, so now allow others to do so as well, without the continued bludgeoning. I therefore maintain that an enforced one-week break from this one talk page is a fair response. And since except for it, every other page on the project remains unrestricted to you, I don't actually consider this sanction to be unduly harsh and I stand by it. El_C 11:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC) > "You've posted ~100 comments to that talk page recently" — Kindly click on Chrisahn's link above, showing 107 edits total, and do a page search on the  m  [space m space] my UI automatically adds to edits of existing comments, all with confirming "edit" remarks; I count 28 (often with a character-count change of ±0–9, clearly typo fixes), leaving 79 actual comments, including where I was pinged to reply. (Now try the same search for Combefere, the original AN/I complainant of "has been tenaciously engaging on the RfC". No  m s, but several very-small-count or negative-number changes hint at such edits. The result?) There are words for that. – .Raven  .talk 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC) The other editor who was cautioned stopped commenting. You just kept going, just like you are now, which suggests that you're not really learning anything from this experience. If you're unable to learn from this and continue to point fingers at others this could become a larger problem. Nemov (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) > "You just kept going, just like you are now...." Is replying civilly to accusatory comments on my own talk page sanctionable too? Or is the real issue disagreement? Because I wasn't the most frequent commenter, and as for "bludgeoning"... how many times was it asserted as undisputed "fact" that [X] killed Neely, in advance of trial — the prosecution side — to the extent of demanding the defendant's and supporting witness's denials not be mentioned even once? Some neutrality. If many newspapers howl guilt like "killer" or "murder", are we supposed to just uncritically repeat it (e.g. "murder" here, here, here, here, and here, comments unsanctioned and unwarned)? Then not only should we have done the same about the later-exonerated Central Park Five before their trial (as a wolfpack of news media did at length), we should also do it for every other person accused in the press, again without waiting for conviction. But I'd rather side with (and cite) actual policy, like WP:BLPCRIME. As I did there. – .Raven  .talk 19:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Is replying civilly to accusatory comments on my own talk page sanctionable too? When the problem with your behavior is incessant bludgeoning, yes, replying argumentatively to every single comment (even on your talk-page, even civilly) re-enforces the problematic nature of your behavior, and the necessity of restraint. --JBL (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC) > "incessant bludgeoning, yes, replying argumentatively" In other words, disagreement. Thank you for making my point. Incessantly asserting guilt of "killing" or even "murder" ahead of the trial was not called "bludgeoning"; but pointing to WP:BLPCRIME, and saying we should therefore let the court decide that first, was. – .Raven  .talk 22:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC) This is also a part of the thing that you don't seem to be getting: here at Wikipedia, we follow what reliable sources say, not the courts. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC) WP:BLPCRIME (People accused of crime) is part of the policy WP:BLP. Its first paragraph says: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Note: even suggests, let alone flatly states as a "fact". This has been emphatically disregarded, not only by the talkpage !votes/comments asserting as "fact" both "killing" and "murder" BY a named living person, but also by edits to the article itself saying "killed by __" in Wikipedia's voice — at risk of prejudicing jurors who read and trusted us. That some news media have done this is on them; they don't follow our policies. For us to do this, in spite of our own policy, is very much on us. We're WP:NOTNEWS, let alone an Op–Ed page. No quantity of news media's ethical failings excuses or justifies ours. – .Raven  .talk 05:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Raven, would you agree with me that if the consensus is that the issue has been seriously considered and the inclusion is still warranted, then WP:BLPCRIME is satisfied? Dumuzid (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC) WP:CONSENSUS says: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. ... Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated." [emphasis added] The 'Include' party in this case has chosen instead to disregard existing policies and guidelines, and to silence the objections of those [at least one] who disagree, forcing such editor[s] to stop responding. By such means, Wikipedia's definition of (true) consensus is prevented from occurring. What is left is called WP:False consensus; note there, "In particular,... coordinating actions in order to drive off or punish perceived 'adversaries' goes counter to the necessary collegial atmosphere required to write an encyclopedia. ... After unwanted opponents leave, it is possible to achieve the false consensus between remaining participants or simply make the wanted change assuming that 'no objections is a consensus'." That "is against Wikipedia policies and should be dealt with accordingly." That action prevents your question from applying to this particular case any longer. But even if it hadn't been taken? As much as I myself want to assume good faith, I note that those presuming the man's guilt, calling him killer and murderer, as "fact" from the very start — and steadfastly refusing to reconsider when called on it — would surely have been excused as jurors for cause, i.e. inability to follow the law due to bias. To claim they could "seriously consider" it, or in this case the advice of WP:BLPCRIME, would strain a judge's ability to suspend disbelief. It's a pity there wasn't an impartial discussion using (instead of refusing) such terms as "alleged", and distinguishing truly known fact from opinion. Maybe some entirely different group of people could do that. I suggest finding out. It would be wonderful to see a true consensus reached, truly respecting policy (and each other, despite differences). That would satisfy me. And I already understand that this answer may not satisfy you. – .Raven  .talk 07:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I understand your answer here, but my apologies for fumbling my own question! I meant to ask if you think "serious consideration" could ever satisfy WP:BLPCRIME on any page? Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC) That's literally what WP:BLPCRIME requires. I quoted it verbatim above. But I suggest, for context, you go up a level to the principles expressed in the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees resolution on BLP. That doesn't use the words "serious consideration", isn't so much concerned with precise process as with outcomes, one issue of concern being: "People sometimes make edits designed to smear others." When one's professional reports are subject to review and audit, to imagine that auditors are always looking over one's shoulder can help one stay focused on carefully getting those reports right. (I used that mental image myself.) I think it might be helpful in an case like this to imagine the Board, or Arbiters, reading both the article and talkpage to decide whether we committed such a "smear", and if so, whether it was intentional on any participants' part. – .Raven  .talk 17:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC) And to be clear, you think in this case they could come to any other decision than that some editors have done so? Dumuzid (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I don't mistake my opinion for what unnamed others' opinions will be. I do think assuming the highest peak of their perception and objective judgment (as with those auditors) is a healthy mental image to use. I'm not saying "assume the best" only because like "hope for the best" that sounds like "most favorable to my side". If I'd imagined the auditors would favor my side of things, perhaps I might have gotten sloppy, thinking they'd overlook it. So instead I imagined a cold and utterly unsympathetic (to ANY side) group fiercely looking for errors or misrepresentations, and unwilling to take excuses. That meant I couldn't afford to make any of those three things. This may overstate the reality. (As far as I know, my work was never actually audited.) But as a mental image, it's a useful guide. – .Raven  .talk 18:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I guess what I am asking is: is it possible you are wrong on this one and other people might be right? Dumuzid (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Sure. It's even possible that I'm wrong about the existence of the physical world, because this is all a simulation. But I haven't been persuaded of that yet. – .Raven  .talk 00:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC) @.Raven: And you're also still in this mode where you can't escape the need to continue to deny reality: the material fact that Daniel Penny killed Jordan Neely is not a crime, nor a suggestion of a crime, etc. It is a medical fact, and well reported by reliable sources. Whether or not Penny is found guilty or innocent of the charges that have been brought against him is another story. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC) > "... that [X] killed Neely... is a medical fact...." The Medical Examiner's own spokesperson contradicts you: the ruling was homicide, but not by whom, i.e. did not name a killer; "culpability... is for the criminal justice system to consider". So "that [X] killed Neely" is not a "medical fact". That [X] has been accused both in the press and by prosecutors is also not a "medical fact". If and when [X] gets convicted, then that would be a "legal fact". I really wish the difference between fact and opinion were more respected. – .Raven  .talk 16:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Per WP:PST, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." RSs are very clear in their interpretation of the communications from the ME office: the ME report establishes that Penny killed Neely. The statement about culpability refers to criminal culpability; it refers to whether or not Penny is guilty of manslaughter or another criminal offense (hence the reference to the criminal justice system). No RSs interpret the statement to indicate medical uncertainty as to whether Penny killed Neely. None. Your interpretation of the ME's statement is novel. It is not supported by any RSs, and therefore violates WP:OR. Just to make the difference crystal clear, examine the two quotes below. .Raven: The Medical Examiner's own spokesperson contradicts you: the ruling was homicide, but not by whom, i.e. did not name a killer; "culpability... is for the criminal justice system to consider". So "that [X] killed Neely" is not a "medical fact". NYT: The city medical examiner’s office ruled his death a homicide two days later. (That ruling determines that Mr. Penny killed Mr. Neely but is not a finding of criminal culpability.) And as you read this, I can already feel you ready to shout "but the NYT's interpretation of the ME's office is factually incorrect, and mine is right!" This is indeed why I filed the ANI in the first place. You seem determined to cherry-pick primary sources and use your own novel interpretations of their meaning to support your claims. This is disallowed by Wikipedia. When you are unable to produce reliable secondary sources that support your claims, and when faced with multiple reliable secondary sources that contradict them, you attack the idea of using reliable secondary sources altogether. This pattern of behavior is extremely disruptive to our efforts to build an encyclopedia where all of our information and analysis must be verifiable by its attribution to reliable secondary sources. It is this refusal to accept the fundamental basis of our encyclopedia, and the consistent WP:NOTGETTINGIT attitude that I find far more troubling than just WP:BLUDGEONING a point, although clearly other editors are fed up with that as well. Combefere ★ Talk 19:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Look further: LA Times: "The man’s cause of death was determined Wednesday to be compression of the neck, or a chokehold, according to Julie Bolcer, spokesperson for the New York City medical examiner’s office. The manner of death was homicide, the medical examiner concluded." Newsday: "Julie Bolcer, the spokeswoman the city's chief medical examiner's office, said earlier this week that an autopsy concluded that Neely died due to compression of the neck in a chokehold. The manner of death was homicide, Bolcer said, a conclusion that means a person died due to the actions of another, not that those actions were necessarily criminal." News9Live: "The city’s medical examiner determined that Neeley died from compression on his neck and ruled the act as a homicide." CBS58: "Neely died Monday due to 'compression of neck (chokehold),' a spokesperson for the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner said. The manner of death was ruled a homicide, but that determination is not a ruling on intent or culpability, which is for the criminal justice system to consider, the spokesperson said." Note that even those of the above news reports which otherwise blamed a named person in their texts carefully did not say the Medical Examiner did so. Putting the blame (culpability) on any named person was not part of the ME's ruling; as the ME's spokesperson said, "culpability... is for the criminal justice system to consider". That some news media either misread or synthesized the ruling with other info is no excuse for us to do likewise; we're WP:NOTNEWS. – .Raven  .talk 00:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC) You do realize there's a difference between causality and culpability, correct? You can kill someone and not be criminally culpable? Dumuzid (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC) I note that you are adding the modifier "criminally" before the unmodified word the ME's spokesperson used, "culpability". Merriam-Webster, for instance, defines that word as responsibility for wrongdoing or failure : the quality or state of being culpable ... and gives as examples: moral/legal/criminal culpability He refuses to acknowledge his own culpability. Culpability for our failure to reduce petroleum imports falls across the political spectrum. Clearly, "criminal culpability" is not the only type. Dictionary.com (Random House Dictionary) defines it as: guilt or blame that is deserved; blameworthiness. Cambridge English Dictionary defines it as: the fact that someone deserves to be blamed or considered responsible for something bad But let's even say you're right, that "criminal culpability" was the specific type the ME's spokesperson meant. 1) That's precisely the kind we can't even "suggest" belongs to a named person unless and until a conviction is reached. 2) The ME's spokesperson's statement, as quoted by many sources, did not mention anything else about assigning responsibility (except that bit about it being others' job). It did not tag "causation" to a named person, either. If it had, we would surely have heard it quoted verbatim by now, instead of as third-person-indirect words even by the news media attributing X-killed-Y to the ME's ruling. – .Raven  .talk 02:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC) And as you read this, I can already feel you ready to shout "but the NYT's interpretation of the ME's office is factually incorrect, and mine is right!" ... "That some news media either misread or synthesized the ruling with other info is no excuse for us to do likewise" Well, you certainly didn't disappoint. Good luck avoiding any further sanctions in the future. With your attitude, you'll need it. Combefere ★ Talk 04:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Your challenge was "to produce reliable secondary sources that support your claims"; I produced four, to your one. But now you charge "attitude"? – .Raven  .talk 04:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC) @.Raven: What aren't you understanding about this? It's not up to the medical examiner to determine who killed Jordan Neely, simply the manner and cause of death. The actual act of the killing (Daniel Penny's chokehold) was caught on video, widely reported by reliable sources, witnessed by many, etc. It is indisputable and undeniable. Please give it up already. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC) > "It's not up to the medical examiner to determine who killed Jordan Neely, simply the manner and cause of death." There I agree completely, and have been blasted for saying as much by people who insist the ME's ruling did name Neely's killer — as a "medical fact", no less. > "The actual act of the killing... was caught on video" The video doesn't tell us alive or dead (vs. unconscious). Sources differ on whether he was still alive when police & paramedics took over. He wasn't declared dead until the hospital. What happened between those two points may or may not become an issue at trial. We don't know whether the defense will bring it up. But with the defense having the option to cast doubt on the defendant's being the one who caused this death, it's not our place to jump in bed with the prosecution — we can and should wait for the verdict. Whether or not the news media do. WP:BLPCRIME doesn't offer an exception because any given number of newspapers declared culpability or guilt: it bluntly says, "unless a conviction has been secured." – .Raven  .talk 07:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC) You produced no RSs to support your claim: "that [X] killed Neely" is not a "medical fact". Some of the RSs do not claim that it is a medical fact (most of the ones you cited do, but you simply pretend that they don't), but none of them claim that it is not a medical fact. None. You again invented your own novel interpretation of a primary source (the ME's report) by claiming that the a secondary source (the NYT) "misread" it. You also accused the NYT of "synthesizing" the ruling, which as an RS is indeed what they are there to do. In fact, editors have reminded you of this at least three times now, but you still seem to not understand the policy. See WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." It's not "now" that I charge attitude. I said originally in my ANI, again in my first comment above, and a third time in my most recent comment above that the problem was your attitude towards reliable secondary sources. You simply don't respect them. You cherry-pick isolated facts from primary sources, and invent your own novel interpretation, analysis, and evaluation of those facts. You completely disregard the analysis, interpretation, and evaluation from reliable secondary sources, and even outright disparage the idea of relying on reliable secondary sources. This is antithetical to our project as an encyclopedia. I would encourage you to actually read the Wikipedia policies that I've cited above (particularly WP:RS), or even just the sections of them that I've generously copied and pasted into this thread for your convenience. But it would be inexcusably naïve at this point to believe that you'll do so. The fact that I can (as I've demonstrated) predict your pattern of disruption so effectively indicates that it would be pointless to continue. The WP:IDONTHEARYOU earmuffs appear to be on deliberately. Combefere ★ Talk 05:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC) The people asserting that "'[X] killed [Y]' is a medical fact" have consistently attributed that to the Medical Examiner's ruling... which doesn't make that statement. If in future the ME (or some other medical source) does state that [X] killed [Y], there would then be some foundation to call it "medical fact"... assuming it's not some country MD far away who never examined the body and was merely opining like any other news follower. "Facts are different from inferences, theories, values, and objects." -and- "The definition of a scientific fact is different from the definition of fact, as it implies knowledge." (Is a medical fact a scientific fact?) In the meantime, what you have are inferences and theories, not facts. – .Raven  .talk 06:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC) "The people asserting that "'[X] killed [Y]' is a medical fact" have consistently attributed that to the Medical Examiner's ruling... which doesn't make that statement. Yes it does :) The city medical examiner’s office ruled his death a homicide two days later. (That ruling determines that Mr. Penny killed Mr. Neely but is not a finding of criminal culpability.) Combefere ★ Talk 06:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC) This violation of WP:OR is next, right? And as you read this, I can already feel you ready to shout "but the NYT's interpretation of the ME's office is factually incorrect, and mine is right!" Combefere ★ Talk 06:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC) You're repeating yourself. I addressed that above. If all you're going to do is go in circles, you can go do it elsewhere. – .Raven  .talk 07:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC) The amount of self-awareness is zero. Combefere ★ Talk 14:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC) I tend to agree with you that we should not name the person, but why not use the term "killing" when it is omnipresent in the sources and by itself does not mean criminality? Dumuzid (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC) "Naming inclusion" is the title and topic of the RfC, and I was one among a number of editors who !voted "oppose/exclude" on that question. But I also said the problem was conjoining "killed" and "by [X]". Removing either one would help. The first would have to cover the title as well. – .Raven  .talk 06:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC) But why is the latter a problem without the name? Dumuzid (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC) D, I'm using [X] to stand for his name, because I don't want to use his name in this context. I don't think it should have been used in this context at all, while the title of the article says killing, let alone with the accusations "killer" and "murderer" that you can see on its talkpage. WP:BLPCRIME. – .Raven  .talk 06:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Okay. Can you explain why the title is inappropriate? Dumuzid (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC) If [X] is named in the article, then we are suggesting he's the "killer" before that has been legally determined by a court verdict (even a verdict of "negligent homicide" would still be "homicide"). If [X] is not named in the article — nor identified so specifically as to be equivalent to a name — then there's less "suggestion" (as WP:BLPCRIME put it) that "the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime" in advance of such a verdict. – .Raven  .talk 07:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC) "Killer" is not a legal determination. If, for instance, the action was found to be self-defense, then there would be a killing and no crime. But if I understand correctly, if the suspect is not named in the article, the title is acceptable? Dumuzid (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Self-defense (or even other-defense) would be "justifiable homicide" (which is also "homicide"="killing"). But that again would be a verdict we should wait for, not anticipate. What if the jury simply acquits him altogether, as in having reasonable doubt HE (and not another) was the one who caused this death? With Neely not being declared dead until the hospital, others had the opportunity to do neck-compression, and after Neely's many troubles with the law, perhaps also motive. Again, George Floyd and Earl Moore, Jr. (who both died from similar causes) provide precedent, perhaps even enough doubt. After that, if we've put ourselves on record as calling him even a "killer", he'd have a case against us — especially since we disregarded our own policy WP:BLPCRIME to do so. Since it seems I'm readily misunderstood by some of you, I'll stress now that I'm not suggesting this IS the case, just that due caution on our part should lead us not to jump to conclusions about the outcome. So if we title the article "Killing of", we really should avoid naming a "killer". If we leave the identity open, less problem — as the ME ruled homicide, but likewise left the identity open. – .Raven  .talk 08:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC) This is where we run into my issue of courts not determining reality. Imagine the district attorney had released a statement that said, "After watching the video, we are convinced this was an act of self-defense. Therefore we will not bring charges." Could we then never name the assailant nor call it a "killing"? Dumuzid (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC) "... not determining reality" unfortunately contains an ambiguity. determine: 1. cause (something) to occur in a particular way; be the decisive factor in. "it will be her mental attitude that determines her future" 2. ascertain or establish exactly, typically as a result of research or calculation. "the point of our study was to determine what is true, not what is practicable" Courts don't "determine reality" in sense 1, but one purpose is to do exactly that in sense 2. That's what the whole "finder of fact and finder of law" bit is about. – .Raven  .talk 17:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC) ... and it appears I must call this discussion to a close. In the next section, my replying to you here on my own talkpage has been counted among reasons I'm "too argumentative". – .Raven  .talk 17:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)  Disagree with blocking .Raven. His behavior at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely does not look like bludgeoning to me, and I think that we should follow the normal protocol for resolving content disputes. I have not read through the entire conversation, but I have not seen anything in what I skimmed that indicates bad faith. This block looks more punitive than preventative, which is an abuse of administrator privileges. Any long-running content dispute is going to be mildly disruptive to those who fail to disengage, but sanctions against those with minority views gives the impression of a sham consensus, which in my view disrupts Wikipedia far more.  — Freoh 23:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I don't think .Raven has been acting in bad faith, quite the contrary (they very firmly believe what they are saying is objectively true and that all others are wrong, which is part of the problem). But they also haven't been listening to editors who have warned them about over-stepping some basic norms and boundaries, as well as the importance of following Wikipedia policy regarding our reliance on taking the lead from WP:RS, and the significance of no original research etc. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC) > "... that all others are wrong...." I've said (and "believe") no such thing. Now you appear to be denying either the existence or the expressed positions of others besides me on the article talkpage in question — all the "oppose/exclude" !voters, in fact. > "... the importance of following Wikipedia policy...." Like WP:BLPCRIME, which doesn't say to take the lead from news media, but rather from the court's verdict. – .Raven  .talk 05:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC) References

More people come here to argue that being "too argumentative" is bad.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Similar behaviour at WP:VPP .Raven, it's been less than three days since the partial block started. In that time, at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Proposed_addition_to_MOS:GENDERID_-_when_to_include_deadnames, you have contributed at least eighteen 17 replies, to: Graeme Bartlett once [4] FOARP once [5] Folly Mox twice [6] [7] Ravenswing twice [8] [9] Dumuzid once [10], Mitch Ames thrice [11] [12] [13] Locke Cole at least seven times [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] SMcCandlish once [21] ... and on top of that, you've twice [22] [23] gone to PriusGod's talk page to discuss the RfC of the killing of Jordan Neely. Frankly, it seems that you are continuing the behaviour that you were partially blocked for ... too argumentative. starship.paint (exalt) 15:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Oh, my goodness. 18 replies in 3 days; that's all of 6 per day, an average rate of 0.25 per hour (1 every 4 hours). What a breakneck pace. The threshold has sure tightened. All those "once", "twice", and "thrice" replies were "too argumentative" with each person? Even with PriusGod, with whom I thought there was a very friendly discussion (eg "I think one resolution of that tension in this case would be..."), and Folly Mox, with whom I agreed (eg "So was I.")? I'd better be careful not to agree with anyone in future, then. Locke Cole contributed how many repetitive replies to that exchange? To which my replies said "Addressed above"? And your link of the reply to Dumizid takes me to my own talk page, where Dumizid and several others came to argue with me of their own volition (I didn't ping them to come). What did it disrupt for me to reply? Oh wait. Just pointing all this out counts as "too argumentative", doesn't it? – .Raven  .talk 17:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Apologies, I made an error counting Dumuzid, and have struck that, I didn’t mean to count anything on your talk page, of which there are obviously many more replies from you than just that one. Also, I didn’t count any “Addressed above/Elsewhere” replies at WP:VPP. I’ve made my point though, consider the overall effect of your contributions given the current partial block. Whether you want to listen is up to you. starship.paint (exalt) 00:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC) The same behavior bludgeoning behavior was on full display at multiple ANI threads. Display name 99 (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC) But you're still going to count my agreements with Folly Mox, and my conversation with PriusGod, as "too argumentative". Meanwhile Locke Cole is still arguing with other people on WP:VPP, making comments like "Couldn't be any dumber than the idiots who got us to MOS:GENDERID as currently worded..." and "Anything else stupid to add?" — insults such as I have never made — but it's my contributions that are supposed to be "too argumentative"? Oh, I am listening, indeed. ETA: And I see the complaint above from one whose userpage declares: Wikipedia has become a toxic mess. ... it has become a tool for the atheistic and globalist ideology ... almost any amount of belligerent behavior and incompetency is permitted as long as the editors who engage in such practices do so in the service of the left-wing consensus. My goodness, how NPOV. No wonder a declared atheist and Humanist comes in for this. – .Raven  .talk 03:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Yes, I would count those. Now, when I said "argumentative", it doesn't necessarily mean that you were hostile to the other person you were replying to. In agreeing with Molly Fox and discussing with PriusGod, you were still putting forth arguments in support of your position. Display name 99 has simply written above, this is bludgeoning behavior. Plus, criticising others' behaviour does not negate any of your own. starship.paint (exalt) 03:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC) > "In agreeing with Molly Fox and discussing with PriusGod, you were still putting forth arguments in support of your position." Hm. True, argumentative can be ambiguous: given to expressing divergent or opposite views.      "an argumentative child" using or characterized by systematic reasoning.      "the highest standards of argumentative rigor" [underlines added] But "too argumentative" in sense 2 would mean "using systematic reasoning too much." Where is Wikipedia policy against systematic reasoning, or supporting one's position in friendly exchanges? – .Raven  .talk 03:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC) WP:BLUDGEON: In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments ... Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. That's simply it. starship.paint (exalt) 03:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC) So when I agree with another person's point of view, that too is "bludgeoning"? – .Raven  .talk 04:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC) I’ve already made my point above, even in agreeing you are advancing your position… starship.paint (exalt) 04:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Plus, I've just checked, you have 66 comments within the WP:VPP RFC. In comparison, Jerome has 39, Sideswipe9th has 32, Locke has 26, BilledMammal has 19, Loki has 17, Mitch has 10. Absolutely nobody is close. starship.paint (exalt) 03:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Hm. Using ChrisAhn's tool, on which El C relied when citing numbers at me above: .Raven, Jerome, Sideswipe9th, Locke, BilledMammal. – .Raven  .talk 03:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC) (1) That counts edits, not comments. (2) I'm talking about this new WP:VPP RFC, not the old VPP RFC, or any past edits, this tool counts back to 2005 for the entire history of VPP. (3) CTRL-F "June 2023" with that tool, you're, again, far and away, #1. starship.paint (exalt) 04:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC) > "That counts edits, not comments." You know, I said that to El C, above, when he cited my edit-count as being my comments-count — as evidence for refusing unblock — and that was entirely disregarded. So this was perfectly good when cited at me... and no good when cited by me in turn. Got it. – .Raven  .talk 04:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC) You’re missing the forest for the trees. You are the #1 editor of an RFC, contributed over 20 comments, have more than 1.5x the comments of #2, you have more than #3 and #4 put together, how is it possible that we haven’t gotten your point by now? You’ve had full opportunity to make your case. starship.paint (exalt) 04:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Just as an exercise, use that tool and check the date/timestamp of my last post on that thread. And check the current UTC date/time, if you don't mind.. Do you ever feel that you got there a bit late? – .Raven  .talk 04:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC) @Starship.paint, this is how .Raven approaches every discussion -- see the quality of the 55+ comments at talk:eight-circuit model of consciousness and the 25+ at its corresponding ANI. JoelleJay (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Excuse me?! Raven, I got to your talk page at 15:14. Even after that, up to 22:00, you replied to Locke Cole, Cunado, Jerome Frank Disciple, Mitch Ames and Blueboar. Now you’re saying that I’m late? Instead of admitting any faults, it seems that you greatly prefer to get the last word in, no matter how relevant your point is to the matter at hand. starship.paint (exalt) 05:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC) And "Even after that," from 00:18 today ("Whether you want to listen is up to you.") on, I've gotten eight more chastising comments from you. What point was there to my stopping? – .Raven  .talk 05:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC) I'm done on this page. starship.paint (exalt) 06:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC) I engaged in the talkpage discussion instead of joining in the edit-warring that page had. (The edit I was invited to make, and made by adding citations to replace {{cn}}s, etc., was immediately reverted. I did not edit the page after that, only discussed more, then worked in Sandbox, and was thanked for it.) Apparently this is now an offense. The previous person similarly accused was taken to AN/I, where I did also comment — and he was not sanctioned. This was lawfare, and still is. – .Raven  .talk 05:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Raven, I hope you don't mind my interloping with a good faith observation or two, but if you do, obviously, feel free to remove this comment entirely. Your behavior, whether intentional or not, does come off as a bit WP:LASTWORD-y. From the little I have seen, you tend to make completely reasonable arguments, sometimes with a bit of sharp elbows (which is not a criticism; we all do that from time to time). But as you continue answering people, it feels as though the signal-to-noise ratio decreases. Less reasonable argument, more sharp elbows, until it's all elbows. Now, I don't know if this is deserving of sanction or "fair" in any overarching sense, but as it does not seem to be an isolated complaint, I would just take it into consideration. Cheers, and hope you are enjoying your weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC) You've generally been a civil and reasonable discusser; I'll take what you say into careful consideration. Thanks! – .Raven  .talk 05:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Combefere ★ Talk 20:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Canvassing

I see you've raised the ANI thread at a few user talk pages; please be careful to comply with WP:CANVASS when doing so. BilledMammal (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Since, for instance, Mathglot and I had been cooperating on Talk:Cisgender to prepare two page(s) after a split/clone/move, I owed an advance warning that a sanction may stop or severely slow that work. I owe some other people similar heads-ups, and have not yet given all of those, *precisely* to avoid the impression of canvassing. In the case of commenting to Randy Kryn's talkpage, he had already commented to the AN/I thread earlier, so obviously knew about it. Thanks for your concern. – .Raven  .talk 04:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Re:Markup problem

Actually, it occurs because I’m not logged in on the tower. For reasons that escape me, the iPad doesn’t;t format my !vote correctly when I give it, and I’d log in to vote except admins like me have been barked at loudly by the wmf to guard our accounts - strong passwords, etc - to keep people who shouldn’t have access to them out. For that reason I don’t log in on the iPad because it’s mobile, if it should go missing I have no idea who’d find it and/or what they’d do with the tool set :) All the same, thanks for the message, it’s nice to see people still reach out to isp editors with advice instead of templates as it were. 2600:1011:B132:66F2:A54B:E832:312D:4C1C (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

CT alert

You have recently made edits related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. This is a standard message to inform you that the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS.Cinderella157 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe you are supposed to use a different template for the first alert, which this is. – .Raven  .talk 23:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

An opportunity

• Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process

Hi.

So, as I'm fairly sure you're aware, there is an AN/I discussion going on right now, concerning your behaviour in discussions, and the concerns seem to be about bludgeoning discussions.

I'm not here to assess whether that is true.

I merely have something to ask of you - which you are of course welcome to ignore if you like.

a.) Even if you may have done so already, please read over Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and the page it is clarifying: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Examples of disruptive editing.

then

b.) Now that you've re-read those pages, from all the diffs linked at the AN/I discussion, select 3 that you would agree were probably egregiously unacceptable per those pages, and explain for each one why, in detail. And then explain how you might have differently addressed the situation in each.

The goal here is not to punish, or to re-litigate the past. But rather to try to show the community that you understand their concerns, that you understand the policy/guidelines concerning collegiate discourse, and that you are going to work to address their concerns.

If you would rather not do so, that's of course perfectly fine. No editor is ever required to edit Wikipedia. I'm merely asking this as a way to offer you an opportunity to positively move forward.

If you don't think any of your edits were at issue, then I'll leave that to others to assess.

In any case, I wish you well. - jc37 23:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I went back and replied to the original complaint opening the AN/I, referring to my comments from June 30 on, at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely, and the complaint of bludgeoning ("A person replies to many '!votes' or comments, arguing against that particular person's point of view"). I found just two (2) replies to any !vote or equivalently left-edge comment... both of which I agreed with, and certainly did not argue against.

Per LokiTheLiar's comment, "The classic form of [bludgeoning]  is responding to every !vote to try to convince the editor in question to change it. Raven is not doing that, and I'm very clearly not doing that: most of my replies are deep in a thread and several of them are to people I !voted the same way as." [emphasis added] Likewise, I won't count my replies in ongoing threads.

Ironically, earlier on this page Starship.paint had insisted to me that anything I posted counted towards "argumentative" and "bludgeoning", because even if I agreed with someone, I was still expressing my own point of view. This does not seem consistent with policy as written, or as Loki explains it. And I truly don't understand how it would apply even to resubmitting Jerome Frank Disciple's failed pings of prior RfCs' participants to join the current RfC on WP:VPP, since (not knowing any of them or their past positions) I had no idea which of them might agree or disagree with me on any issue. Likewise for quoting verbatim policies none of which I had written.

All that seems consistent is that the complainants were INsistent on disregarding WP:BLP (-CRIME and -PUBLIC) to call a living person a "killer", as a purported "fact", in advance of our society's finder of fact (a court) producing that verdict — a rush to judgment in which my policy-citing comments were a stumbling block.

But I'd willingly be persuaded otherwise, because that seeming has grim implications. – .Raven  .talk 06:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

.Raven, I invite you to an ominous thought experiment. Imagine there is not the thing "Wikipedia policy". Instead, there is a group of human beings upset with your approach to discussion. What differentiates your conversational style from that of others, such that it might cause people frustration? I feel like I read somewhere that things leading to harm and ill ought be abandoned. Please block out some time for genuine reflection. Like me, you defeat yourself. Folly Mox (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Just possibly the same thing that caused multiple people to complain to AN/I about Randy Kryn and Freoh, content disputes about which the accused differed in opinion and declined to be silenced. If I were the only person this had ever happened to, I might think "It's just me." But the pattern antedates my being targeted. On the flip side, I've been on-wiki for 14 years, and such complaints just started. My "conversational style" hasn't changed in that time. If it had been so bad, surely someone would have noticed earlier. Even someone who didn't so emphatically and heatedly disagree because of what they wanted included despite the established wider consensus (which is what policy records). – .Raven  .talk 20:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

.Raven, in your 14 years on-wiki, 2023 is the first year in which you have made more than 73 edits. In 2023, you have made 3711 edits since February, according to Xtools as of this comment. This is something I have considered while reviewing your recent contributions and the pending ANI complaint. While your conversational style may not have changed, it appears the quantity of conversation has increased in the past few months. Beccaynr (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this was the first year an article I'd been working on got moved without notice by another editor, who move-warred to maintain the change, so that I had to do an RM to restore it; and who complained about (among other things) my creating RMs to restore other articles they'd just moved without notice. (He'd also accused me of using "racist tropes" for retaining the words "tribe" and "ancient" in articles about tribal societies antedating the Fall of Rome.) I started following AN/I at that point. My ratio of comments vs. article-edits changed because (as noted elsewhere) I prefer the "D"/discussion to BRRRRRR/edit-warring. Likewise my edits at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely instead of edit-warring over the article content. I thought that the preferred route. Oh well.

Meanwhile I've also made 85 edits to Most Serene Federal Republic of Montmartre, 89 to Draft:Botanophobia, and 28 to Draft:William E. Pomeranz, all of which I created; plus 116 to Magical alphabet, for which Nosferattus created the draft stub. Among other article-edits. Not just commenting. – .Raven  .talk 07:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Researching and creating/improving articles is clearly your best talent. You're objectively not good at changing entrenched opinions--which is ok, few are. One path leads toward your stated goal of improving the encyclopedia, the other does not. Xan747 (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Results on the two discussions brought up at AN/I would tend to support your second sentence — though I must say, I don't usually meet quite such a combative and hostile reception at talkpages. (The person who heatedly accused me of using "racist tropes" had come here without my having previously commented to them at all, or even being aware of their existence before; i.e., as a self-starter.)

That a civil and pleasant editor like Randy Kryn got treated likewise says something to me.

But I still believe in the value of D[iscussion]. – .Raven  .talk 18:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I pointedly have no comment whether you've been treated fairly or not. I do have an opinion that what you are engaged in is not a valuable or productive discussion. Randy gave you good advice in his first comment to you at the ANI. I echo and extend it: slip away quietly into an interesting but unloved corner of the project and use your research skills to make it shine. Xan747 (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Xan747. Hopefully .Raven will even continue to edit here after the reception their presence has stirred up in quite a few editors. Dogs with a bone, etc. But I think they will, a strong personality who probably should pull back a little at times. Their "output" is quite strong, and comes across in writing, so some good lessons given and learned here. The main thing to remember is that we are all volunteers here, so time is limited, and too many comments with too much information (even when that information is germane to the topic) tend to turn some towards the negative, especially when a group of like-minded editors has already formed. All of this is a learning curve, and amongst all of the complaints if .Raven keeps up with good editing and writing, on one level that's really all that counts (as well as being civil and appreciative of other editors, which helps everyone). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, he hasn't been blocked yet, and I think if he knocks it off at ANI and the other dramaboards and edits non-controversial mainspace for awhile, he might not get blocked. Seriously, are their any uninvolved admins at ANI who will want to properly close that monster any time soon? But in the end, he's the one who determines what he values, and if that's dying on this particular hill, may he find his peace in it. Xan747 (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope not, don't want to lose a good editor either way. The block request seems pretty unfair, given the evidence, but I hope they don't close it right now, I have one more thing to say to someone. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair or not (and again, I'm not opining which) he's going to be blocked if he keeps it up. If he does nothing but write articles for a week, he might stand a chance of avoiding the banhammer. No need for him to admit fault, just walk away and do something non-controversial. But maybe that's not stimulating enough ... I know about that all too well myself. Xan747 (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Good, I got my comment in. Walking away may not be in someone's nature off-line, but on Wikipedia walking away is a necessary learned skill. But not too often, or for the wrong reason. And by all logic and societal usage, Marine should be uppercased. .Raven, you've proven that. If a closer decides that weight of numbers trumps objective facts (at least from one wide point-of-view) then that's what the closer decides. The next step would be to appeal the call, there is one I have to appeal but haven't gotten around to it (only so many arguments to juggle at once). Letting it go and waiting to see where it ends up seems a wise move in the present atmosphere. ANI picnic lunch. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Who counted resubmitting of pings? I certainly did not count that. I omitted that and humorous comments. starship.paint (exalt) 09:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

So when you complained,"you have 66 comments within the WP:VPP RFC", that was 'omitting' my pings and humorous comments? – .Raven  .talk 20:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That was twelve days ago, a rough measure, and not an exhaustive analysis. It has been superseded by the comprehensive list I posted at WP:ANI two days ago, which did not include such comments. In any case, the number of resubmitting of pings plus humorous comments, by my estimate, is 6. There isn't much difference, really, between 60 comments and 66 comments. You are missing the forest for the trees because the real issue is the 60 comments and not the 6 comments. You latch onto any inaccuracy and it becomes a lasting grievance. When I came here to warn you, you complained about El_C's usage of the wrong tool to count edits. Now you're still complaining against something I said twelve days ago. Even above you're complaining about things that happened in March or April. You don't (or rarely) admit fault, which leads me to wonder if you constantly see yourself as the victim or infallible. starship.paint (exalt) 14:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

> "That was twelve days ago, a rough measure, and not an exhaustive analysis."

Unfortunately, it did not exclude the pings. Your "Now, when I said 'argumentative', it doesn't necessarily mean that you were hostile to the other person you were replying to." also gave me no reason to believe you excluded pings.

It's nice that you clarify your position now, twelve days later. Thank you. It would also have been nice for you to say the same thing (clarifying your meaning of "argumentative") at AN/I, but somehow that didn't happen.

Then you conjoin this with the accusation "You latch onto any inaccuracy and it becomes a lasting grievance."

May I point out that the entire AN/I thread is about a "lasting grievance" over old comments?

As I pointed out on AN/I yesterday, the discussion and time period Combefere had originally specified contained just two (2) of my replies to any !vote or left-edge comment, agreeing with both of them — not "in order to persuade [their authors] to [my] point of view" nor "arguing against that particular person's point of view" nor "with the goal of getting each person to change their '!vote'", in WP:BLUDGEON's phrasing. My other comments were in existing discussion-subthreads, where other people were already involved in "trying to persuade others to their point[s] of view", and civil reply likewise did not seem out of place. (I note that there's been no AN/I discussion of who was uncivil in those discussions.)

As well, I noticed that your link-list included my replies to comments directed at me, despite WP:BLUDGEON explicitly stating: "Replying to many questions that are directed to you is perfectly fine." I commented in reply, "The list is inflated by including replies to comments directed at me."... and you neither responded nor edited that list accordingly. That was just two days ago. Is it a "lasting grievance" to bring up an "inaccuracy" which inflates my purported offense, and which has not been corrected in public view despite notice, i.e. is still there for others to read? – .Raven  .talk 15:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Look at what the most recent editors who opposed the proposed sanctions on you (obviously good faith editors) said: clearly attempts by well meaning editors has fallen on deaf ears which is why this has escalated ... Raven... if you're brought here again with similar issues I suspect the community will support stronger sanctions and Looking over the edits, I see definite bludgeoning by Raven, and I would support sanctions targeting this behavior rather than raw edit count. Then let's look at some other implicit opposers: off-topic response which illustrates the issue of posting more responses than necessary and OTOH, Raven's replies to this very thread make clear some kind of warning is necessary. ... unless you take to heart that commenting this much is indeed viewed negatively and learn to rein it in; you don't have to have the wp:lastword, you can say your piece and leave it at that, and just because another editor keeps repeating their own point doesn't mean you have to keep engaging starship.paint (exalt) 14:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Such as "clearly attempts by well meaning editors has fallen on deaf ears" — such as the AN/I report being filed by one who (as the same person who made that quoted comment also noted in the same paragraph) "was also beating that Neely article like a dead horse"? Or should I take it as "well-meaning" when my replies to comments directed at me are counted toward "bludgeoning"? – .Raven  .talk 15:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Raven, even if you discount folks who are involved, several apparently unaligned and good faith editors have made the same point. I rather doubt the current report will result in sanctions, but continuing as you are not only virtually guarantees more sanctions in the future, it greatly lessens your effectiveness as an editor. It seems that every reply you make is heavily laden with defensiveness and snark. I get defensive. I snark. But it is not the apparent reflex it seems to be with you recently. If your reply at AN/I had been "okay, I'll think about it," then I believe the whole mess would be over without any substantive behavior change. I'm not asking you to acquiesce to anyone or to really change much of anything. I would just urge you to recognize that a counterpunch is not always the best response, and use them a bit more judiciously. As ever, though, this is all just one old guy's opinion and I wish you well however you choose to proceed. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m not going to reply to the above and the above. starship.paint (exalt) 15:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

As someone who agreed with you and asked you stop bludgeoning I'm going to be direct.... If you don't show some growth here and acknowledge your issues I'm going to recommend a temporary block. It's becoming clear that you're not getting the point, you're going to defend your actions, and then point fingers at others. I can't think of any other way to get through to you, but sometimes sanctions are the only way to get an editor's attention. I hope you take this under consideration. Nemov (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd thought my actually having cut back on talkpage comments (not merely promising to) might have communicated something.

Do actions no longer speak louder than words? – .Raven  .talk 18:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: William E. Pomeranz (July 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tutwakhamoe was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:William E. Pomeranz and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, .Raven! 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! Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine

Hello, .Raven. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

See #Reasons above

Decline reason:

I see no reason to remove the block, as you don't seem to think you have done anything wrong at all. I think your behavior would resume immediately if the block was removed. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2023 (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.

• I hope you take a moment to carefully reflect on how you have gotten to this point. I read your unblock request and I'm not surprised it was denied because you showed zero self awareness that your behavior could be a problem. This particular point struck me: I did so giving either factual citations or policy/guideline links to support my reasoning — indeed, the complaints were precisely that I had done so too much (in the opinion of those opposed to my suggested edits).

I didn't oppose your suggested edits and asked you multiple times to WP:DROPTHESTICK. You seem to ignore everyone except Loki, who was an outlier, but since they found no fault in your behavior then everyone else is wrong. I'm not here to argue with you because I know you can do that all day, but to reason with you. I believe you have value to add to this project. However, if you do not have the ability to see how your actions led you to this point then there's no hope you'll ever be unblocked. I hope you really think about it. Thanks Nemov (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• A talent for telepathy and prophecy would be impressive, if it were real and true. Pretense, less so.
  Looking back at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely, the issue was whether the article should say Neely "was killed by [a named person]" — who has not been convicted of the deed. WP:BLPCRIME says to wait for a court conviction — as a number of people pointed out. Others thought newspaper reports making that assertion were sufficient verification; but this is not what the BLP policy requires. I replied accordingly to these arguments, and noted that by their logic Wikipedia should have joined with multiple newspapers in declaring the Central Park Five guilty before trial (thereby possibly prejudicing potential jurors). Those so arguing complained, and El_C gave me a partial block from that talkpage. The article now names that UNconvicted person as a killer, despite BLPCRIME and the prejudicing-jurors concern. Perhaps it's good that Wikipedia wasn't around at the time of the Central Park Five's trial.
  I'm not arguing to Right Great Wrongs, just that WP shouldn't commit wrongs itself. I still believe that — and would argue it again — but I neither "bludgeoned" nor committed "disruptive editing" as Wikipedia defines those; not in that thread, nor in the others. Such disagreement is not the same as disruption... unless making sourced/quoted/linked statements such as quoting policy is "disruptive" — but what is it that actually gets disrupted by this?
  Lawfaring ("based on some tendentiously twisted 'facts' and includ[ing] multiple people cooperating") to silence dissenters is itself described by WP as a means to achieve false consensus; I've named other targets of such treatment. This permablock, also by El_C, has the same sort of foundation. The vagueness of both above editors' phrase "your behavior" — which might cover mere dissent, for all it specifies — fails to answer my previously citing/quoting Wikipedia's clearly stated definitions of both "bludgeoning" and "disruptive editing", which "my behavior" did not meet. If that fact does not matter, what does this say about the legitimacy of this decision? Anyone might be blocked, not having actually violated policy, and if they request an unblock, be told it was declined because "you don't seem to think you have done anything wrong at all." – .Raven  .talk 00:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Raven, as apparently the one person you wanna listen to, can I give you some advice?

  I still think your block is bad. Its clear you agree your block was bad. Neither of us thinks you did anything against Wikipedia policy.

  However, the best tactical option for you right now is not to stubbornly insist that your block was bad, it's to apologize for the behavior people didn't like. Sometimes, you're just going to be on the losing side of an argument, and the ability to recognize this and concede when you need to concede is a pretty crucial skill. Loki (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @LokiTheLiar: "apologize for the behavior people didn't like." — That being? Not "bludgeoning" or "disruptive editing", the putative reasons given; as you're aware, I didn't do those. So then what? Disagreeing with policy violations like a group rush to judgment ahead of a trial? Bringing up quotes/citations/links which others found inconvenient? Replying to comments on my own user_talkpage? How does one apologize for such things? It's clear that people can claim anything is objectionable — even if (as above) they can't say exactly what or why, when asked — so how can I (or anyone) even promise not to write anything that could be found objectionable? I tried to avoid edit-wars by not editing articles at issue, only peacefully discussing (with sources) the issues on talkpages, and even that was called "disruptive editing", not to mention "combative". What cannot be projected onto anyone or anything? I thank you, sincerely, for your advice. Just... what is it that I can truthfully, honestly, concede? – .Raven  .talk 04:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  For the behavior everyone but the two of us thinks was bludgeoning, clearly. Like, regardless of whether it violates WP:BLUDGEON as written, it was clearly combative, right? And you're clearly being combative on this page right now, right? Loki (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @LokiTheLiar: My mood when writing it was of one sincerely puzzled, not "combatting" you while thanking you. I suppose one can read any text with any emotion one chooses to impute, just as one can sing lyrics to many tunes (e.g. the words of "America the Beautiful" to the tune of "The British Grenadier" sound bombastic; to the tune of "Greensleeves" sound wistful...). But this is "eisegesis" (reading into a text); psychologists call it "projection". And again I'm certainly not the only person to have encountered this. – .Raven  .talk 20:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Please userfy these two notified draft pages

Please userfy (move to subpages of my userspace) the following two draft articles, since I am currently blocked and can neither move nor edit them... so that they don't get deleted before I can finish them:

• Notification — Draft:William E. Pomeranz
• Notification — Draft:National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine

Thank you! – .Raven  .talk 00:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

When and if you are unblocked, you'll be able to retrieve any deleted drafts via WP:REFUND. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: That is certainly one way to recover them. However, please note from the above bot-message: "... if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace." Here I am doing precisely as instructed. – .Raven  .talk 02:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Userfied User:.Raven/William E. Pomeranz / User:.Raven/National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine. starship.paint (RUN) 01:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Botanophobia (September 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Citadeol was: 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Botanophobia and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Citadeol(talk) 10:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding User:.Raven/William E. Pomeranz

Hello, .Raven. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:.Raven/William E. Pomeranz, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Crowbone.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Crowbone.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)