User talk:Anastrophe/Archive 2020

To answer your question in more detail

First, thank you again for getting the RfC going. Likewise for commenting on actual policy at ANI.

I'd hope my edit summaries answer your question, but all I'm doing is trying out possible solutions in the context of the article. Sometimes I get so focused on a source, sentence, etc that I don't think enough about how it will work in the context of the article. Doing so made this solution appear.

Meanwhile, I agree that material under dispute in an RfC should not be moved or changed, other than removed if policy requires it. Of course, I think policy is on the side of removal until there's consensus for inclusion in BLPs where there are NOT/POV/etc concerns.

I hope this answers your question, and am happy to go into further detail. --Ronz (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2017 Shayrat missile strike. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't believe I violated 3RR, while the other user did. I'm not planning on making any changes to the article or article talk page in question until user Vnkd is back, so that we can work (hopefully) collaboratively. I'd appreciate not being blocked from the whole of wikipedia. Thanks. ADDITION: I was unaware of the 1RR in place on that article. I have no history of disruptive editing, I would hope that counts for something. Anastrophe (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It appears that your block has expired. SQL^{Query me!} 00:20, 15 February 2020 (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.

unblock discussion

@Bbb23: downgrade to partial block?-- Deepfriedokra 22:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for requesting that, Deepfriedokra - but a mini-vacay won't kill me. It feels a bit punitive, but that and buck fifty will buy me a Snickers bar to salve my tears. Or something like that. Anastrophe (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

A Snickers bar broken in the middle in the Dulles section of Sterling, Loudoun County, Virginia

Here you go. I've saved you $1.50 (do they really cost that much)?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Heh. I actually had to do a google search for something resembling the price of an individual bar, one was about that amount, but who knows if that's the insane price some online vendor charges. I can't remember when I last purchased a Snickers bar - fifteen years ago? 25 years ago? Never been a huge fan of Caramel. Butterfingers was my favorite, but I avoid sugars as much as possible, as I'm no spring chicken any more. Now you know my life story, not that you asked for it...:) Anastrophe (talk)

Anastrophe, I block a lot of users, far more for socking than for edit-warring, but even those I do my share. I can't remember a more pleasant and entertaining conversation with a blocked user. As I am human - all evidence to the contrary - I am disposed to unblock you, but in deference to policy, I do need some acknowledgments and promises from you before I do so. First, I did not block you for violating 3RR. I blocked you for edit-warring, which does not require more than 3 reverts. Do you understand that? Second, I noted the 1RR restriction on the article. To my knowledge, although certain kinds of sanctions require notice, violating 1RR does not. Technically, I did not block you for violating 1RR, but, again, do you understand? I also suggest you read more about the sanctions imposed by the community on the Syrian war articles. Finally, and perhaps most important, will you promise not to edit the article for at least a week from the date I unblock you? You are welcome to use the Talk page to discuss changes, but even if you obtain consensus for a change, you must let some other editor implement that change.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23 - thanks for your kind words. I'm at your disposal. To keep things crystal clear, and point by point:

1. Yup - I understand you regarding the block being for edit warring, not 3RR in and of itself. It's a fair assessment. The other editor seemed predisposed to ownership, and pugnaciousness - I responded not in kind, but by trying over and over again to get the editor to understand my point of view on the changes - in edit summaries, as he was. Feh! That's not how it's done. I should have taken it to talk immediately. I know better, and have done better in the past.
2. I understand - now - regarding the 1RR restrictions on the article, and as well that it's edit warring that was at issue, not the number of reversions themselves. After the first time the editor made his change - which I think was more than a month ago? Don't recall - I should have brought it to talk. As a digression - I've been editing here a long time, but I've tried mightily to avoid the lawyerly aspects behind editing, rather to cleave quite simply to good judgement - in the sense that I edit stuff, and if I see some notice at the top of the article page before I edit, I'll go with that. The 1RR notice is on the talk page, and I hadn't even considered checking for a restriction there. The edits in question seemed to be on matters entirely benign, so it didn't occur to me it might be contentious (in the sense of the greater sanctions on the whole Syria mess). But - all irrelevant to the overriding issue of being a dork and trying to reason with an emphatic editor via edit summaries. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
3. Re unblocking. Let me put it this way: I do promise not to edit the article in question for at least a week. However, I'm also predisposed to just let the block run its course, and still hold to the promise. I don't want to set some precedent that might further complicate what I assume is generally a thankless job in dealing with this sort of stuff. Having worked in customer support a lifetime ago, and also having run assorted online 'BBS'es and forums over the decades - and being a moderator - well, there aren't enough fake social media points and upvotes in the world to convince me to do it again.

So - to summarize, as my tendency to bloviate can cause drowsiness: I understand the block was for edit warring, and the block was justified for that reason. 1RR, 3RR, .0076RR are irrelevant to that overriding issue. I promise not to edit the article in question for at least a week - and then, not before some reasonable discussion has formed and consensus arisen. Hell, I probably won't edit the particular issue itself ever - I'm not invested in it. And, with all of that, I say we let the block run out on its already-set timeline. I'll live, trust me - no no, please, I know how to swim, there's room on the liferaft for the next chap who's gone overboard, I can tread water to shore.

This is what happens when I write immediate after having my morning coffee. Cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Anastrophe, thanks for the long but very readable comments. If it weren't for your statement that you don't want to be unblocked, I would unblock you as your insight into your conduct and promise have more than satisfied me. It's unusual for a user to say they don't want to be unblocked, so if you change your mind, let me know, and if I'm not around, any administrator may unblock you with my full consent.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Definitely the best unblock discussion I ever read.-- Deepfriedokra 18:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

skyscraper

Good Afternoon (At least if you are on the east coast of the United States). I had made some edits to the Skyscraper article, which according to this site you had reversed. I had intended to link the fact that there were plenty of large, commercial buildings in New York before Chicago had really taken to develop, and that a good segment of the population in New York believes that they are the first city to develop a skyscraper. I am not ignoring or disparaging the accomplishments the fine city of Chicago has made in the architectural sphere, especially developing the first steel-framed commercial building, and I have a deep respect for the city. I am simply saying that perhaps this added context would, with the existing sources of the E. V. Haughwout Building and the Equitable Life Building already developed as further research, be needed aspects to this important discussion.

--Omnificent879 (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

Hi, Anastrophe = I didn't mean to revert anything you did - my apologies - but we edit conflicted. Forgive me? Will you go back and make them? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

LIGO

I tried to figure out when the buildings were built, and not the interferometer, but wasn't so sure on that. 1999 is fine with me. Gah4 (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"Queering the suffrage movement"

How can we resolve the issues with "Queering the 19th Amendment"?

Last time you took it down you wrote:

"as a standalone section, it would require wider acknowledgement of these interpretations in other reliable sources."

I have provided "wider acknowledgement of these interpretations in other reliable sources"

Perhaps there are others who would agree with the inclusion of the text I contributed. There is other material in the article that have "has no direct relevance to the nineteenth amendment" but discuss the suffrage movement and specific suffragists. The material I have provided is no different. Please refrain from these vague rebuttals and help make this contribution possible.

Also, your response could have been made in a more timely manner. My text was posted uninterrupted for a couple days. "please discuss on talk page. While sources have been expanded, the larger problem is that this is meta-commentary on some of those involved in the suffrage movement; it has no direct relevance to the nineteenth amendment. It may be appropriate to the larger Suffrage article as well as the individual suffrage actors"

"Queering the suffrage movement"[edit | edit source] “Queering the suffrage movement" is an effort actively underway in suffrage scholarly circles[1][2] Wendy Rouse writes, "Scholars have already begun ‘queering’ the history of the suffrage movement by deconstructing the dominant narrative that has focused on the stories of elite, white, upper-class suffragists.”[1] Susan Ware says, "To speak of 'queering the suffrage movement' is to identify it as a space where women felt free to express a wide range of gender non-conforming behaviors, including but not limited to sexual expression, in both public and private settings."[2] Suffragists challenged gendered dress and behavior publicly, e.g., Annie Tinker (1884-1924) and Dr. Margaret ‘Mike’ Chung (1889-1959); they also challenged gender norms privately in bi- or homosexual relationships, e.g., African-American activist, writer and organizer for the Congressional Union (later the National Woman’s Party), Alice Dunbar-Nelson (1835-1935).[1] “Boston Marriage” partners (women involved in intimate longterm relationships with other women) included Carrie Chapman Catt with Mary Garrett Hay, Jane Addams with Mary Rozet Smith, Gail Laughlin with Dr. Mary Austin Sperry.[1] Other known suffragist couples are Susan B. Anthony with Emily Gross, and National American Woman Suffrage Association president Dr. Anna Howard-Shaw with Susan B. Anthony's niece, Lucy Anthony[3]; Alice Stone Blackwell was "betrothed" to Kitty Barry.[2] Many leaders of the National Woman's Party co-habitated with other women involved in feminist politics: Alma Lutz and Marguerite Smith, Jeanette Marks and Mary Wooley, and Mabel Vernon and Consuelo Reyes.[4] There are also the significant same sex relationships of NAWSA first and second vice presidents Jane Addams and Sophonisba Breckenridge, respectively,[5] and the chronic close female friendships of Alice Paul.[6] "Outing" historic feminists is not the aim of "queering the suffrage movement," but identifying a broad range of gender identities within the suffrage movement attests to the diversity of those contributing to the cause.[2]

^ Jump up to: a b c d Rouse, Wendy. "The Very Queer History of the Suffrage Movement". 1920-2020 Women's Vote Centennial: the official site commemorating 100 years of women's right to vote. Retrieved August 18, 2020. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Ware, Susan (20019). Why They Marched: Untold Stories of the Women Who Fought for the Right to Vote. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. p. 161. ISBN 9780674986688. Check date values in: |year= (help) ^ Salam, Maya (August 14, 2020). "How Queer Women Powered the Suffrage Movement". The New York Times. Retrieved August 18, 2020. ^ Lillian, Faderman (1999). To Believe in Women: What Lesbians Have Done for America--A History. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 3. ISBN 039585010X. ^ Jabour, Anya (January 24, 2020). "When Lesbians Led the Women's Suffrage Movement". The Conversation: Academic rigor, journalistic flair. Retrieved August 20, 2020. ^ Rupp, Leila J. "'Imagine My Surprise': Women's Relationships in Historical Perspective". Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. Vol. 5, No. 3 Autumn 1980: 61–70 – via JSTOR.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by De Pisan (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)