Jump to content

User talk:Inadvertent Consequences

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

Welcome

[edit]

Hello, Inadvertent Consequences, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 12:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Inadvertent Consequences, you are invited to the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi Inadvertent Consequences! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice origin story

[edit]

I was wondering, thanks for explaining so quickly and reminding me of the danger, inadvertent things can happen to any of us! InedibleHulk (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

[edit]

"I wrote about the basic tenets of the system herein, ie balance and neutrality, a fundamental requirement of all Wikipedia articles." But those are not actually our basic tenets, that is not what WP:NPOV means. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias I believe that essentially speaks for itself.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor

[edit]

Please read wp:minor, a recent edit marked by you as a minor one violated this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • How did it violate the policy? It was a minor edit, that’s it and why was my edits reverted? Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MINOR says A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions.
    Your edit changed the lede of Fascism from Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism to Fascism is a form of both Far Left and far-right authoritarian ultranationalism which is obviously not a minor change.
    Furthermore, you cited Wilhelm Reich's book about how Nazis were all just sexually repressed perverts, which is about as far from a definitive source as one can get. You also botched the citation: that book was written in 1933, not 1970, which is a bigger problem than it might seem.
    In any case, I would advise you to never again make an edit this major while citing as a source a man who spent the final decades of his life trying to shoot down UFO's with an orgasm-based weapon and selling snake oil before dying in prison. And if you do, you should certainly never mark them as minor again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • with the greatest respect you’ve got it all wrong, the minor edit was the following edit where I changed a directed link to one in-line here Further, please do not revert my edits without discussion. Far left fascism is just as relevant to the “fascism“ article as right-wing fascism and the fact that you reverted my edit because you didn’t like a particular citation is ludicrous. You are engaging in personal research and I’m more than happy to re-edit using any number of citations confirming that fascism is of both the left and the right. Finally, the source I was citing was the updated 1970 second edition (there is also a 1997 3rd Ed) Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go read the FAQ. Ify ou continue to make edits such as this which misrepresent the source or use unreliable sources to support counterfactual claims, you will quickly find yourself shown the door. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • with respect, why are you trying to threaten other editors? The citations did not “misrepresent the source“ and they most certainly not are not “unreliable“. Do they counter the argument that “left-wing fascism“ doesn’t exist, yes although why you want would want to silence that fact I have no idea. However, I’m sure we’ll sort it out with the admins, best wishes. Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Your first source was categorically unreliable, and your second source directly contradicted your claim, as I explained on my talk page. Your continued insistence that your claim is a "fact" is evidence of nothing but your lack of familiarity with the subject. I would suggest you find a topic you're better educated in to edit, if you're not going to engage with the sources productively. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inadvertent Consequences, you are absolutely right about the minor edit thing. My edit summary could have been more clear, but since this is addressed in the first question of the faq, a similar edit was reverted not long ago, there is a big fat red template on the talk page and I assumed that it's clear enough that the topic may be controversial and may require some more caution, I thought a simple link would suffice. I was clearly wrong and apologize for it. Personuser (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I’m starting to find your arrogance a little trying, we should be able to discuss the issues as two adults normally do but it is clear that it has become impossible. Those citations are reliable and they do not counter the argument that left-wing fascism exists. I don’t understand why you think left-wing fascism is controversial, the ideology is a well-known issue researched by political scientists for decades. Further, you make basic mistakes in your interpretation of fascism yet accuse me of ignorance of the subject which is absolutely astonishing.However, I am happy that finally you except that your original attack on me was unfounded.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK fine, you think the sources were OK, but then you should have just made the edit, not marked it as minor. Now you know its been challenged make a case at the article talk page. What not to mark as minor changes (and I quote) Adding or removing references / citations, external links, or categories in an article, so no it was not a minor edit.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would dearly love to see some of the work of these "political scientists" who've been studying "left-wing fascism" for "decades". Or even a reliable source which actually makes reference to such work. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also wp:npa applies to personal talk pages too.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice

[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing problem

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 11:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OrangemikeHello, does the ‘cultural Marxism’ article have an on-going problem with accusations of bias? These are not ‘my pov’s or analysis’ rather the considered opinion of respected authors which needs to be reflected in the article as there is more than one educated, considered opinion of the ideological term. Surely you realise how one-sided and partisan the entry is? Currently it reads from entirely one opinion and there are many other points of view to be considered if the article is be considered reliable, no? best regards. Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The place to discuss the content of this article is Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (or possibly WP:NPOVN). But your attempt to shoe-horn in a FRINGE, conspiracy theory source into the lead of the article is not likely to convince anyone that there is more than one educated, considered opinion of the ideological term. So far, no reliable sources have been presented supporting the idea that the conspiracy theory is based on something real, and that is what you would need to find, to move forward. Newimpartial (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial Now now let’s not be ridiculous, using such terms as “fringe conspiracy theory source” in reference to respected authors and their mainstream publications is surprising to say the least. As for ‘putting it in the lede’ of course that’s where the edit needs to go because at the moment all we have is one opinion expressed and that is completely unacceptable, best wishes. Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The central thesis of the source you introduced here concerns BBC mind control ("brainwashing"). That isn't mainstream, brah. And in terms of article writing in general, please see WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY before being tempted again to editorialize in an article's lead section, regardless of the quality of sourcing on hand. Newimpartial (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A former sportswriter who has self published a couple of books does not equate to a 'highly respected author of the mainstream' - MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Consequences; this is the same tired old nonsense, conflating two different things in an effort to tie actual Marxist cultural analysis to the wackadoodle conspiracy theory. And the source you provided definitely falls in the wackadoodle category. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and I’m sorry Orange Mike, this is what editors do when they don’t like the conclusion from countering opinion; denigrate the author concerned. Sedgwick is a respected author of at least four books, two of which deal with the left’s approach to societal change and is due our respect and consideration. What you’re saying essentially is, that countering opinion in regards to the article is not to be tolerated and if attempted written off as pseudo science. In regards to the BBC directly, I’m afraid your trying to write off sources which reflect criticism of the BBC as lunacy is at best ignorance or worst just lazy research, best wishes. Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are two David Sedgwicks - one is a sportswriter from Malaga who has self published a couple of books about how the media brainwashes people, and the other is a respected Psychologist from Virginia. You're citing the sportswriter. MrOllie (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But psychoanalysis is a pseudo-science. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance 124.170.171.210 (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI several academic articles about Cultural Marxism:

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

[edit]

Information icon Please do not insert undue weight content into articles, as you did to Keir Starmer. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you.--Lord Belbury (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Lord Belbury: I’d hardly call it “undue weight“. However I am prepared to word it differently if that satisfies your editorial requirements or is it that you don’t want any mention of the Commons apology in the article? The reason I ask is that considering the highly charged narrative “Johnson is a liar” (which had its origins from this incident) I would’ve thought it highly relevant. Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sock block

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.
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 ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 14:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

This is my only active account having lost the password to ‘Roland of Yew’ (just check contributions history) ages ago with no backup email and I’ve been blocked for editing an article in good faith, what’s happening to Wikipedia? Further,, I discontinued editing Wikipedia on the two bells account many years ago (2017), and you only have to read the talk page [Revision as of 19:24, 4 January 2017]to see how I tried to delete the account because I was unhappy with being constantly reverted even though the sources were numerous and reliable (that account was NOT perm blocked by user Canterbury) Also, that account has not been used in many many years and yet I’m being accused of having “multiple accounts“ as though they are current which is a blatant fabrication and what it looks like to be an attempt to remove an editor for no good reason. Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The Twobells account was blocked for breaking WP:3RR, so you shouldn't have created any other accounts, that's sock puppetry. The merits of your edits are irrelevant in that regard. Ideally, you should return to Twobells to request unblock, but if you can't, please address the reason for the original block. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

  • @331dot: thanks for your contribution, I suppose, if I’m guilty of anything, it’s that I’ve lost my old passwords and the email accounts are expired, there was no attempt at deception at any time as you can see from the edits chronology. Further, how do I go about unblocking my first Wikipedia account if I no longer have the email and password please?Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have the login information for your original account, you may request unblock here. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot:Please would you unblock my account? Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you were originally blocked for edit warring over multiple pages. You have returned under a different account, as you admit, and yet you are continuing your edit warring on the exact same topics. While it may not be 3RR technically, you're still continuing a multi-year pattern of edit warring over several articles. Your User:Twobells account was blocked 7 times for edit warring before it finally became indefinite. 7 times, and yet you've returned and continued the exact same edit warring and attempts to make the same edits. You're going to have to address that very seriously, not just ask to be unblocked. Canterbury Tail talk 17:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m following the instructions as laid out by editor @331dot. I believe I have followed the guidelines as much as can be expected and please remember it takes two to ‘edit war’ not one editor in isolation. I believe my case is excellent in regards to reliable sources for Battlestar Galactica, and I just don’t understand why finance production credits which are accepted across most other TV/film articles are unacceptable to a certain editor on this particular article. I tried to do the right thing in discussing it and promise not to undo reverts. However, I still wish to put across my position on the talk page including linking to reliable sources which for the most part consider season 1/4 a US-U.K. Co-production. The promise also holds true of any other articles. Finally, I think you’ll find the account was not indefinitely blocked until today, I just stopped using it in exasperation (please see TwoBells talk page chronology), regards. Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to make an unblock request. And your Twobells accounts was indefinitely blocked 6 years ago, I know I'm the one that did it. Note that you're responsible for all your accounts, not just the current one. We deal with the person not the account so that old string of edit warring blocks still applies. Canterbury Tail talk 22:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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).

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

Request reason:

I returned to editing Wikipedia as I was unable to access my previous account due to no secondary email or password and have since been accused of “blatant sock puppetry“. Please could an admin unblock my user:Twobells account, so I can use it legitimately, any admin can tell from the edit chronology that I have never, ever used more than one account at the same time, and the only reason they were ever created was because I was unable to find the email and/or password. Also, I had no idea original accounts could be recovered without the password/email. Finally, I have made a promise not to engage in “edit warring“ and to resolve my differences on the talk pages. Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's been a long time since you made this request, but looking over everything here I see just too much inability to assume good faith, too much of a persecution complex, to comfortably feel that things won't end up right back here again if we unblock. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

.

A piece of advice, your account (and thus you) were originally blocked indefinitely for continuous edit warring. This account was blocked for sockpuppetry of a blocked account, but the reason you are blocked from Wikipedia ultimately is your continuous edit warring on the same topics over period spanning many years. Unless you take serious steps to address the reasons behind your original long series of blocks, no admin will unblock you. Ultimately it's not sockpuppetry that got you blocked, but that isn't helping your case. Canterbury Tail talk 17:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what do admins want me to do wear sackcloth and ashes? I’ve already explained above about the edit warring and the reasoning behind it. I have always tried to debate the issue in the talk pages and remember, edit warring isn’t done in isolation, two or more people engage in the behaviour yet seemingly I have been the one singled out for punitive action. I also promised to abide by the rules. All admins have to do it to check the accounts I created when I lost my password, there was no edit warring across those accounts and if that’s not good enough then I don’t know what to tell you.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main point here is that many prior blocks for edit warring didn't change your behavior, so why should we believe you now that you won't engage in edit warring? 331dot (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Thought that I just made that clear in my comments above? When I couldn’t find the email and password for the original account and created the new account there is no history of constantly edit warring on either Rolland of Yew or the (following that password loss) inadvertent consequences account. What I’m saying, is, that it is the Twobells account that has the history of constant edit warring, but since 2017 I have strictly abided by the rules. Finally, it is only when an editor edited the article while I was editing, did the 3RR issue occur, editors can clearly see from the chronology. There was no deliberate attempt at edit warring, regards. Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Roland Of Yew account, and this current account, continued the same pattern of edit warring started by the Twobells account. Coming back in with new accounts and making the same, previously reverted, edits again with a new count is still edit warring. The same edits on Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series), Millie Bobby Brown and other articles still constitutes a continuation of edit warring. And you didn't stick to the rules, you were indefinitely blocked for edit warring and, regardless of whether you lost your password or not you still returned to Wikipedia to edit despite being blocked instead of attempting to get unblocked. That's far from strictly abiding by the rules. Canterbury Tail talk 15:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the greatest respect, I don’t think you/admins had any intention of unblocking me especially if you accuse me of good faith editing articles irrespective of the content and then define it as ‘edit warring’ which comes across as reaching.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be unblocking you, other admins will manage the unblock process. Standard process is for admins other than the blocking admin to handle unblock requests in order to get other eyes on it. I'm actually trying to help you here by saying the edit warring is why you were initially blocked (9 times) and then continued the same edits on other accounts, and you have to address that and convince someone of it in order to get unblocked. It doesn't matter how many accounts, that's the initial reason you were blocked and that's the matter you need to address with other admins to stand any chance of getting unblocked. Canterbury Tail talk 16:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve already laid out my defence and profusely apologised, what more do admins want from me? It’s true, I’m only an occasional editor, and sometimes I fall into the “three revert“ trap employed by more experienced editors determined to ensure articles reflect their version of events but my intentions were always to improve the veracity of Wikipedia not to intentionally cause conflict and if admins can’t see that then it’s Wikipedia’s loss not mine. Finally, irrespective of outcome, thank you for taking the time to try and explain the ‘blocking’ process to me, regards.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Inadvertent_Consequences&oldid=1152933782"