Dylath Leen

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Alexbrn (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Other accounts?

Have you edited Wikipedia with other accounts? Alexbrn (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

No. Dylath Leen (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Bret Weinstein DRN

Hey there! I noticed your dispute on the noticeboard and want to see if you can describe what happened throughout the dispute and who you say is right and wrong. Thanks! MrAgentSochi (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)MrAgentSochi

Thanks for your interest. You mean to explain it here or in the DRN? Dylath Leen (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Wherever you prefer, to me it doesn't really matter. MrAgentSochi (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)MrAgentSochi

Let's do it here. I cannot add much to my position outlined in the two discussions from Talk:Bret Weinstein linked in the DRN (first and second). My main contention was that even including that whole section on COVID-19 on that page seems like an overreaction. If it has to stay, I have two propositions for improvement. First is a minor rewording to make a quotation look less biased, second is avoiding the accusation of "spreader of disinformation". Naturally, I think I am right on both of those issues and my opponents in those discussions are wrong. With that out of the way, I received limited engagement with my actual arguments so it is difficult for me to evaluate the points of the other side, which asserts the current wording has no issues.

Regarding my first point, there never seemed to be an attempt to deny the problematic tone, only assertions that the quotation is accurate to the source. As if oblivious to the way "fears" looks and sounds in the article itself. Not to mention, outside of any perceptions, my change is only more accurate to the source than what is already there.

Regarding my second point, eventually there was some acknowledgement that "disinformation" is a problematic term, which was my main contention, when it dawned on me that the article actually says "spreader of disinformation" and the serious implications of such a formulation. It was kept in nonetheless. As if Wikipedia is powerless and must include what that particular reliable source says every time (even if it lacks substance and is libelous in this particular instance). Dylath Leen (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase you want to reword might not sound neutral to some people. But if it is a quote from the source then you can't really change it. It's unfortunate that the source might not be telling the truth, but if it's the only one on that topic then it must be used unless you think it's better for that section to be removed. MrAgentSochi (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)MrAgentSochi

Discretionary Sanctions Notice - COVID-19, BLP

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 edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.

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.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

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.

User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please don't bludgeon the process

When you are dominating the dialogue of a discussion, like your edits at Talk:Bret Weinstein#RfC on the usage of "spreader of disinformation" in the article, it is best to pull back and have only an equal say in a discussion. This is particularly true with topics that have a history of heated debate, such as religion, politics, or nationality. If you find it is difficult to participate in heated debates without dominating the conversation or by adding a dozen comments, then perhaps you should avoid them altogether and find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks. ––FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 02:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I see I got under your skin, FormalDude.

You are referencing WP:BLUDGEON, again. First, it is just an essay, not a policy. Second, I am not even close to the conduct the essay describes. I did not respond to everyone in the RfC (and elsewhere), and when I did reply, it was appropriate clarification or discussion. I only talked to people who challenged my claims, primarily those who tried to convince me of something factual about the supposed "disinformation", not just policies like WP:MEDRS or WP:V, because there is almost no debating that. If someone is confused enough to claim that moniker "spreader of disinformation" does not imply lies and deception on the part of Weinstein, they should expect vigorous opposition.

By the way, you were especially obnoxious and should be embarrassed by your behavior in the RfC. At some point, you even did a pointless victory lap around most of my comments (quite like your favorite bludgeoning) throwing around absurd, baseless accusations. Of all the terrible, misguided arguments leveled at me on the whole Talk page yours were by far the least competent. You can't even use a dictionary. Perhaps it should be you who needs to rethink their activities on Wikipedia. Dylath Leen (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making WP:Personal attacks. ––FormalDude^(talk) 17:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, if an accurate description of your conduct and abilities seems like a personal attack, perhaps you should rethink more than just your Wikipedia presence. Dylath Leen (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Dylath Leen I know how to use a dictionary and saying otherwise is indeed not accurate and a personal attack. ––FormalDude^(talk) 17:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Exhibit A:

"Do you not see how you have to specify intent because words like deceit and mislead do not imply purposefulness?" - FormalDude

Exhibit B:

"Multiple dictionary definitions [of disinformation] make no mention of intention." - FormalDude

However, as a show of good faith, I am willing to concede that you are likely able to look up a word in a dictionary. You were just not able to use this ability well, in support of your arguments. Dylath Leen (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Dylath Leen Those exhibits in no way contradict each other. Are you daft? ––FormalDude^(talk) 18:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Help, help, I am being personally attacked by FormalDude!

Exhibit A and Exhibit B are not supposed to be contradicting each other. Not even sure what gave you that idea. It's just that they are both provably wrong by using a mere dictionary. Hence my impression you do not know how to use one. Dylath Leen (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Dylath Leen Then prove them wrong with a dictionary definition. Oh wait, you cannot. BTW questions are not personal attacks. ––FormalDude^(talk) 18:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you a complete philistine? An incorrigible ignorant? An unteachable, obtuse, thick, willfully uninformed and totally oblivious simpleton, FormalDude?

You see, I've already proven you wrong, on both counts. Multiple times. Reread our RfC discussions until you get it. Dylath Leen (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not a stupid fuck, if that's what you're getting. Are you? Because you've proved nothing. I can't wait for the closer to shut you up. ––FormalDude^(talk) 20:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

A closer cannot help you here, FormalDude.

Do you truly not understand what I was getting at with my questions? Are you that dim? That slow on the uptake? Are you a witless, simpleminded, deluded rube with no concept of introspection or awareness? Dylath Leen (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

When you word them as questions they sound quite funny. The closer is going to help by finding the obvious consensus against your position at the RfC. Of course nobody's going to close a user talk page thread, let alone one as stupid as this one. ––FormalDude^(talk) 21:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Whoomp! (There It Is) ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 04:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

When I word what as questions, FormalDude?

I am glad the closer did not rely on consensus alone. They also mention the best argument against my position. It is no coincidence that I spelled out the exact same argument right there in the RfC. I am impressed. Dylath Leen (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

When you word pejoratives as questions and list them off consecutively like that. Made me care about this situation a whole lot less now that I see some humor in it lol. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 22:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, what you should see is that it was a reaction to your naive and absurd nugget of wisdom that "questions are not personal attacks". That is so wrong it almost impressed me. Dylath Leen (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Bret Weinstein. Your WP:POINTY (i.e. sarcastic, pointed) edits to this page are not helpful in generating consensus. Particularly: "Oh, is accuracy too high a standard for discussion here? That would actually explain a lot." The point of discussions on wikipedia is not to win, but to generate an accurate encyclopedia. Discussion in good faith is the only way to get anything done around here. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC) (edited 13:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC))

Huh? Where did I not assume good faith there? Dylath Leen (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Dylath Leen, your statement presupposes that other editors are not interested in working towards an accurate, verifiable encyclopedia.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not assume anything there. You wrote that an important difference is irrelevant. I took an issue with that. It was sarcastic, but that is hardly out of the ordinary on that talk page. I wasn't even the only one criticizing FormalDude's take. Jibal joined in. (funnily enough, you managed to piss Jibal off so much so he accused you of attacking him) Dylath Leen (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Bret Weinstein. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This statement: "There was a risk people could confuse his comment with a good argument." referring to FormalDude is unnecessarily combative. Please remain civil in your discussions here. Such provoking behavior does not help us come to consensus in these contentious articles. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Why are you on my case about this? Are you going around talk pages of FormalDude or Alexbrn reprimanding them for their transgressions? Dylath Leen (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Dylath Leen, I simply noticed another instance of behavior I would characterize as "problematic" in the very same discussion, even after I had warned you about unkind characterizations of others, and so wanted to alert you why I (and other users) may perceive it as such. Wikipedia works best when we keep each other accountable.

I have not seen any such behavior from either of the users you've just indicated in recent memory. If you have such examples, you are welcome to bring them up on their user talk pages as I have done with you here.

But, you should also be aware that there is also a policy against repeatedly accusing others of misbehavior with the intention of deterring their participation in the project, or without substance, evidence, or cause. Such activity is called "casting aspersions" and is considered disruptive and abusive of the process.

I am happy to work with you on improving these articles, but I hope you would enter such discussions with these notes in mind, it is never helpful to the tone of a discussion to engage in behavior that another may consider off-putting or disruptive.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

No, thanks. I take no pleasure in policing the behavior of others. In fact, it goes against some of my core values.

Funnily enough, both of them, without valid justification, did repeatedly accuse me of misbehavior. Again, another thing I wouldn't do.

Even though it is a lot of fun, I will try to tone down the sarcasm, because I consider that a valid point. Dylath Leen (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)