Steven1991

Welcome!

Hello, Steven1991! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} 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 name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 10:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Regressive left

You need to read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS as well as WP:NOR. Many new editors have the same problem. However, is this your first account? You seem to have a good knowledge of inline citations. If you wish to discuss your edit, please use the article talk page so others can participate. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and editing logged out to evade scrutiny, as you did at Regressive left. 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 12:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Images

Hello. Sorry you're having issues with adding images to 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. We've been having some issues with a persistent vandal. I've made a change which will hopefully be good for the rest of today - about 4 hours - please take the opportunity to add some images. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want to add images, now's a good time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Erroneous captions to 2 of your images on the St Andrews Cathedral page of Wikipedia

You have uploaded two photographs you have taken onto the St Andrews Cathedral page of Wikipedia. Both feature the Tower of St Rule's along with what you call St Rule's "western turrets". This is not correct. What you call "western turrets" is, in fact, the (remains of) the eastern wall of the (later) sanctuary. The parallax caused by the angle of your photos may have misled you. My source? Cruden, Stuart (1950), St Andrews Cathedral - Official Guide, Edinburgh: Her Majesty's Statioery Office, ISBN 0-11-490696-3. I guess any more recent guidebook with a decent map of the site would do, but Cruden's two maps and photo no. 4 seem definitive. I don't know whether you can correct your errors (if not you, who can?) but if they aren't corrected soon I shall raise the matter on the Talk page of 'St Andrews Cathedral'. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind correcting them for me then? Steven1991 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I have edited the captions as you request. Unfortunately, the actual file title to one of them mentions the supposed "St Rule's Western turrets" and its image shows the deceptive parallax which might lead the viewer to accept the notion that the "turrets" (of the Eastern wall of the later Cathedral are actually in line with the axis of St Rule's Church, when your other picture shows plainly that they are not. I know of no way that the file's title (as opposed to its description or caption) can be altered/edited. If you know of a way, it should be corrected to avoid any further confusion. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. Steven1991 (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Regressive left, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits do not conform to WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Do not use opinion pieces or op-eds unless you WP:ATTRIBUTE that opinion to the author. Do not try to connect two separate issues (e.g., regressive left and Gal Gadot) unless the secondary sources make that explicit connection (cf WP:SYNTH). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Please stop censoring anything you don't like using technical excuses. You are selecting targeting people who add content that points out critical facts you are unwilling to acknowledge. You are abusing your power as an established Wikipedia editor to control narratives on the largest global online encyclopedia. Steven1991 (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

selectively targeting* Steven1991 (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This is your final warning to cease your disruptive editing. also see WP:NPA and WP:AGF. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You are abusing your power to make threats towards good-faith editors. Please inform me what you consider as "disruptive". Just because the content is what you don't agree with, it does not mean it is "disruptive". Steven1991 (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

By virtue of WP:AGF, you are not supposed to assume that I was making the edits in bad faith. Steven1991 (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

"Blocks should not be punitive

[edit source]

See also: Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors should not be punitive

Shortcuts

WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE

WP:NOPUNISH

Blocks should not be used:

to retaliate;

to disparage;

to punish; or

if there is no current conduct issue of concern." Steven1991 (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You continue to make disruptive edits, thus a block is preventative. I was clear in the warning that you're engaging in WP:SYNTH, not using proper sources, adding inappropriate content (WP:COATRACK), pushing a POV, and more. Engage on the talk pages. If you continue editing these articles without first improving your understanding of our requirements and without establishing WP:CONSENSUS, I will block you. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Please explain to me which part(s) of the content added by me was/were "disruptive". Steven1991 (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I originally wasn't going to take the time to do this, but you've made ostensibly constructive edits since your reply and I hope that you continue to do so. My hope is that these explanations will help you understand Wikipedia's norms and rules.

In this edit you a large amount of content to a page about regressive left. However, none of the sources you used mention regressive left, thus making your edit WP:SYNTH. I.e., you are making a connection between two things that the sources themselves do not make. Further, all of the sources you used are either not reliable (WP:RS) or opinion pieces (WP:ATTRIBUTE). Please see WP:RSP for a list of common sources and their overall appropriateness. Furthermore, in your edit summary, you accuse me of making a malicious revert, this is not assuming good faith and casting aspersions.

In this edit you added content that was arguably pushing a WP:POV by giving WP:UNDUE weight to a specific topic or event that was not widely covered by reliable sources. For example, if I wanted to push the POV that Mark Pocan is a jerk and a dirty liberal, I might make edits to his article about how he insulted Republicans ([1], [2]) or hates Israel ([3]). But of course these events are minor, not relevant to his overall biography, and meant only to cast him in a bad light. This kind of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing is disruptive.

In this edit you say that a professor allegedly threatened Jews, but the source doesn't say that. We cannot add our own interpretations of events like that. We summarize the sources, but we must take care to reflect them accurately. Think of it like making an annotated bibliography.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Sometimes it helps to ask "would I expect to see this in a paper print encyclopedia like Brittanica? Would the editor think this important enough to include? Will this matter to the person or history 10 years from now?" EvergreenFir (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This is what you are doing:

“Wikilawyering is a critical term which describes various practices to be avoided in Wikipedia. It may refer to:

• Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.

• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles.

Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.

• Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

• Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem.” Steven1991 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm PaulRKil. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to StopAntisemitism seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank You PaulRKil (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:FN; punctuation goes before the ref tags except for dashes. It would be helpful if you would slow down on editing the lead at 2024 Venezuelan protests and engage the talk page, as you have introduced incorrect information. Sample. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss your edits to the lead on the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Steven1991, your edits to the lead of 2024 Venezuelan protests are ill-informed and disruptive. The US did not perform any forensic analysis of vote tallies, has not taken a lead in declaring Maduro lost the election, so should not be singled out, and I am aware of no source that states that colectivos are taking people from their homes. Yet you continued these edits after I asked that you slow down and discuss.

Your edits to the lead are also going off-topic (this article is about the protests) and causing confusion; see Talk:2024 Venezuelan protests#Electoral Fraud. You are adding content to the lead that pertains to other articles and is not covered at the Protests article (nor should it be), causing another editor to question statements in the lead.

I suggest reverting to the lead before these off-topic and unsourced edits. @EvergreenFir: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Steven1991, could you please address the specific questions on article talk? What source states that colectivos are taking people from their homes? What source states that the US conducted a forensic examination of the polling evidence? And have you looked at WP:LEAD? The lead of the Protests article should summarize that article, not the election article or the crisis in Venezuela article. You've installed a lead at 2024 Venezuelan protests that includes unverified text (false text as far as I know), and goes way off-topic from the Protests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I’ve already tried my best to address the matters in the hope that I wouldn’t be subject to further accusations of bad-faith participation, especially when some have obviously more time than me to go through articles to look for aberrations to make issues about. Steven1991 (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you've attempted to address the issues; the lead is still way off-topic as a result of your edits, with one out of four paragraphs in the lead now being about the actual protests (the subject of the article). I'm sorry to see you personalize a content difference with allegations of bad-faith accusations. I don't have to "go through [the article] to look for aberrations to make issues about"; I've read the sources from the beginning, and know well the role played by colectivos in Venezuela. Going forward, please have a look at WP:FOC; avoiding personalization and focusing on source-to-text integrity is a good way to edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I didn’t "personalize" any technical issues. Rather, it’s advisable for us to review our manner in pointing out mistakes made by others instead of sounding accusatory. The talk would’ve been more constructive if what I suggested had been agreed with. Steven1991 (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This post, for example, is personalization: Just because you don't want to acknowledge it, it doesn't mean it is not true. I am rather sceptical of the motive behind the accusation. Steven1991 (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Also, if you had carefully read my post that preceded it, you would see that I'm not questioning that the US has stated that Gonzalez won the election. Unlike other countries, they have waffled on calling him the president-elect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, I see your point, thank you for clarification following my enquiry. Steven1991 (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited StopAntisemitism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Your edits

We don't do misleading "easter egg" wikilinks such as [false allegation|accused] or [anti-Zionism|critical of Israel] and we dont wikilink years and dates. - Altenmann >talk 23:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Please follow our guideline WP:BRD and answer my objections in article talk page, Talk:StopAntisemitism. You seem to ignore my explanations there. - Altenmann >talk 05:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

So why are edits reversed without discussion on the “talks” page(s)? I do not understand? Steven1991 (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Regressive left, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hollywood and The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Hello, I'm Snowman304. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Regressive left seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please read WP:BRD Snowman304|talk 18:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Please explain to me what is neutral and what is not. Do you apply the same standard to the controversial “re-defintion” of the “Zionism” article? Or are you simply applying it when it is something Jewish related? Steven1991 (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You've been adding the same couple of paragraphs back to the article for the past month. Multiple editors have reached out (about multiple articles) to politely ask you to follow the processes we use around here--such as WP:BRD. The nutshell at the top of the page is only three sentences:

Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change.

The article isn't about Hamas or Gal Gadot or any of that. It's about the term "regressive left" and how the term is used.

Your edits would be like going to water and writing a few paragraphs about how Alex Jones talked about how fluoride in drinking water is turning frogs gay, and then manually reverting that over and over while other editors try to keep the article about its subject. And I would have the same issues as I have with this article.

Please stop acting like a child and use the talk page for its intended purpose. Snowman304|talk 21:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe that personal attacks do not align with Wikipedia community standards. I advise you to exercise self-awareness before making any allegations against me over content edit disagreements. If you disagree, communicate before reverting their edit(s) to erase content you disagree with because that is a form of censorship and opinion manipulation. Steven1991 (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This is what you are doing:

“Wikilawyering is a critical term which describes various practices to be avoided in Wikipedia. It may refer to:

• Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.

• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles.

Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.

• Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

• Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem.” Steven1991 (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Steven1991, this is not the first time you are making snarky remarks such as "you simply applying it when it is something Jewish related?", essentially accusing other editors of anti-Semitism. Please read WP:NPA and stop doing this. --Altenmann >talk 21:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  There are no allegations of antisemitism. The use of "snarky remarks", rather, is an implicit accusation in the form of false assumption of malicious intent on my part. Steven1991 (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  alleging a bias regarding "something Jewish related" is an accusation of antisemitism. If you do not understand this, you will have serious problems in Wikipedia. --Altenmann >talk 20:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  I do not agree. It is not an allegation but rather a question inducing reflection on the possible existence of biases. I regret that you don’t see it that way. I regret more when personal attacks are being hurled at me for good-faith participation seeking to improve the neutrality of certain content consisting of an obvious bias against the group as mentioned, which appears to have been wilfully ignored by “established” editors leaving those remarks on my “talks” page. Steven1991 (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Don't try to wiggle out and turn the tables; You directly questioned the integrity of editors in the text I quoted. Period. --Altenmann >talk 20:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  The phrase “try to turn the table” is an – yet another – accusation itself casting doubt on my integrity, which is exactly the act you advise against. Whose integrity “cannot” be “questioned”? No person is perfect and everyone can be affected by their own views in their exercise of any duties. It is wrong to assume that editors (sharing your views) cannot be biased. Steven1991 (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Let me repeat: My top comment is not an allegation but a question inducing reflection on the possible existence of biases on the part of certain editors. I regret that you don’t see it that way. I regret more when personal attacks are being hurled at me for good-faith participation seeking to improve the neutrality of certain content consisting of an obvious bias against the group as mentioned, which appears to have been wilfully ignored by “established” editors leaving those remarks on my “talks” page. Steven1991 (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Let me repeat yet again: The use of “snarky remarks” is an implicit accusation in the form of false assumption of a malicious intent on my part. I strongly disagree with that and demand an apology. Steven1991 (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  The use of “snarky remarks” is an implicit accusation in the form of false assumption of a malicious intent on my part. I disagree with that. Steven1991 (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do not insert opinions into wikipedia not found in sources as you did in Claudine Gay. --Altenmann >talk 18:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do not remove well referenced paragraphs as you did in The Jewish Chronicle. --Altenmann >talk 18:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do not restore your text in Regressive left disputed by several editors without resolving disagreements in article talk page, per WP:BRD. --Altenmann >talk 18:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If you continue removal valid referenced information like you did in The Jewish Chronicle, and in Claudine Gay articles you will be blocked from editing. --Altenmann >talk 19:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Define “well-sourced” content and justify that no injection of personal bias on the part of previous editors have taken place. Steven1991 (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at The Atlantic 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. Grayfell (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at The Jewish Chronicle 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. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Your conduct

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Wellington Bay (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello, Steven1991. As I've already written at ANI, you have used some deceptive edit summaries, whereby you refer to tendentious and POV edits as typo fixes. Examples: here, here, here, and here (where also some "copy editing" which changed good English into ungrammatical English was done, presumably in haste; please be more careful of the quality of articles). Those edits did not remotely have anything to do with typos. If you persist with the deceptive edit summaries, you're likely to be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 21:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC).

This is what you are doing:

“Wikilawyering is a critical term which describes various practices to be avoided in Wikipedia. It may refer to:

• Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.

• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles.

Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.

• Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

• Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem.” Steven1991 (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Do not leave messages on my talk page if you can’t be constructive

I will take this to ANI if you continue with this behavior. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I cannot do much if you cannot accept any criticism. Steven1991 (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You have been warned. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Read rather than make threats. Steven1991 (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not “unconstructive” to point out flaws in your manner of engagement. You did make unsubstantiated allegations that constituted harassment of me as a user who tried to revise obviously biased accusatory content in relevant articles. Steven1991 (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Would you please read the guidelines rather than make threats towards me?

"Blocks should not be punitive

[edit source]

See also: Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors should not be punitive

Shortcuts

WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE

WP:NOPUNISH

Blocks should not be used:

to retaliate;

to disparage;

to punish; or

if there is no current conduct issue of concern." Steven1991 (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This is what you are doing:

“Wikilawyering is a critical term which describes various practices to be avoided in Wikipedia. It may refer to:

• Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.

• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles.

Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.

• Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem.” Steven1991 (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This is what you are doing:

“Wikilawyering is a critical term which describes various practices to be avoided in Wikipedia. It may refer to:

• Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.

• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles.

Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.

• Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

• Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem.” Steven1991 (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Steven1991, I advise you to stay off of Insanityclown1's User talk page. You've been given a brief block but, if you return and continue you attacking other editors, you will likely be blocked again for a much longer duration. It doesn't really matter if you think this is "fair" or not, persistent personal attacks usually result in indefinite blocks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  How is it “personal attack” when I am pointing out behaviour by the user I consider as causing upset? Steven1991 (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  So we are now not allowed to discuss abusive user behaviour as long as they share the same view as you? Steven1991 (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Would you apply the guidelines fairly? Or only when it suits you?

  "Blocks should not be punitive

  [edit source]

  See also: Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors should not be punitive

  Shortcuts

  WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE

  WP:NOPUNISH

  Blocks should not be used:

  to retaliate;

  to disparage;

  to punish; or

  if there is no current conduct issue of concern." Steven1991 (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You should read that last line: "if there is no current conduct issue of concern." You were blocked by an uninvolved admin precisely because there was a "current conduct issue of concern" about your behaviour on Wikipedia. Since your block you've demonstrated absolutely no self-awareness regarding your conduct. As you have failed to evaluate your conduct and correct your behaviour but have instead lashed out defensively it is highly probable that once the block is lifted in a few hours you will resume the behaviour that got you blocked in the first place and earn yourself another, longer block - possibly a permanent block if you show yourself to be irredeemable. I suggest you take the next few hours to reflect on your own behaviour in light of the criticisms that have been made and endeavor to behave differently once your current block ends. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

1. Not all blocks are reasonable. They can be imposed by mistakes. That is why there is an appeal mechanism. I bet you wouldn’t say the same if an “uninvolved” admin imposes the same while you disagree.

2. Self-awareness? I have clearly explained why some of the users’ behaviour targeting me constituted harassment despite their denial. You totally ignore it but engage in continuous gaslighting. You reversed some of my edits without first discussing with me as per the guidelines. You demanded me to follow the guidelines while not following them yourself? Who is lacking self-awareness? Does self-awareness only apply to those who beg to differ from you but not yourself or anyone sharing similar POV as you? Steven1991 (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It is “not lashing defensively” to counter allegations with which I disagree. You are entitled to make them but not entitled to be exempted from rebuttal. Why “can’t” I defend myself when I find your allegations consisting of falsehood and constituting a brazen attack on my personality though what I wanted to do was merely to improve the neutrality of the wordings of certain articles? Is Wikipedia an activist outlet for you to promote your POV or a free platform to provide information for those seeking a balanced understanding of a certain field of knowledge? Do you know the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place? Steven1991 (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You were removing large amounts of material multiple times, often using deceptive edit notes, without first discussing your changes on the talk page. That is why you were reverted. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

1. “You were removing large amounts of material multiple times”

A single paragraph from one article is what constitutes “large amount”? How about the undiscussed massive reversal of my edits without first discussing with me?

It is obvious that you are applying the standard to those with whom you consider to be in disagreement rather than yourself.

2. “deceptive edit notes”

Another personal attack – if not false allegation – on me. Don’t Wikipedia’s community guidelines advise users to avoid assumptions of malicious intent? Why aren’t you applying these to yourself and/or those in agreement with you on any points of contention? Steven1991 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

If the intent wasn't to deceive, then why note substantive edits as "fixing typos", as you did here. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh my God. This is obviously a loaded question assuming that I was doing something in bad faith – out of your own bias. You are assuming malicious intent again, which is obviously a violation of one of the Wikipedia community guidelines you accused me of “committing” when I pointed out the selectivity of your application of the relevant community guidelines. You have basically proved my point that you are engaging in Wikilawyering to “deprecate” editors with whom you may be disagreeing. Steven1991 (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to reevaluate your definition of a loaded question if that is what passes for one in your opinion. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

“A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question”

Your question: “If the intent wasn't to deceive, then why note substantive edits as "fixing typos"”

It is NOT my definition. Steven1991 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Still not a loaded question i.e., a question containing a hidden trap or implication. I asked a question backed by facts and you have as of yet failed to answer it. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

What definition are you using? I am citing the definition as stated in our Wikipedia. You cannot move the goalpost like that to justify your act. You assumed malicious intent on my part when you alleged “deceptive edits” . This is a fact. You cannot turn around to make another allegation appearing to be some kind of straw man. Steven1991 (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Your question is not backed by facts. It is backed by your own perception of my edits with which you appear to disagree but fail to follow the guidelines to engage me for a change before reversing my edits as you demanded me to. I am OK if you did it in a friendly manner, but am definitely not OK when you are selectively applying relevant guidelines to put me down and even call for me to be banned. It is totally unacceptable that you seek to destroy a user over a disagreement. Steven1991 (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I have said everything I need to. If you insist on not listening but assuming that I am the one entirely wrong for not being in agreement with you over certain wordings within a certain article, I believe that you are the problem instead. Your way of engagement reeks heavily of sophistry, which I am not surprised given that I am older than you and have probably encountered many more netizens than you in my life. Steven1991 (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you please respond to my previous comment as well? Or are you not willing to do so because you realise that the points you made are not reasonable per se?

1. “You were removing large amounts of material multiple times”

A single paragraph from one article, i.e. The Jewish Chronicle, is what constitutes “large amount”? How about the undiscussed massive reversal of my edits without first discussing with me?

It is obvious that you are applying the standard to those with whom you consider to be in disagreement rather than yourself.

2. “deceptive edit notes”

Another personal attack – if not false allegation – on me. Don’t Wikipedia’s community guidelines advise users to avoid assumptions of malicious intent? Why aren’t you applying these to yourself and/or those in agreement with you on any points of contention? Steven1991 (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

saying you were only making minor edits while making substantive changes is in fact prima facie deceptive. Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You have not read what I wrote. You are moving the goalpost and avoiding what you have not been able to answer. Steven1991 (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you consider to be a better reason to be input in the relevant box for that specific edit? Steven1991 (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

There’s nothing wrong with amending the relevant content to highlight that it’s a judgement made by “some members of” the Wikimedia community because it’s impossible to have all members sitting down together to do a vote on a random version of a random article. The addition of “some members of” served to improve clarity to readers rather than confuse or obfuscate. I don’t see how improving ambiguous content cannot be seen as “fixing typo” when it’s likely that the original contributors forgot or were not aware of such an issue? Steven1991 (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This is what you are doing:

“Wikilawyering is a critical term which describes various practices to be avoided in Wikipedia. It may refer to:

• Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.

• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles.

Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.

• Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

• Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem.” Steven1991 (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Your deceptive use of Wikipedia’s jargons to shut down editors with whom you disagree is more deceptive than anything you have accused me of. I advise you to learn to what self-awareness – if not focus on your third-year law studies – is before going on apparent power trips to throwing all kinds of allegations towards editors with whom you are in apparent disagreement. Steven1991 (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

wellington, the one saying that to you, isn't third year law student. I am. Get your parties straight. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Did I say with absolute certainty that he’s a third-year law student? If he isn’t or has never been but somehow claimed to be, it can be glossed over as it doesn’t blur the focus of my previous response countering relevant allegations which I consider as unfair. Steven1991 (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This is what you are doing:

“Wikilawyering is a critical term which describes various practices to be avoided in Wikipedia. It may refer to:

• Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.

• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles.

Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.

• Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

• Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem.” Steven1991 (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This is what you are doing:

“Wikilawyering is a critical term which describes various practices to be avoided in Wikipedia. It may refer to:

• Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.

• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles.

Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.

• Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

• Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem.” Steven1991 (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

1. “You were removing large amounts of material multiple times”

A single paragraph from one article is what constitutes “large amount”? How about the undiscussed massive reversal of my edits without first discussing with me?

It is obvious that you are applying the standard to those with whom you consider to be in disagreement rather than yourself.

2. “deceptive edit notes”

Another personal attack – if not false allegation – on me. Don’t Wikipedia’s community guidelines advise users to avoid assumptions of malicious intent? Why aren’t you applying these to yourself and/or those in agreement with you on any points of contention? Steven1991 (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

1. “You were removing large amounts of material multiple times”

A single paragraph from one article is what constitutes “large amount”? How about the undiscussed massive reversal of my edits without first discussing with me?

It is obvious that you are applying the standard to those with whom you consider to be in disagreement rather than yourself.

2. “deceptive edit notes”

Another personal attack – if not false allegation – on me. Don’t Wikipedia’s community guidelines advise users to avoid assumptions of malicious intent? Why aren’t you applying these to yourself and/or those in agreement with you on any points of contention? Steven1991 (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This is what you are doing:

“Wikilawyering is a critical term which describes various practices to be avoided in Wikipedia. It may refer to:

• Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.

• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles.

Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.

• Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

• Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem.” Steven1991 (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This is what you are doing:

“Wikilawyering is a critical term which describes various practices to be avoided in Wikipedia. It may refer to:

• Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.

• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles.

Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.

• Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

• Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem.” Steven1991 (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This is what you are doing:

“Wikilawyering is a critical term which describes various practices to be avoided in Wikipedia. It may refer to:

• Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.

• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles.

Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.

• Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

• Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem.” Steven1991 (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The alleged copying and pasting occurs because you have not been able to address my counter-points to your allegations. Steven1991 (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Copying and pasting the same thing five eight times suggests you're not actually listening to anything anyone is telling you. 19:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Unsolicited Advice

Steven, consider that one of two things is happening. An increasingly large list of unrelated editors have all looked at your conduct and said that it is not good, but you assert that it was fine. The two possibilities are: 1) This growing list of editors, generally more experienced than you, are all simultaneously and identically wrong or conspiring to blame you. In which case this is clearly not the community for you, for the same reason I wouldn't go onto a flat-earther page and expect to last long. 2) You're mistaken, and your conduct, despite your intent and reasoning, has been had the result of being problematic. I'd suggest that #2 is more likely, and also is the only case in which you could have a future editing Wikipedia. I'm telling you this because if you carry on how you have been, you will quickly be blocked as WP:NOTHERE, perhaps lose talk page access, and then your expertise will be lost to Wikipedia, and whatever changes you envisioned will take much longer to materialize. If you're okay with that, then I'll just watch how this plays out. Otherwise, I encourage you to try to see if there's any way you could see your actions being interpreted the way the complaint asserted. You may be completely confident that you're in the right, but quite a few independent experienced editors say otherwise, and trying to figure out what you can do differently to get along is necessary to staying on this website. After all, if everyone in a crowd says there's a train coming, even if you don't see it, sometimes it's best to get off the tracks. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.