User talk:EncycloDeterminate

Encyclopedia Lu, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Encyclopedia Lu! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

September 2015

This is an interesting pattern of edit summaries:[1][2][3][4] Do you have "fuck you" on a hot key or something? Or "bitch", for that matter.[5] "An accident"? "Not malicious"? That's wearing a bit thin. Just stop it before you're blocked. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

I never expected others to understand, and I think, in at least the first and this second case, my expectations were right. I've also edited back every obscenity on the article page immediately after I clicked the Save page button, as your investigation has hopefully shown. The third source you cite explicitly states that "I apologize again, the short explanation* was that it was an accident" before I put in another "fuck you" at the end. I knew I couldn't explain it all in time in the edit summary (which, at least on mobile appears to have a character limit, and hoped that those who frequently edited the page would understand. Nobody got back to me with the exception of another administrator who asked me to stop vandalizing, even after I had quickly edited it back. I've deleted the warning now, but, as you know, it's in the page history, where you can find my response.

Instead of an an administrator snarkily asking whether or not I have the phrase on a hot key, compiling mounting "evidence" (there's more that you've missed, if you're intent on collecting it all) and a "gotcha" (Did you read my exchange with Pepperbeast on his talk page? I felt like I was being fairly courteous [After visiting again, I think I'm zero for three, as he took a single line in my edit summary as my address to him, not what I actually typed on his Talk page. I initially believed that because his second reply didn't mention my language, and that he understood]) demeanor regarding my claims that I didn't mean what I typed, I was hoping (with futility, I now realize) that reception would be more accommodating or understanding.

I have no intent to harass other users, am aware of the guidelines within the links Pepperbeast sent me, and have the same goal as most editors on Wikipedia. I can't assure you that I'll stop, and *this peculiar aspect of my editing will take an explanation possibly longer than this response. But for now, I'll be directing any potential individual on the receiving end (or one who notices) of my words and their meaningless intent to this section of my talk page. I hope you'll understand, but will likely not be too hurt if you don't. I'm not a victim here, nor am I the offender. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you won't be too hurt if I don't understand, because I don't. If you think edit summaries matter less than what you "actually type" (?) on pages, you're completely mistaken. It's more important, not less, to be reasonably courteous in edit summaries, as you can't go back and change them, and people look at page histories. Dawnseeker2000 is not an admin, but I am, and I will block you if you offer more bad language and attacks in edit summaries or on pages. If you think you're "not the offender", you'll have to explain how the persistent additions of "fuck you" are "accidents"; if not on a hot key, where do they come from, without your volition? If you're saying you can't help yourself, Wikipedia may not be a good fit for you. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

(I really want to get this response out as soon as I can, so expect some typos.) You're not being considerate, and I honestly think you're wielding your authority as a weapon. I was already worried given your lead into your issues with my edits, as if you were waiting to pounce. You know that I don't have "fuck you" on a hotkey, and you've assumed quite a few points that are wrong—never once in my response did I state that edit summaries are less important than the actual edits on the article pages and that I am "attack[ing]" other individuals (Doesn't my willingness to engage courteously in discussion mean anything?) I'm aware of edit summaries, and you can go back and scroll through my contributions, which I am confident include edit summaries are reasonably courteous sans the admittedly oddly placed obscenities (Is there not, then, a clear pattern here?). It isn't logical for me to secretly send hateful messages to others because most of them have more experience than I do and are aware of page histories too, like you said. That's because I'm not trying to secretly send hateful messages.

If I can't convince you that I'm not the offender (and that nobody is, in this case) with this attempt, then I'm truly at a loss (Maybe I can see if another admin will understand, if you don't?):

I have obsessive-compulsive disorder, an anxiety disorder which you likely know of, being an avid user of Wikipedia. Perhaps my strangest symptom (and undoubtedly the most difficult to intuitively characterize as OCD) is typing out curse words in emails or various places on the Internet, hovering over the Save or Post button (or an equivalent), and pressing on the left-click button (or directly on the screen, if I'm using a mobile device) without releasing it (for obvious reasons). Sometimes, I do accidentally release, and by now if you've inferred that these aren't isolated incidents, then you'd be right. Most of the people on the receiving end have accepted my simple, incomplete apology, at least, when I met them in person, and some haven't. Regardless, I don't use email anymore, at least as of now, mostly due to this symptom. (I am somewhat hurt [this is, of course, easy comment to ridicule, but I hope you refrain], however, by your dismissive comment about Wikipedia not being for me.)

I still would like to contribute to Wikipedia, and I think I have been reasonable and cautious in my editing, especially recently when I began to read into more of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I don't want to lose my right to edit, and certainly hope these incidents don't put me under. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we can see if other admins will understand; I've opened a thread about it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Of course you're welcome to contribute to it, if you wish, but I won't mention your name in such a public place (admins will easily find it, and this page, by checking my contributions). Bishonen | talk 08:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC).

...and so will everybody else. D'OH! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I only mentioned admins because Encyclopedia Lu asked specifically for the understanding of other admins. Bishonen | talk 10:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC).

• Hi Encyclopedia Lu. I'm Dave, or Worm That Turned. I've got a bit of a reputation here as one of the most patient, most tolerant admins about and regularly annoy people by allowing people a lot more leeway than I probably should do. Now, Wikipedia has in the past prided itself in being a meritocracy, one where your actions are the only thing you are judged on - this has meant that we've had editors who may be shunned in other parts of society succeed on Wikipedia, as we try to be agnostic to these traits. At the same time, however, if these traits are leading to disruption, they will not be tolerated - we have a good essay on the matter, explaining that disruption is not acceptable, even if there is good reason for it.

  I'm afraid what this comes down to, if you carry on making targeted personal attacks at users (which is what this comes down to), you will be blocked, OCD or not. If you do not feel you can manage to stop, I'm afraid that Bishonen is correct, Wikipedia is not a good place for you. Worm^TT(talk) 11:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've closed the discussion at ANI as you've received sufficient input from there. There's nothing more for me to add here after that discussion and WTT's note above, in addition to Bishonen's original post. The crux of the matter is if you can not control yourself and adhere to our policies and guidelines and work within the spirit of collegiality, you'll have to find an alternative venue for your endeavors. —SpacemanSpiff 07:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Behaviour is obviously an issue of importance to all of us. If other people get disgusted or really easily offended by conduct of others here, they can and often do leave the project, taking any future contributions with them. That obviously isn't in our best interests. However, it probably isn't really particularly in our interests to lose someone who can be (I presume, I haven't looked over your edit history) a good editor because of circumstances beyond his control.

You were asked to check if there might be some way to create some sort of script or bot which could reduce the incidence of the problematic conduct. I sincerely hope that you can find such. If you can't, maybe, somehow, some alternate arrangements can be found or devised. There may be, unfortunately, some sort of voluntarily limiting of where and when you can write/post under such circumstances, and it is possible that you might not like that. I know I wouldn't. But there may well be some ways, somehow, for you to continue editing to some degree, somewhere, despite the admitted difficulty.

I admit I have a mess of pages on my watchlist, forget what page is there for what reason fairly often, and miss a lot of comments directed at me. At this point, though, I think maybe the best way to proceed is to either develop a script, if it is possible, or something of that sort. If you can't do that, and problems persist, drop me a message on my user talk page, where I hope I'll see it, and maybe we can find or devise some other tactics. Good luck. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Script for the issue with edit summaries

After seeing the long ANI thread and your user page about your sudden impulse to use profanity in edit summaries, I have decided to make a simple script that prevents users from clicking "Save page" if there is profanity in the summary. To install, just add the following code into your personal JavaScript page: importScript('User:Esquivalience/Profanity.js');. If you decide to use the script, but have any issues with it (e.g. false positives), just inform me about it. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 20:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Encyclopedia Lu, no need to retire just yet. Come on! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 06:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You might be right, but being a fairly cautious (and anxious) person, I've resigned to even the potential that I such an incident(s) might happen again. However, you may notice, I edited the template I added to the top of my user page in order to suit my particular case and remove the PERMANENTLY part. I may eventually come back, but I won't make any promises (to any others or myself) either way on this subject. (I also didn't choose the bright orange template, which suggests that I'm definitely going to come back.) Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Quotes as quotes not format-markup

Regarding this edit-summary, you can use {{'}} to generate a single-quote character with no risk of it being interpretted as part of a bold or italic markup. DMacks (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

(Dammit, I thought I was being clandestine in my reintro! Turns out that's a bit difficult if you've already published three separate incarnations of the draft beforehand. 🤔)

Silly reanimated noob jokes aside—thank you, it seems to work when I preview my edit, although the single quotations seem quite a bit offset to the left. My knowledge regarding this "field of study," if you will, is essentially nonexistent, but I'm reading on the page you linked to with the single-quote template that said template "uses . . . 0.1 em of spacing." I presume this refers to the bit of spacing in the visible text? And if that's the case, am I correct in (sadly) assuming that there isn't a viable remedy within Wikipedia's standard editing toolbox? Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Encyclopedia Lu. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Encyclopedia Lu. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Hope you're well.

Benjamin (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: LGBT tourism

Just as point of passing reference, I sincerely doubt the claim is as "incendiary" as you make it out to be. The source and content in question is describing pinkwashing. By removing this content, you are reinforcing it. In any case, the content is a matter of history, so your objection that this is "incendiary" in some way seems unusual. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

By removing this content, you are reinforcing it.

This assertion is circular, no? Where if I remove a statement alleging pinkwashing because I contest its veracity, that itself is pinkwashing and evidence of its veracity?

I realize the role of corporations and the free market is a contentious topic in the LGBT+ community (of which, if I may venture to guess, you are also a part), which lands well to the left of the general population on such issues. But that is only further reason to require a higher standard of evidence for characterizing an LGBT organization of historical significance as so callous and indifferent to the poor (as well as uninterested in gay rights issues).

Information—or rather, the presentation of it—is powerful. You know that as well as anyone, as an administrator for the encyclopedia accessed more than all others combined. If thousands of people per month are going to read a derogatory passage about a major LGBT+ organization, then that passage better be well-substantiated. — Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem here is your interpretation. You say it is incendiary and derogatory, but I don't see it that way. I've studied quite a bit about countercultural and outsider movements, and one thing many of them share in common is the commercialization and commodification of their movement by the mainstream culture. This is no different. In fact, it would be unusual if the passage you removed wasn't in the article, hence my concern. You should try and get other opinions and look into it yourself. Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

the commercialization and commodification of their movement by the mainstream culture

But that’s not the claim in the relevant passage, which goes further to accuse the organization of “neoliberal[ism]” and ignoring both poverty and LGBT+ issues. That’s not the same as saying that there are Wells Fargo Pride floats every June. — Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting things again. Neoliberalism isn't being used as an accusation; it's being used as a description. Here is the source in question. The author cites scholars Alexander, 1998; Boyd, 2008; Chasin, 2000; Puar, 2002; and Sender, 2005 in support of her thesis. You appear to be removing material that is well sourced. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You’d know this stuff better than I do given your enviable position as administrator, but is it really true that Wikipedian editors generally consider a passage to be well-sourced if the single source provided cites other sources? (My contention is that because we’re at the mercy of that single source’s interpretation of others; this should not be the case).

Furthermore: Dr. Boyd’s relevant passage makes rather clear that she is referring to a PR campaign by the GGBA, despite the other editor’s strong implication that it applied to their entire existence:

[T]he GGBA’s political subjects were overt spenders, and the politics that swirled around them were neoliberal in nature – a complex combination of cultural and economic policy that stressed economic self-sufficiency and appeals to the state for political entitlements based on consumer interests.

One thing I’ve been wondering throughout our entire exchange: as a fellow Wikipedian (just a high-ranking one), weren’t you free to edit it back yourself, without bothering to give that “passing reference” to someone like me? You also have much better connections and may be able to convince other interested editors to collectively overrule me. — Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I have never claimed to be an administrator nor have I made any other claims you've assumed above. All I've asked is for you to look at your reason for removing the source and the content and to seek a second opinion on the talk page by opening up a discussion. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies: I clicked on the “admin” link on your userpage and put in your name to confirm that you were an administrator, missing the fact that the search was only for admins beginning alphabetically after your name and got confused when I only saw one.

Back to the original point, I feel I’ve made my reason clear: the removed passage is both not well sourced and—more importantly—misrepresents the once source provided. But I’d be happy to debate with another user (if not yourself) on the relevant talk page. — Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the content you removed has a high probability of being accurate. I say this as someone who has done a lot of research on countercultural and outsider movements. Whenever they move towards the mainstream, this kind of criticism arises. And it's important to note that you removed virtually the only criticism in the article, which could be construed as a violation of NPOV, which is slightly more serious. I would therefore encourage you to open up a discussion on the talk page and ask for more input. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

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 COVID-19. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. 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.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at John Money

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Money. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mathglot (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Doubling down on your original edit, and simply adding a statement to the edit summary that "you anticipate an edit war" does not negate the fact that this is, in fact, edit warring. Your additional comment that "...this edit is just for my defense", as if this somehow negates your warring, or excuses it somehow, is a complete non-starter. This is worse than merely accidental edit warring by someone who doesn't know any better or is a newbie; in fact, it shows that you know exactly what you are doing, you know that it is edit-warring, and you are choosing to do it anyway. Reprehensible behavior for an experienced editor, and a poor lesson for actual newbies who may be watching. I urge you to self-revert, and go to the Talk:John Money and state your case why you believe your original edit was an improvement to the article, and try to gain consensus for it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m honestly taken aback at how you managed to turn an expression of caution — one that I believe was appropriately civil — into the conniving and malevolent action you have depicted it to be. I’ll admit, I wasn’t clear on what the threshold for “edit-warring” was, and if repeating an edit once crosses it, then I acknowledge my error.

None of the above justifies your overt aggression, and placed in its context I’m inclined to believe that your odd use of “good faith edit” in your reversion was passive-aggressive, not conciliatory. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry you were offended by the tone, but please address the content. What you believe about me is irrelevant, insofar as what should happen now. The bottom line is: you should not have reverted the revert to reinsert your content because it is contrary to Wikipedia policy; instead, you should have discussed your bold change on the Talk page of the article in order to get consensus for it. You can still do that. The proper action now would be to self-revert, and if you wish to pursue the matter, you can still go to the Talk page to discuss it, there's no time limit on that. Nobody will see this discussion here, so there's no point discussing the content issues in this section.

By the way, adding "good faith edit" to an edit summary is a pretty standard method used by experienced editors to underline the fact that they ascribe good faith (which is Wikipedia policy) to a specific editor whose edit content they happen to disagree with; in the case of new editors, it's contributory to WP:EDITORRETENTION, and for experienced editors, it's more of a friendly acknowledgement of policy they are already aware of. Mathglot (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Elizabeth Warren 2020 presidential campaign

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Elizabeth Warren 2020 presidential campaign, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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.

Generalrelative (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

In particular, the WP:BLP guideline states that you cannot use a self-published source like Twitter for anything but WP:ABOUTSELF on a biography of a living person. Note that WP:SECONDARY coverage is required to establish notability for all but the most basic biographical facts, and for any substantive interpretations. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia without their explicit permission. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about another user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia's policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors will result in being blocked from editing. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Lindy Li

I liked your edit at Lindy Li, but please check WP:RSP to make sure your sourcing hasn't been forbidden. Far-left sources often get a nod, but most sources that lean even a teensy bid right are "unreliable". The source I used, the Washington Examiner, is ok. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you collaborating with @Magnolia677to make Li look bad? I am just curious why the two of you are bent on including quotes from minor interviews. Do you do the same for other commentators? Why are you targeting Li?

Is there an impartial arbiter to whom we can appeal? I feel like you are vandalizing her page, with all due respect. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I can’t speak for Magnolia, but I’m not trying to “look bad,” unless you believe that expressing conservative-leaning views and explanations for why President Trump was re-elected makes her “look bad.”

Also, you keep hitting on this “minor interview” point, here and elsewhere. Fox News is the most influential conservative paper and news outlet in the country; it’s not minor, and Fox reporters have specifically printed articles about Ms. Li’s interviews, when they don’t for most who appear on the channel. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Can we please come to a consensus here? I think including the entire transcript of a throwaway interview is a bit over the top. You don't do this for anyone else. Why her? She's gotten so much abuse for these interviews. You are essentially directing more harassment and abuse at her. Simply look at how many times she's been called a w-- and a c-- on X this week. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m sensitive to anti-Asian racism as a second-generation Chinese American, and although linking my Twitter account to my Wikipedia account may well be used against me sometime in the future (I am a Democrat who is generally supportive of Democratic policies), here is a tweet in which I responded to a reply unjustly referencing her Asian descent.

As you can see, I’m not personally a fan of Lindy Li. I’m sure you’re also on Twitter coming to her defense, assuming (and let’s just say it openly) you aren’t Lindy herself. It’s okay for Wikipedians to have opinions, but we should try to set them aside when editing. And I don’t feel like you’d done that here.

I’d also add that the more extensive portion of the interview Li gave that I added was embedded in a footnote. Only three short sentences were included in the main text. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow, so you called her an "opportunistic grifter" on a public forum. You openly admit to harboring animus towards her (and no, I am not Li). For that alone, you shouldn't be eligible to edit her page. I haven't posted anything on X about her.

The footnote you added is highly prominent given the brevity of her page. You are obviously doing everything you can to damage her reputation. And the fact that you admitted to it is the scariest part. Respectfully, you should really abstain from sabotaging her page. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) EncycloDeterminate (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

You've been here long enough to know not to violate 3RR. But I don't see any warning about your recent edits, so I'm writing one now. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I’ll leave Lindy’s page with her latest edit for the time being, and others who believe my inclusion of her interview comments was reasonable as opposed to “sabotage” can make edits if they choose. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)