User talk:Wekeepwhatwekill/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

August 2019

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Unrelated complaint

hi there, 2001:8003:401e:ef00:30c8:5126:379c:1bd8 keeps claiming that carl's jr is ceasing operations in australia, but is refusing to back up his claims or give proof that what he is saying is legit. plus he's being verbally abusive. his attitude is vile and he needs to be banned — Preceding unsigned comment added by FPSfan3000 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@FPSfan3000: the IP's actions are not severe enough to warrant a ban from Wikipedia. Maybe a block instead? Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 08:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay. And he's lying saying that I called him an inbred goose, a birdbrain and a pinhead. I never called him those things, in fact he was the one to call me a pinhead. I confess I did insult him, telling him he's a scumbag and a dips**t, however that was because he was verbally abusing me first, swearing at me, insulting me, calling me things like a used condom, a junkie, telling me to f**k off and overall just acting like a vile person. he's clearly a grown adult and yet he's resorting to that kind of behaviour, which is just embarrising. He needs to stop playing the victim and he needs to understand that he gets what he gives. FPSfan3000 (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

He's also making out that I was the one who abused him first, but it actually the other way around. If you don't believe, go to the carl's jr wikipedia page, go onto view history, and you will see he was the one who attacked me first with insults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FPSfan3000 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@FPSfan3000: Please take this to the admin board. I'm not an admin so I can't block anyone. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 12:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP

You were reverted here, but I still felt that I should point you to what is stated here and what I stated in this edit summary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn I actually disagree with here this wholehearetedly. Child Sexual abusers are pedophiles, it's blindly obvious. I realize we need to treat articles about living people with care, but at the same time, so many people read this entry, honesty and stating the facts are just as important. In this case, stating the facts, which is what I did, is very important to this article.

NO, I won't revert back to my edit, I'm already aware that's not the way things are done over here. I'll head to the talk page and see about getting consensus first. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You can disagree as much as you want to. But like I stated in the BLP discussion I pointed you to, "Pedophilia is about a sexual attraction to prepubescents, specifically a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to that age group. A person with that attraction is pedophilic. Child sexual abuse is a different topic because a pedophile may or may not be a child sexual abuser, there are child sexual abusers who are not pedophiles, and the term child sexual abuse can cover pubescents and post-pubescents." If you keep trying to label Letourneau or any other BLP subject a pedophile when they haven't been diagnosed as one, you will find yourself blocked for a BLP violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to butt in to note that the dictionary you cited on the talk page doesn't actually support your own assertion, notwithstanding the fact that a dictionary would never be used to support an accusation of pedophilia against a living person. So the dictionary says that a pedophile is sexually attracted to children, but then you must ask what the dictionary thinks a child is. Well, that dictionary defines a child as "A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority." While a literal reading would let you use both versions, it is clearly ambiguous whether even the dictionary's own definition of pedophile is referring to the prepubescent child or the minor child. Coupled with your misreading of the Wikipedia article on pedophilia (please read Necessity and sufficiency, and feel free to ask questions if you don't understand it), I have to wonder how, exactly, you approach editing. Are you reading sources, and then updating Wikipedia to honestly reflect what they report; or do you decide what is true, and then look for sources that confirm your beliefs? Only one of these approaches is correct - the other tends to get people banned. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

List of impeached presidents

Please explain your use of rollback here and the vandlism warning you placed on my talk page. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Username warnings

While reviewing bot reports at UAA, I came across several instances of you leaving a message like this on someone's page. These templates, which I see you have created yourself at user:Wekeepwhatwekill/templates, are problematic for a number of reasons. To my eye they do a poor job of explaining policy violations, and I also believe you are posting them without any actual evidence of a username violation. This is why we have rules for how and when to report possibly problematic usernames, and well established templates with broad consensus for their use for these same types of situations. (many of which are in the standard toolset of WP:TWINKLE, a great tool for working in this area) I would therefore ask the following:

Thanks for your time, Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 in music (2nd nomination)

Why was I not notified on my talk page about this AFD? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


Jax_0677 well, I used Twinkle to set the AFD and it notified Chessrat as the original creator. As for why it thought he was, I don't know. Clearly you're the first person that shows up on the history list. My mistake! (Just so you know, I KNOW I'm responsible for the edit, event though I used twinkle to do it with. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 19:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion regarding being Jewish

Hello, Wekeepwhatwekill. I just wanted to say that I did see your post at WP:ANI, and if you would be interested in having this discussion at some time, I would be happy to oblige. Perhaps a user talkpage is a better place for this, or whatever medium and time would suite you. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ieuan Rees/Editnotice

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Ieuan Rees/Editnotice, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Razer(talk) 15:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Love the chrome

Really nice. Makes me nostalgic. Toddst1 (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for respawning

You got the ball rolling on this last leg of my Wikipedia Adventure, despite not meeting me for the first thirteen stages. That was entirely correct and proper of you, but still awesome. Cheers to never beating the game, but seeing what we each can find! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Warning

You cannot make low quality edits such as this at Michael Vick. Please review and observe WP:BLP. Here is the discretionary sanctions alert:

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.

El_C 16:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Well.........perhaps we should agree to disagree. Dogfighting is inherently abusive to dogs, Michael Vick was involved in all aspects of dog fighting. So, in your mind, does that make my statement about him true or false? He is just what I said he is, it's obvious fact and all Wikipedians need to be able to state obvious facts. For example, Michael Vick is a football player, this is a fact. Michael Vick went to jail, this is a fact. Michael Vick ran a dog fighting ring, that's a fact. I won't revert you or anything, because I realize your an admin, however, do you think what I'm saying makes sense? W.K.W.W.K...ALL Lives matter 18:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
We cannot agree to disagree. You are entitled to think what you like, but as an uninvolved admin in that topic area, I am instructing you to make the necessary correction in the future. Also, I'm not the one who reverted you, that was Thed2333. I advise you to review WP:BLPCRIME closely, because any future such violations are likely to be met by sanctions. El_C 19:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Color Scheme

The administrator El_C removed my old color scheme claiming it violated WP:CONTRAST . My old color scheme was set up to replicate an old telnet session, black background with white text. Now, I will freely admit that the headers for each section wasn't visible, and I wasn't able to fix it. I had no problem with letting that go. This is the second version, this time, still emulating an old telnet session, but emulating it on an Amber monitor. This uses very dark amber background with brighter amber text, just like the old amber monitors. Now the headers are completely visible. El_C removed it again and still claimed that it violated WP:Contrast.

In checking this I find that it's a guide, and therefore is not a hard and fast rule and it can be ignored. I also find, more importantly, that wp:contrast was set up to allow those with screen readers or color blindness have equal access to wiki. On the page Color_blindness, the four photographs set up side-by-side show how various color blind individuals would see the same photograph. In each picture, dark and bright versions of colors are easily distinguishable, even dark white and light white are distinguishable even in a monochromatic version (which is extremely rare) of color blindness. I would submit that since it's visible to the eye, it's visible to a screen reader too and therefore would be equally readable by both.

My page coloring would be easy visible to both color blind individuals and screen readers and therefore would not fail wp:contrast as El_c claims it will. I await your decision! W.K.W.W.K...ALL Lives matter 21:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Concur with El_C Plugging your colors in here confirms that the contrast is sub-optimal. I agree with El-C that it violates WP:CONTRAST. I'd be annoyed if I had to read a large block of text on this page. IMO, web pages should use fairly standard foreground/background/font combinations, and allow users to make their own adjustments via themes/skins. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Respectfully I disagree with the decision. You can see it just fine, so can a color blind person - I proved that with the link to the color blindness page. That said, I asked for a third opinion and I got one and I will absolutely change my page's color scheme. I thank you for your time Ohnoitsjamie. W.K.W.W.K...ALL Lives matter 22:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Please remove the unclosed <pre> tag from this page. It forces the text into a thin box on desktop, and breaks the mobile talk page interface, in violation of WP:SMI. I will also say that your previous color scheme is extremely difficult to read, as well as the blue text on your user page. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber It looks fine on my desktop and my Samsung Galaxy 8 as is. That said since I can't see your setup, yes, it may look screwy on your side. I just commented out the lines in question and took a look. I don't see a change on my side, please let me know if it still looks bad on your side W.K.W.W.K... ALL Lives matter 20:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Much better, thank you. Indentation and threading now work correctly as well. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Signature

Hello wekeepwhatwekill(/Necromonger?). I'm here to ask you to change your signature. Our guideline on signatures outlines what is acceptable in a user signature (see WP:SIGPROB specifically, and the username policy). Your signature is in violation for the following reasons:

  • Your signature does not indicate your username. (WP:CUSTOMSIG/P)
  • The name given in your signature is the name of an existing user, Necromonger (talk · contribs) (WP:SIGFORGE). Note that the account is inactive and you may be able to WP:USURP it if you wish.
  • Your signature contains the statement "all lives matter", a statement often seen as an attack on Blacks in the United States and abroad. Its use in your signature is at least trolling, which is forbidden. (WP:DISRUPTNAME)

Please correct these problems. You seem to be familiar with customizing a signature already, but if not, the guideline page has instructions. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


Ivanvector I'll see if I can usurp Necromonger, as you're right about my signature not being in line with customsig/p. However, my signature's tag definitely isn't trolling, and I realize you're not accusing me of doing so. To be perfectly honest, I really do believe all lives matter, what's more (and this isn't going to help me, I know!) I changed my tag in response to Bilorv's signature which not only states Black Lives matter, but also links right to project page by that name. Neither his signature nor mine actually run afoul of WP:Disruptname, as neither my tag nor his are our names.
Just so we're clear, I respect Bilorv's view that black lives matter, and I'm perfectly ok with him having this as his tag, so I'm not going to even suggest that he needs to remove his tag. He doesn't have to. I would submit that just as hit tag ins't disruptive, neither is mine. I happen to have a wider view, that all lives matter. Hopefully you and I can agree that the tag on my name is fine. I don't want this to come to a point where you have to tell me to remove it or get blocked.
I'm going over to usurp right now to see about usurping "Necromonger"

Necromonger...ALL Lives matter 02:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


Thanks for the ping I guess. In the penchant for false equivalences that typifies the racist "all lives matter" movement, you have failed to grasp that my choice of signature for the month of June was designed to highlight a new WikiProject to those who may be interested in it but not have heard about it otherwise, whereas yours serves no collaborative purpose. Notice further that editors of all beliefs are explicitly welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives Matter. I would suggest that you actually read the link Ivanvector points to because you have failed to understand that phrases have connotations and therefore the statements "black lives matter" and "all lives matter" actually represent deeper ideas. However, I have no particular issue if you choose to keep your current signature because a walking-and-talking indicator of your own bias can be useful to other editors. — Bilorv (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector My request to usurp "Necromonger" was turned down. I realize I can't keep "Necromonger" as my signature, you've made that clear, so I've altered it to be my initials "W.K.W.W.K", as my name's fairly long.

Bilorv to me "all lives matter" means just that, everyone's life is equal, man, woman, black, white, rich, poor...etc... Like Freud once said "Sometimes a cigar's a cigar". W.K.W.W.K...ALL Lives matter 17:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change. I thought the rules would have allowed you to usurp an account with only a handful of edits nine years ago but I guess the stewards have to follow the letter of the written rules more than most of us. I won't push the issue with the slogan in your signature, but hopefully you can see that the phrase is seen as offensive by some in the context you're using it, whether or not that's your intent. Best, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi WKWWK, I don't believe that you and I have interacted before, but I've seen you around. Just this morning, I noticed your new signature, and was quite shocked. Having come here, I see that I'm not the first person to raise this with you. Can I ask you to do me a favour and consider changing it? I am sure that you mean it in the sense that you genuinely believe that all lives really do matter, and that you intend no offense; however, that phrase is seen as offensive to many, and not just in the US. You just have to Google it to find much discussion of this - here is an American source discussing it, here is a British one, there are plenty of others. Here is our article on it. Not to beat about the bush - when I see or hear that phrase, I make an automatic mental assumption that the person using it is a racist. I am not accusing you of being a racist - I believe what you say above, and that you genuinely don't understand, or don't believe, the potential for that phrase to cause offense. Nevertheless, I am concerned that my response will be shared by other people who come across you for the first time, and I would go so far as to say that it might be alarming for a new editor to come across that message in someone's signature. I truly think that it would be in your own interests, as well as the interests of the wider project, if you were to change it. GirthSummit (blether) 08:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for your message on my talk,I'm grateful that you're willing to reconsider. I actually find the message so offensive that I've removed it from my page, rather than reply to you there. I've never before asked anyone not to edit my talk, and I remain happy for you to post there - but not with that signature. Please don't out it on my page again. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Whiteness studies

Hi - you recently decided to add a pseudoscience category tag to Whiteness Studies? The word pseudoscience is not used anywhere in the article, and you did not provide a source categorising the subject as such when you made your edit. I'm sure you don't need me to explain to you that we edit articles so that they reflect what reliable sources say, not so that they reflect our personal viewpoints - what grounds did you have for adding that tag? Thanks in advance GirthSummit (blether) 13:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


Of course, Girth_Summit I'll be glad to. Please take a look at this reliable source:

Genetic evidence has undermined the idea of racial divisions of the human species and rendered race obsolete as a biological system of classification. Race therefore should no longer be considered as an objective category, as the term formerly was in expressions like the Caucasian race, the Asian race, the Hispanic race. Instead, if the reference is to a particular inherited physical trait, as skin color or eye shape, that salient feature should be mentioned specifically: discrimination based on color. Rather than using race to generalize about national or geographic origin, or even religious affiliation, it is better to be specific: South Korean, of Polish descent. References to cultural affiliation may refer to ethnicity or ethnic group: Kurdish ethnicity, Hispanic ethnicity. Though race is no longer considered a viable scientific categorization of humans, it continues to be used by the U.S. Census to refer to current prevalent categories of self-identification that include some physical traits, some historical affiliations, and some national origins: black, white, American Indian, Chinese, Samoan, etc. The current version of the census also asks whether or not Americans are of Hispanic origin, which is not considered a race.

As you can see, it's stating using "whiteness" or "white" as a race is invalid. If that's so, then any study of it becomes invalid. For example, I can pull up a reliable source, peer reviewed that says "Reformed Egyptian" is a real language right here - it's a pdf. You and I both know this isn't the case, therefore any study of it isn't authentic, it would be pseudoscience. Same is true for "whiteness" studies. There's no such race and therefore no study of it can be valid (per the above, which is reliable sourced over here . Now that we've established that my category was valid, is it okay with you if I replace it? W.K.W.W.K...ALL Lives matter FAQ 14:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, we're talking at crossed purposes - I asked what reliable sources describe Whiteness studies as pseudoscience? I'm sure that you have read WP:SYNTH, and that you wouldn't have placed a tag on a page on the basis of your own analysis? GirthSummit (blether) 14:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
This is obviously not correct. You agree that "white person" is a concept used by many people, right? Thus it's an idea which can be studied. For instance, money is socially constructed and economics (not a pseudoscience) is the study of it. Whiteness is socially constructed and whiteness studies is the study of it. Regardless, your behaviour in adding a category without adding corresponding text which justifies that the category is factually accurate and defining is disruptive behaviour and no amount of backpedalling original research will substitute for a simple "I understand why my edit was contrary to Wikipedia's conventions". And no, you clearly don't have consensus to re-add it. — Bilorv (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi - apologies if you are just away from your screen, but I'm going to make the assumption that you have not, in fact, identified a reliable source that describes Whiteness studies as pseudoscientific. That being the case, I don't think you should reinstate the tag, and I find it hard to come up with a good faith justification for you having placed in on the page in the first place.
I'd also note that the note you pasted above (from Dictionary.com, which is not what I would consider a reliable source for statements about genetics or social sciences) is incomplete. The sentence which proceeds the bit you copied above explicitly says that there are times when it is "accurate to talk about race in society", and that "it may be appropriate to invoke race to discuss social or historical events" - which is exactly what Whiteness studies does. So, you are selectively quoting the bit of that source to support the categorisation you wish to make, extrapolating from the bit that you think supports your position, while ignoring the bit that undermines your position. Again, I find it hard to think of a good faith reason why you would do that.
Let's cut to the chase: you have added a phrase to your signature, which is read by many as racially provocative; you have been given links to sources describing why people view it that way, and you have been asked to change it, but have chosen not to do so. You are now using dubious reasoning, based on cherry-picked sections of an inappropriate source, to explain your addition of unsupported categories to an article that discusses the study of white privilege. Your last edit to article space before that was a flagrant BLP violation on the article about a black man. This is quite an alarming pattern, and it makes me question whether you are here for the right reasons. GirthSummit (blether) 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You're reading things in that aren't there. I've explained my tag (there's even a flag on my tag to explain that it's not racist). So there's no issue there, unless other choose to make it an issue.

Whiteness Study - again, I found a reliable source that states that white race is a misnomer and is not recognized academically, because that's true, any study of it is non-sense and can reasonably expect to be marked that way. You've made it clear you don't accept my source as reliable. That's fine, but a reliable source is a reliable source whether one agrees that it is or not. So, no issue here either, again, unless it's made one, and as a show of good faith, I won't replace the tag or even mention it on the talk pages.
Michael Vick what to say - he's a dog abuser. That's just a fact. He was arrested, among other things, for being involved in dog-fighting, and not just betting on it either. He was involved in all aspects of it. Dog fighting is abusive to dogs, therefore Michael Vick is a dog abuser (I'm a dog lover myself ). Further, there's no reason it shouldn't be in the article as all articles should be balanced. It merits space just as much as his formerly being a football player deserves space.

You and others are putting unrelated facts together to assert very much untrue things about me, so how about we clear the air, huh ?

1.) Not only am I not racist, I actually do pretty well in disputes Here's one where everything was talked through and a decision was made by consensus. Granted I was a third party to this, but still, no edit warring, no name-calling, no anything other than doing right. Here I'm part of an RFC - as someone in recovery, you would think I'd want to edit war or fight to get my way, but I didn't. I participated only in the RFC and let consensus do as it will.
2.) I was involved in this RFC too and as you'll notice, there was some conversation between myself and Inedible Hulk. As you can see, no name calling, no edit warring, just two people disagreeing with each other and nothing more.
3.) Here I opened and RFC and went against me. Again, no edit warring, no garbage behavior. Consensus is what it is and that's fine
4.)...and finally Here is a discussion I'm actually involved in, where I firmly agree that I'm right. However, I listened to Flyer Reborn and based on his argument, agreed with him and decided I was incorrect and needed to not add in what I thought was logical and correct in this article.

On the other hand , there are no contributions from me that show any edit warring or cursing at anyone or anything even close to it. All that to say, I'm not some troll. My contributions back that up. W.K.W.W.K...ALL Lives matter FAQ 15:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy to clear the air - I'm willing to AGF, and ascribe some of the problems with what you're written above to a lack of understanding about our policies on your part. I'm happy to explain what I mean by that, but I'd like to you engage receive mode for a moment - this is me explaining policies to you with my admin's t-shirt on, because you have been editing outside of policy in a manner that is bordering on the disruptive. Please read the following in full, and carefully, and take it to heart.
  • Signature: I've already said what I want to say on that. I don't think your tag makes it any better, and it remains my view that it has the potential to offend, but there we are.
  • Whiteness studies: your comments above show a lack of understanding of WP:V and WP:OR, two core policies, and RS, a guideline that supports them, in several ways.
  • 1: I found a reliable source that states that white race is a misnomer and is not recognized academically: no, you didn't. Your source does not say that. It says that race in general is "obsolete as a biological system of classification", but it also says that it is "accurate to talk about race in society". Given that Whiteness studies is a field within sociology, not within biology, your source explicitly supports the use of the concept of race in the context of that article. You are not permitted to cherry pick the bits of the sources you want to use, ignoring other bits and misrepresenting their totality.
  • 2: a reliable source is a reliable source: this is not correct. A source may be reliable for one assertion, but unreliable for another assertion. This is discussed at WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, but briefly, Dictionary.com might be reliable for the definition of words (but note that there are better sources for that, such as Oxford or Merriam Webster); it is not reliable for assertions of fact about genetics or the social sciences. For that sort of content, we would turn to academic work from the relevant discipline.
  • 3: any study of it is non-sense and can reasonably expect to be marked that way No. We do not use our own judgement and draw conclusions - that is WP:OR. If the source says X, we cannot go from that to say Y. The only circumstances under which it is permissible for you to add a pseudoscience tag to any article is when you have a reliable source explicitly saying that the subject is pseudoscientific - and it needs to be a rock-solid academic source, representing the consensus of scholarly opinion, not a footnote from an online dictionary. If you need to come to your own conclusion from the source that it is pseudoscience, then it has failed the test as a source to support that assertion.
  • Michael Vick I am not disputing the veracity of the claim that he has been involved in the abuse of dogs. I am myself a dog owner, and find that abhorrent. Just because something is true does not mean that you can put it anywhere you want in the article. You will note that the material was already covered in the article, and in the lead; for you to introduce it in the manner that you did, presenting it in the first sentence as if it were the subject's actual occupation, is a blatant contravention of WP:BLPLEAD of that sort that gets people blocked from editing. Don't ever do anything like that again.
So, there we are. I haven't read through the other stuff you put above - I'm sure that you have engaged constructively with other editors in the past, I don't think that you're incapable of doing so. I found the recent pattern of editing disturbing, and struggled to ascribe it to good faith misunderstanding of policies, but based on what you've said above I am willing to put it down to that. Please make your best efforts to take on board what I've said above, and to be a lot more prudent in editing in future - we encourage people to be bold, but not reckless. I hope that I will not see any further contentious editing in the area of race from you. GirthSummit (blether) 17:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. As a show of good faith - yes I'll change my tag. I will avoid the Michael Vick page in it's entirety - no talk page, no editing, nothing. I will do the same thing on the whiteness study. I will also continue to read up more on Wikipedia. Thank you W.K.W.W.K...ALL Lives matter FAQ 18:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
As proof - here you go! W.K.W.W.K...Talk 18:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you - that is much appreciated. If you ever want any guidance on any policies, or just want a second opinion on anything, you are welcome on my talk page with your new sig. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Information icon Hello, I'm Cryptic. I noticed that you recently removed all content from a page. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Cryptic 16:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Cryptic I actually didn't blank the page. The page was a redirect, and that redirect was deleted before per a discussion, so whomever recreated that redirect did it despite the deletion. I merely removed the redirect. I won't touch your revert, but I did leave an edit summary explaining my removing that redirect. W.K.W.W.K...Talk 16:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you actually blanked the page. Don't do that. We block people who do that. The redirect doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, as you'd have seen if you'd looked at its history; and I see now that another administrator also declined deletion at WP:AN#Cup Foods, for essentially the same reasons as mine. —Cryptic 16:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-admin closure

To save cluttering up RexxS's talk page any further, if you want to change the Wikipedia:Non-admin closure criteria then you will need to get a consensus and not just change it unilaterally. That's especially important if you want to base any thoughts of editor categories (eg "Experienced Editor") on those Service Award names - and I really would advise against trying that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wekeepwhatwekill/Archive_1&oldid=1048406013"