Black Kite (talk | contribs) |
Wikieditor19920 (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
::So you ignored the relevant sources and nominated an article for deletion based on your own personal assessment of significance. Got it. [[User:Wikieditor19920|Wikieditor19920]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor19920|talk]]) 14:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC) |
::So you ignored the relevant sources and nominated an article for deletion based on your own personal assessment of significance. Got it. [[User:Wikieditor19920|Wikieditor19920]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor19920|talk]]) 14:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
::: Whatever you want to think, that's great. But based on this article, I could write an equally well-sourced article on ''every single murder'' that has occurred in my area of the UK in the last 25 years. And still, practically none of them would be notable. Like this one. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC) |
::: Whatever you want to think, that's great. But based on this article, I could write an equally well-sourced article on ''every single murder'' that has occurred in my area of the UK in the last 25 years. And still, practically none of them would be notable. Like this one. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::: If you can find the sources to meet GNG, then it is notable. Your repeated assertions that something [[WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE|"just isn't notable"]] because of your assessment has no basis in policy. I don't know what you're driving at here, but another editor called this a borderline-disruptive nomination and I agree. [[User:Wikieditor19920|Wikieditor19920]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor19920|talk]]) 15:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:08, 19 February 2020
Net negative and indef ban
Hello. You have recently commented that I am a net negative for Wikipedia and that an indef ban for me is an appropriate sanction. Can you please explain 1) in what way I can improve my editing so that my contributions are a net positive and 2) what I have done in the past week in particular that led you to make such a conclusion? O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅ 17:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Yeah, quit being a "pot stirrer", like at 3RR/N all you do is drive by pot stirring, for one thing. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like an admin's comment on this. Is weighing in at ANI discussions as an uninvolved editor problematic? O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅ 17:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- We've been to ANI (more than once), we've been to AE, we've tried multiple blocks, and every time you start editing again we end up with issues. There's only so many times we can do this before we assume that it is your editing that is the problem. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Since spring last year (around 10 months ago), there've only been a couple of occasions on which I didn't follow BRD, almost all of which were cases such as reversions of clear misunderstanding and edits which had since gained consensus. Even the edits for which I recently got blocked did not in fact violate BRD save for one, which was a reversion of an obvious case of misunderstanding. Have you looked into the issue at hand or are you just basing this conclusion off the fact that I'm on ANI again? Speaking of which, I had been constructively editing for a whole year, and there weren't any problems with my editing (so it's not true that, every time that I'm editing, we end up with issues). This is in fact the first time that I had ended up in a place like ANI in an entire year, although you are free to take a look at the actual edits that led to my block and evaluate whether my editing was actually problematic. The blocks that I had received one year ago and earlier I had more than learnt from. I was a different editor then than I am now, which is reflected by the fact that all conflicts and content disputes which I have had in the past year were quickly resolved, without the need for edit-warring, which I would've reverted to, say, two years prior. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅ 19:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- We've been to ANI (more than once), we've been to AE, we've tried multiple blocks, and every time you start editing again we end up with issues. There's only so many times we can do this before we assume that it is your editing that is the problem. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like an admin's comment on this. Is weighing in at ANI discussions as an uninvolved editor problematic? O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅ 17:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Andrew Weatherall
On 18 February 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Andrew Weatherall, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Your nomination of Murder of Tessa Majors for deletion
I'm curious what prompted you to nominate this article for deletion three months after the page's creation, during which time the incident received (and continues to) substantial attention in reliable sources at a national level. Which of the deletion criteria did you specifically believe this article met? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NOTNEWS, which it still fails. It only exists because the victim was an young white female. If that wasn't the case, we'd have articles on the other 561 murders that occurred in NY that year. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- So you ignored the relevant sources and nominated an article for deletion based on your own personal assessment of significance. Got it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Whatever you want to think, that's great. But based on this article, I could write an equally well-sourced article on every single murder that has occurred in my area of the UK in the last 25 years. And still, practically none of them would be notable. Like this one. Black Kite (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- If you can find the sources to meet GNG, then it is notable. Your repeated assertions that something "just isn't notable" because of your assessment has no basis in policy. I don't know what you're driving at here, but another editor called this a borderline-disruptive nomination and I agree. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Whatever you want to think, that's great. But based on this article, I could write an equally well-sourced article on every single murder that has occurred in my area of the UK in the last 25 years. And still, practically none of them would be notable. Like this one. Black Kite (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- So you ignored the relevant sources and nominated an article for deletion based on your own personal assessment of significance. Got it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)