User talk:CAPTAIN KOOKY

July 2022

Hello, I'm Etriusus. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Scott Wiener have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Take it up on the talk page. Also, please review WP:BLP Etriusus (Talk) 19:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is a direct quote from a non opinion piece in the new york times poor sourcing? I'm sorry if it's unflattering coverage, but if a politician repeatedly attempts to enact policy that will lead to harm, it deserves coverage. Literally, people will die. In the name of "nightlife". I really hope I'm dealing with skepticism of my edit since I am a newcomer and not editors who are currying favor for this politician. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, and welcome to Wikipedia. To answer your question directly, I think it became clear that news articles can contain both quotes that assert facts and quotes that express opinions, in this case from the same person. While participating in discussions here, we're supposed to [WP:AGF|assume good faith]] of other editors. It doesn't seem you were doing that when you said, "Either X does not know Y or X was attempting to water down my edit". It's fine to have your suspicions, but for the sake of civility and productive interactions, it's best to just keep them to yourself. Most of the time I find that the other editor knows something I don't or has noticed something I missed, or is trying to do the right thing but is just coming from a different perspective. In this case, they were trying to maintain the balance and weight of various points of view, and they felt your edits had unbalanced the section in question. Anyway, I'm glad to see people are discussing this on the talk page; just thought I'd point out that rule of thumb. -- Beland (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware that I let my frustration get the better of me there but I think we resolved the issues on that page amicably. I'll keep what you said in mind moving forward though. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anglocentrism

On Talk:Recession, you wrote: "I hate to break it to you, but the world is anglocentric...and you're on English wikipedia". This is a very unwelcoming comment and inappropriate for an editor to make, especially as it will be read by people for whom English is not their first language. Neutral point of view is a core value of the project, and as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus points out, that means covering the entire world, not just the English-speaking parts or perspectives. Wikipedia aims to provide information about the entire world to everyone in their preferred language, and the English Wikipedia is often a hub of content and translation that comes in from and goes out to other languages. We may assume that readers of the English Wikipedia have a familiarity with the English language, but we very much do not want to privilege English-speaking countries in our content. -- Beland (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. It's a fact that if you try to talk to air traffic control in any country in esperanto, you'll be laughed out of the airspace. English dominates in the scientific literature, diplomacy, business, etc. I don't think my comment was offensive and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify but I will not apologize for it. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that English is the most commonly spoken language, especially among speakers from different countries who have no other language in common, the context you were replying to was a complaint that the introduction only discussed the United States and United Kingdom. Your assertion that "the world is anglocentric...and you're on English wikipedia" implies that you support English Wikipedia focusing coverage of this topic on these two English-speaking countries, when Wikipedia policy says global topics must have global coverage. If that was not your intended meaning, you should probably clarify that with a followup to your reply. If you were just generally musing about the dominance of English in the world, that's not relevant to the article and it doesn't belong in the talk page discussion. -- Beland (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you care about sensitivity, I'm more worried about how half my country thinks a conspiracy by a corrupt elite (which ironically includes unpaid editors on an information technology giant like Wikipedia) is on to redefine what a "recession" is in order to stay in power and eventually eliminate them in some way. Wikipedia is feeding the flames of that by deviating from norms of respecting longstanding content with the RfC debacle, and editors are not even recognizing why their actions inspire bloodlust in the entirety of right-leaning social media. That I could have a blind spot with offending people who bootleg English wikipedia articles using Google translate did not cross my mind. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping that comment. I haven't seen anyone complaining on social media that Wikipedia is biased because of how this RFC was handled. All the disruptive edits I've seen have just been people gratuitously pushing the "two quarters" definition into articles and talk pages. The outrage on social media seems to be entirely because people think Wikipedia changed the definition for political purposes. People seem to think that because of actual edits that have been taken out of context and shared by conservative commentators and media outlets echoing that, combined with readers' personal political outrage and sometimes crazy conspiracy theories. The people who are outraged generally don't seem to bother even reading the article or the messages at the top of the talk page explaining the edit history or do anything to fact-check what they're being told to be angry about, much less notice that there's a nuanced RFC discussion happening. Maybe I'm missing something else which is also happening, and I would be interested in pointers or quotes if you have seen it. -- Beland (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think if a page changes amid a controversy to seemingly favor multiple definitions over the clearest, most widely used, and most objective one (with stakes for belligerants on either side of the controversy), whether or not Joe Schmoe member of the public knows how Wikipedia RfCs usually proceed, Joe will intuitively think something is suspect. Adherence to policy may not avoid all unnecessary controversies, but I think it's almost certain that it would have avoided the current one. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing others' comments

Editing the contents of other editors' talk page comments, and in particular the signatures, is generally prohibited, even on your own user talk page. Exceptions are detailed at WP:TALKO. -- Beland (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That said, the same editor wrote an essay about pronouns on wikipedia and one of the solutions was to edit with a strict "genderless" approach. I guess my edit was in the spirit of that. But I can see how it be misinterpreted. And I didn't realize it would be noticed. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Ayman al-Zawahiri has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. PhantomTech[talk] 03:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly 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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat what I said on my talk page: If you don't understand why that remark is inappropriate for Wikipedia, you are not fit to be editing here. And if you do understand, then this is trolling. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I literally said it was a snide quip and that I probably shouldn't have made the comment. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It wasn't a snide quip. It was grossly inappropriate. And Islamophobic. And homophobic. Like I said, not playing this game. You are welcome to request an unblock. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Will you be the one judging the unblock? I don't think I will be judged fairly. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I will not be, no. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        If you could become an admin, I think I could become unblocked. Wish me luck! CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 05:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued sarcasm is digging you into a hole you probably won't get out of. On Wikipedia, we take guidelines and poicies very seriously as well as the Five Pillars, one of which is to treat others with respect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

indeed -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]