User talk:ConfusedAndAfraid

Hello, ConfusedAndAfraid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Check out some of these pages:
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Kpddg ^(talk) 02:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

Operation Paper Draft

Hi again. I don't know if I'm putting this in the right space. The template you posted is quite complicated. I started editing Wiki because I found out that there wasn't an article on Operation Paper, and I thought it was significant enough to warrant one. I've created it as a draft, and I don't really know at what stage a draft becomes substantial enough to warrant publishing as a full article. Is there guidance on that somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConfusedAndAfraid (talk • contribs) 02:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Kpddg:, thanks for cleaning up the template. I clicked the "Click here for help" button above, and I didn't really understand how to use the pre-filled content. Is it better that I try to discuss the article I'm drafting on it's talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConfusedAndAfraid (talk • contribs) 04:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I'd suggest that you ask your queries at the Teahouse, where you can present your exact problem and experienced editors can answer. The 'Help me' template can be a bit confusing. Please share the link of your draft. Also remember to sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ). You can always ask for help at my talk page as well. Thank you! Kpddg ^(talk) 05:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found your draft (Draft:Operation Paper). What problems are you having with it? Kpddg ^(talk) 05:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I was just after guidance on when it's suitable to turn a draft into an article? I'm assuming that I need to add much more content than I have so far. Is there guides on this?--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the draft is currently not ready to be published. There are several problems: it is too short, there are very few reliable sources, etc. See Help:Your first article. For a more detailed assessment and more recommendations, I suggest that you ask at the Teahouse. Kpddg ^(talk) 05:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got the sources in part from other Wikipedia articles, but there definitely isn't many yet. I'll have to do some more reading, and take this to the Teahouse when I've added some more content.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fine. Kpddg ^(talk) 06:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was another article on this Wiki that had a dead link to this article that made me want to write it, because I've heard a lot about this operation and it's ramifications recently. In fact I'd say it's quite weird that it wasn't already documented. Anyway, thanks for your help.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's quite interesting that the operation was really heavily criticised for causing what you'd call in a modern context blowback, at the time it was carried out. And then again in the 1980s and 1990s by people considered prominent enough to be published in the New York Times; who I'd cited in the draft. Which is interesting because you said that wasn't a reliable source. Is there reasons why I shouldn't trust the NYT?--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still a bit too short. There needs to be more than one reliable source. Kpddg ^(talk ^• ^contribs) 15:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DS 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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR rule

Please note that you already made 3 reverts on the same page today. My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So? BLP says that that rule doesn't apply for speedy removal of poorly sourced material.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your removals have nothing to do with enforcing BLP rules. I realize that you probably disagree, and I could be biased. Therefore, in the event of violating the 3RR rule on the page, this probably will be reported to WP:3RRNB where uninvolved admins will make a qualified judgement. My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Operation Paper

Hello, ConfusedAndAfraid. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Operation Paper, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bucha massacre

Hey. Please note that there is a new general sanction; only extended-confirmed users are allowed to edit articles related to the Russo-Ukrainian War (WP:GS/RUSUKR). Prolog (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware. Thank you for letting me know.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note

Please note that the article Aaron Maté is now under a 72-hour one-revert restriction for the next month (till 6 December), up from the normal 24-hour restriction in place for all Syrian Civil War articles. This message is being sent to all recent editors of that article, and implies no wrongdoing on your part.

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 the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, 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.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bucha massacre #2

Please refrain from posting misinformation or disinformation in articles (and their talk pages) about sensitive topics. In particular, you have posted at Talk:Bucha massacre that ...BBC is also a state broadcaster of a belligerent..., insinuating that the United Kingdom is a belligerent in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (on Ukraine's side). This is patently false. The United Kingdom has not sent any soldiers into the war; the war has been fought almost entirely by Ukrainian troops, with only a few extra troops volunteering from other countries. The United Kingdom has supplied money and weapons to Ukraine, but this is not the same thing as belligerence. Belligerence is a very specific term in warfare, and you are using it incorrectly, perhaps either on purpose or out of ignorance. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one promoting disinformation. The UK's involvement in the conflict in Ukraine is incredibly well documented by reliable sources, and is non-controversial. Please retract your personal attacks and dishonest use of Wikipedia policy immediately and apologise for your slurs.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that supplying money and weapons is not the same thing as belligerence? Perhaps consult Wikipedia's article on the topic, or a dictionary. If you assert that the United Kingdom is actively engaged in warfare against the Russian Federation, then you are spreading mis/disinformation and I will thusly report you for spreading such falsehoods. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubling down on your activist editing is a bad look my guy. Stop it. I am personally motivated to be here to make NPOV edits to Wikipedia, and you are making personal attacks against me for comments on an article I'm not even able to edit. What is the point of this other than continuing your agenda pushing, which includes your position that Russia does not exist?ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in talk pages can contribute to the spread of disinformation, even if you are unable to edit the main article. The assertion that the United Kingdom is actively engaged in warfare against the Russian Federation is blatantly false. Ask anyone at NATO, and you will be laughed out of the room. If Russia were actually engaged in warfare against the United Kingdom and other NATO members, then this war would be a lot more serious than it currently is. Currently, the battlefield is limited almost entirely to Ukraine. Even Russia has barely received a scratch on its home territory. But if the United Kingdom and NATO were involved, then this war would easily become a world war. So, please, re-evaluate your opinion on the United Kingdom's "belligerence", or I will report you. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here you are spreading further disinformation. Congratulations on your clear demonstration of a lack of good faith.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will remind you of the Wikipedia principle "Assume good faith". Accusing me of lacking good faith is a violation of the principle, especially since you haven't provided convincing evidence that I am acting with malicious intent. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yet here you are making multiple accusations against me of lacking good faith.... Which I'll remind you, initiated our contact with each other. Honestly, getting attacked like this, by activists, is making me lose interest in helping the Wikipedia project at all. You really need to consider your tone and behaviour towards other editors because it is very offputting and in my view unhelpful.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any accusations against you. I warned you against spreading false information, whether intentionally or unintentionally. There was never any doubt in my mind that the information was false, only about whether you yourself believed the falsehoods or not. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bald faced lie. Your accusations against me are there for all to see.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And so are your confessions. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And there you go admitting your biases impact your editing again.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least I'm allowed to hold a bias. In Russia, you are only allowed to believe what the government forces you to believe. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is so patently untrue, that it clearly colours your editing, as coming from someone who lives in a fantasy world.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' user pages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on user page etiquette. Thank you. CMD (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly not vandalism. Retract this false allegation.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general, you are not supposed to edit the main user pages (or any sandboxes) of other editors. This is a basic courtesy across Wikipedia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In generaly you are not supposed to declare unencyclopaedic, emotive biases on your main user page, when editing this website as an activist. Which is what you did.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am allowed to declare whichever biases I want on my own main user page. Also, there is nothing wrong with holding personal views on topics. What is more important is whether I maintain the capacity to edit articles in a professional manner. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not state personal views. You stated factually incorrect positions, including that Russia is not a legitimate state, that demonstrate that you are a bad faith activist.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolution of the Russian Federation coming any day now. Like what we did to Austria-Hungary. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relevance of this opinion to your personal attacks against me on this website?~~~ ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You personally attacked an entire country when you accused the United Kingdom of participating in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as a "belligerent". An absurd notion indeed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an obviously false, malicious, and hyperbolic accusation. Retract it, and apologise.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Digraphs

Thank you for helping me with the "Mz" digraph. I never got an answer from the other user. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Law & Order. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you please clarify the IP address that you're editing from? ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

Please acquaint yourself with WP:NPA. This iquiry is an example of "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." I have noticed you employing this manner of assumption of bad faith elsewhere and would advise that you to make an attempt to assert more fact-based reasoning in your future interactions. I'll watch list this page in the event you have any questions. Tiderolls 14:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can I ask for you to substantiate your claim that you have seen me make an assumption of bad faith elsewhere?ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Tiderolls. I don't know what is considered to be an adequate amount of time for someone to reply to a request like mine, but in your case you quite specifically were aiming to caution me for making personal attacks that lack evidence, and yet you made assertions about me, without evidence. I would very much like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm quite surprised at this faux pas, given why you claim to have come to my talk page.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing edits by user who stated they do not want to engage with me.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the message is being sent fairly clearly here. Since I started editing Wikipedia, I've been met by hostility for attempts to be constructive, encountered people who openly state their biases, while dominating articles, and I've been attacked, without evidence by senior admins, after raising these issues. This is clearly a project that not only tolerates, but promotes and critically supports certain partisan editing efforts by going after any new editors who may be approaching the site within the spirit of it's stated rules of a NPOV. The tip offs I received appear to be true. I'm happy to be contradicted by the people who have been involved so far. But a reminder; your behaviour is already on the record.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I genuinely believed that I was trying to make good faith contributions to this project. May I ask what you mean by disruptive editing?ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I just noticed that my question of the admin Daniel Case was rolled back by another user. In that question I asked which IP users they were referring to in the banning of another user, and in the block log you mention me bringing up IP addresses as a reason for my ban. Am I to assume that this question was not considered kosher? I was just curious because I'd read articles off of Wikipedia about a user with a similar name to the one the admin blocked. I'm quite surprised by the treatment I've gotten here.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ConfusedAndAfraid (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was told that it was disruptive and a personal attack to ask a user what their IP address is. I did not do that again after being warned about that. I accept that it was wrong to engage with the Law & Order page as I did, and to respond to MaterialScientist's helpful contribution with a query like that. I was at the time genuinely just curious if they were editing from an IP address, and I didn't intend it as a personal attack. Since then, I made various statements about what I perceive to be general biases within the community, which I think I was within my rights to do. If there are other examples of editing which are disruptive, that have occurred since I asked about the IP address of MaterialScientist, I'd like to be given the chance to address them and improve my editing, as there are a number of subjects on here that I am passionate about, which are missing articles (see Operation Paper) and that have not received attention from other editors. ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You pressed one user as to why they declined to edit a particular subject area, after they told you they just weren't interested, and then pressed a third party who responded to you as to the source of their interest in replying. As this is a volunteer project, people may edit what they wish, or refrain from editing what they wish, for any reason and they are under no obligation to tell anyone else why(they don't even have to say "I'm not interested"). If you do get an answer, you should drop the stick and accept it. Yes, it is not "kosher" to ask people their IP addresses. In looking at these issues and discussions on this page, I think it would currently be a net negative to unblock you at this time, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm not sure where to leave my response to this, so I'll do it like a normal talk page discussion. My frustration with the article I came here to write (Operation Paper) is that I don't really know how to produce a whole article from scratch. I'll admit that I was frustrated by the discussion where I asked for help and was declined. I found a very prolific editor who works in that subject space and instead of getting positive responses to my request I had other users coming in and interjecting, and even calling me a troll, which clearly isn't my intention. I can accept the fact that I was too pushy there. I had my answer and should have left it alone, but I've found very little interest from other users to collaborate on articles, and far more agenda pushing and what I can only describe as gaming the rules. I constantly find errors in Wikipedia articles and make typically quite minor edits, and I'd like to be able to continue to do that, and to try to finish the Operation Paper draft. But overall, I have quite a pessimistic view of the culture here.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed an unblock request, which is effectively a personal attack, and revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 I found these recent comments by ConfusedAndAfraid on my Talk Page to be unacceptable: [1] and [2] together with this earlier inaccurate semi-outing attempt: [3] and believe these further justify the indefinite block. Mztourist (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Operation Paper

Hello, ConfusedAndAfraid. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Operation Paper".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the fact that the CIA wants this draft deleted. Every attempt at creating an article about it has resulted in multiple accounts getting banned. As you now know the context, feel free to remove the draft. I'll forward any record of this to haaretz. 122.150.92.52 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]