User talk:Destrylevigriffith

Polices

We go by polices, not "logic" or "facts" or "arguments" (see WP:NOTDUMB), we go by wp:rs and wp:or, as well as wp:undue and wp:npov. What we are not is a wp:soapbox or wp:forum for what users think or feel. Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;
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.

Bon courage (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;
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.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;
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.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Positive feedback, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Runaway. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Antifeminism. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, chat forum, or platform to right great wrongs. If you have identified a problem with the way articles are written, then you can try to change the relevant policies at the village pump. However, simply accusing others of "bias" is likely to lead to your account being blocked indefinitely as evidence of your not being here to build an encyclopedia as well as a prohibited personal attack. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Destrylevigriffith: Just to let you know, the article Ideological bias on Wikipedia has existed since 2018. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Should be popcorn-worthy reading (better wait till I'm in the mood for a few chuckles, rather than any potentially angry edits). Destrylevigriffith (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are more articles like that, Category:Criticism of Wikipedia, Category:Wikipedia controversies etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Should be fun reading Destrylevigriffith (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually turned out to be a fantastic article, very informative and interesting. Thanks for the recommendation! Destrylevigriffith (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Graham Hancock. Violation of the blocking policy. "I've been given the boot from Wikipedia before, for being experienced as attacking another user... in my view they essentially proved me right by banning me". Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I didn't know suggestions to improve pages would be considered disruptive. Now I think I understand. I will keep my suggestions from now on to topics and tones less likely to cause offense. Destrylevigriffith (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator question: please identify the account that you used before. I assume that "given the boot" means indefinitely blocked, unless you can show otherwise. You may not use a new account to evade scrutiny. Acroterion (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting assumption of guilt and bad intentions.

I believe it was this phone's IP that was given a one year block, or perhaps it was six months, which lapsed a few months ago.

If you are looking for an excuse to block me (and incidentally prove me right about the real culture of Wikipedia), I doubt you will have a hard time finding one, and supporters who will back your decision/suggestion to purge dissident views from the platform.

Perhaps you could even make the case that this "talking back to you" is the very straw that breaks the camels back, forcing you to punish (and make excuses and, of course). "He offended us by calling us people who would simply silence dissent." So we silenced him. Destrylevigriffith (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 11:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any Admin responding to any unblock request will read the blocking reasons. Frankly I think I could have blocked you just for block evasion as even if any IP blocks have expired we rarely block indefinitely as we do with accounts. I have no objection to any Admin reversing my block. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

<ec>IPs are given blocks that long for persistent disruption after multiple warnings or previous blocks, which would merit an indefinite block on a named account. You appear to be treating your participation as a kind of breaching experiment, to see where boundaries can be skated upon. The coyness about past attacks, as you describe them yourself, and dares to block to somehow prove your victimization, are a waste of volunteer time. Acroterion (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Level of cultyness and religiosity here too extreme to bother with.

I'm grateful to be spared the futher trouble. Destrylevigriffith (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of you seem to have any idea how much I am here to help create a better and better encyclopedia.

Please keep up the good work (just because I keep trying to improve it doesn't mean I don't see how amazing it already is — some of us activate the most against not the weakest material or others, but to improve the best material, and raise the consciousness of our own people. In this case of course people who appear to be just trying to inform everyone as best they can, in the most egalitarian way they know how). Destrylevigriffith (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone interested should see the ~ 10min YT vid on Chomsky's experience of free speech for the best synopsis of my attitudes on the matter of information dissemination. Destrylevigriffith (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]