User talk:Fasscass

You cannot...

...reach a consensus alone. There's nothing like that on Wikipedia and this approach is by no means constructive and encouraged. If you wanna recall a user's attention just ping that user and wait for him to respond. The outcome is anything but decided. Lone Internaut (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, experienced editor. WP:5P5.

Fasscass (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

! and ? on chess moves

We're a bit cautious about using these. If you can demonstrate that a particular sign is commonly used in reliable sources (like MCO) then that's ok, otherwise you're editorializing. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't get any closer to the objective truth than to use engine evaluation to determine whether a move is dubious or a mistake, and indeed it determines just that, respectively. Fasscass (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using a chess engine is the very definition of WP:OR. We can't use our own engine analysis on wikipedia, or use it as a basis for assigning annotation symbols. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I bring up the trusty WP:IAR. I need not say that that rule would be absurd in this context, since, unlike in other projects where the rule ensures proper sourcing, there is indeed no better source than the engine. Especially when it is too easy to verify for anyone to put up any kind of objection towards its legitimacy.

Thus I propose, whether to you and the two articles in question or the whole Wikiproject Chess, to ignore WP:OR since its usefulness does not extend to every project. Unless of course, you have a different reason besides the guideline to oppose using simple and accessible chess analysis. Fasscass (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:NOT what wikipedia is for. If you want to post your own research try a forum like chesstalk.com, or start a blog. Our job is to reflect what established chess sources (especially the literature) say. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ignore the other and you'll be ignored yourself Fasscass (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Your recent editing history at Dictator shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
As three different experienced editors have told you by now, your various claims ([1] [2] [3] [4]) that WP:IS and Wikipedia:Verifiability prohibit citations of the Freedom in the World report are based on misunderstandings of Wikipedia policies. Please stop your edit-warring, and instead open a discussion on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. HaeB (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there's your talk section Fasscass (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciated. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Philip Cross. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User:Fasscass that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User:Fasscass. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Forward Party. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Goodfaith edit

Hey! I just wanted to tell you that I reverted your WP:GOODFAITH edit on Jeanine Áñez. In Bolivia, de facto implies that a government is unconstitutional which would be WP:NPOV and not what I think you were trying to imply anyway. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krisgabwoosh, the government was unconstitutional for a brief period of time. If we can agree with that, which would mean following the facts, then my edit is correct and must be kept Fasscass (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack on userpage

Please remove the personal attack against Philip Cross on your userpage. There are ways to deal with alleged disruptive editing, but making an accusation of article ownership against another user on your main userpage is not the way to do so. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an accusation. Goodnight. Fasscass (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not an accusation of article ownership, then how else am I supposed to read that an editor is suspected to have been a page owner as they would revert anything that tries to balance the article? This is extremely clearly an accusation against another editor. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asserting anything by the phrase. Fasscass (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be asserting that you are suspecting something. And, if this is a note that other people suspect something while maintaining that you don't assert anything by it, I'd suggest you strike it so as to not cast aspersions. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I do not assert any accusations. That is the lone point I am making. Neither am I suspecting anything, for that matter. Fasscass (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Fasscass. The discussion is about the topic User:Fasscass. Thank you. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:49, 13 June 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 the Uyghur genocide. 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.

— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ⓜ️hawk10, is this automated? I have neither interested myself in the topic nor have I disrupted in any way Fasscass (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. No, this is not automated. I decided to give you this after seeing that you are involved in the conversation at The Grayzone that is ultimately related to this topic area so that you would have knowledge of the community-authorized discretionary sanctions relating to Uyghur genocide. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Hi Fasscass! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of The Grayzone several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:The Grayzone, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it to the noticeboard if need be, thank you Fasscass (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy.

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 ~~~~}}.

You are blocked for casting aspersions against one of your colleagues on your userpage. I note that the other editor objected and you refused to remove the aspersions voluntarily. That was a bad choice on your part. You can be unblocked if you agree to the remove the aspersions and to never ever engage in this unacceptable type of behavior again. On the other hand, if you are here to attack your fellow editors, then there is no reason to unblock you. Cullen328 (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Cullen328, I ask that I be unblocked. I did not expect a trivial matter such as this one to result in anything remotely like this. I accept that my actions were improper and I will certainly not repeat them, knowing the punishment to be as severe as it is. Fasscass (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I am not thrilled about this as I would like to see some more contrition here, but I think that you have met the criteria described above, so I will remove the block. I think an apology would be a good idea but I won't demand it to unblock you. Be advised that you may be reblocked should problematic behavior recur. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are not a punishment, but a means to end and prevent disruption. The statement was removed by another editor, just to be clear, you will not be restoring it or otherwise repeating such actions in the future? 331dot (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be repeating any such actions in the future Fasscass (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator other than I will make the decision about whether to unblock. Cullen328 (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatory "I'm not an admin", but I do think that the user's minimization of the issue that got them indeffed (i.e. referring to it as a trivial matter such as this one) shows that they don't actually believe that casting aspersions on their user page was a substantial problem; it offers no apology towards the editor that they had personally attacked and rubs me the wrong way. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mhawk10 I appreciate your viewpoint. While I would like to see an apology, I do not think forcing them to is helpful- a forced apology is not an apology. I think a chance is needed for this user to see if they can stop the behavior. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]