User talk:Iloveapphysics

Some stroopwafels for you!

It was the closest I could find to Belgian waffles. 😃 Just dropping by to say hi after responding to your post at WP:BLPN. —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bijou1995 (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Conflict

Hello iloveapphysics

I have been editing Wikipedia for a few months, mostly minor edits whilst I build my confidence up. I have made some mistakes and other editors have reverted them, all part of my learning. I decided to become an editor as I have fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue, it helps me to feel connected. I see that you reverted one of my edits on Adam Leitman Baileys account, at first I did not mind but something did not feel right so I looked into your edits and I found that you add negative information on accounts like

Sheldon Silver ‎

There seems to be a pattern of behavior here. If the negative information is old or spent is it fair to leave it on? If the information is about another family member, is that fair? Surely the info harms the reputation of the living person especially if that person has a long list of accomplishments. Having done some research since the reversion doesn’t the above constitute attacks on subjects?

Also how come you did not discuss it with me on my talk page?

I hope we can resolve this amicably but as I am still new and don't wish to get stressed about it (stress caused flare ups on my conditions) I think it best that we involve a third party so hopefully I have contacted the right department.

Best wishes

Marnie

Bijou1995 (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023-05-31T17:26:53 Abecedare blocked Bijou1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked): "Sock/meat puppetry; see my note at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Texasmom1965"

Thoughtful consideration

I am still taking my leave of Wikipedia but I would be remiss not to specifically come here to comment about the above discussion and my statements on ANI. It was truly horrific the comments directed at you by Bijou. Even if I felt you erred in principle over the sockpuppet accusations in edit summary, they did not warrant the attacks made on you and I want to make that perfectly clear. I have taken pride in being a mentor for new editors on Wikipedia and doing my part to help them navigate the complexities of Wikipedia. That does not mean I know everything but am willing to learn and pass on that to other editors. I make mistakes in both action and judgement. My Papa always told me that I allow my passion to go to my mouth. Apparently my mouth is connected to my hands.

As you can tell from my talk page, I don't shy away from differing opinions in regards to my actions or how others feel about it. I also do not ban people from my talk page that disagree with me. I see no use for talk page bans of fellow community members I respect, even if I disagree either partially or wholly with their viewpoints. I will still take their comments into consideration as I meditate on every step I take here. I appreciate you coming to my talk page and adding your thoughts.

As far as another editor pouring over your edits, I will almost never do that. In this case I looked at almost nothing but the ANI discussion that was taking place. I did look at the edit summary you made and also at the information Bijou was trying to have altered/removed. While I can empathize with Bijou, I DO NOT condone their actions. Likewise, them eventually being found out to be a sockpuppet does not change my position on unevidenced sockpuppet accusations made on talk pages or in edit summaries simply based on behavior or a "hunch". I don't believe it to be constructive or collegial. I have no doubt it was a "hunch" that led me to being listed as a party in SPI. That hunch was very wrong. And if it can happen to me then it can happen to anyone. I think we can do better. Even one innocent editor being falsely blocked as a sockpuppet because of a hunch based off perceived behavioral tendencies is nothing to shrug off. That is not your fault nor does it rise to the same level as the vicious comments made by Bijou. Mine is just an appeal to our better nature as human beings.

I realize you are very new and I genuinely want you to flourish as an editor here. I hope nothing stated by myself has given you the indication that I feel otherwise. We are all a Song. Our life experiences are reflected in our editing here and I feel we each have so much to offer this encyclopedia and community. We are all called to be a Rainbow in another person's sky. If you feel I have failed at that with you then I sincerely apologize as that was never my intention. --ARose Wolf 20:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you- I just hope you realize that my edit summary was not meant to be aggressive and was just meant to point out a potential problem (which ended up being substantiated). I thought it would have been more aggressive to initiate a formal investigation, but now I know that doing so would have been the right thing. I hope we will see each other around Wikipedia in the future under less contentious circumstances. Iloveapphysics (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I hope we will see each other around Wikipedia in the future under less contentious circumstances." I would like this very much. --ARose Wolf 15:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]