User talk:PlainAndSimpleTailor

Academic sources

Please see United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 ChefBear01 (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I agree with your comments about new users. Wikipedia is, indeed, at times an unwelcoming place for them. It's nothing to do with sex, ethnicity or anything like that. It's more about a systemic dislike of new users, especially IP users. Many users who think they are "experienced" seek to limit the access of new users in numerous ways (semi-protection and extended semi-protection), even warning them off particular articles. Having said it's nothing about women editors, I know that the sometimes aggressive and confrontational environment of Wikipedia will put off many women from editing. In my not-inconsiderate experience of these things, women are more comfortable in an environment where co-operation is the order of the day. Sadly, such an environment is not often found on Wikipedia. A large number of editors prefer to assail other editors with a deluge of policy links to try and win an argument (the most important policy is WP:IAR). You may find the following of interest: [1]. It comes from this publication [2]. I hope you continue to edit here and are not put off by the prevailing climate. Arcturus (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, Wikipedia welcomes a variety of perspectives. Wikipedia depends on consensus and is unaccommodating to the (classically male) approach of just bash it in and wear out anyone who disagrees. There is no evidence of a "systematic dislike of new users", but some whose experience of shared space is based on unevidenced assertion and counter-assertion on social media may be taken aback by the demand for supporting evidence. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you felt the need to jump on this welcome thread and be so defensive, deny the evidence (Arcturus linked two reports), but you should perhaps look and the possessive and mansplaining comments you've already made "Put it all in the shredder" as if you are the arbitor of what belongs in the article. Its very gatekeepery particularly on a message that was welcoming me!!

That was not my intention, so if that is how it came across then evidently I didn't make a good job of it. I read the pubpub.org comments as saying "don't even bother".

Anyway, the reason I'm back here again was actually to thank you for the material you added about the CBI and BRC, especially that you provided supporting citations: that is the sort of contribution that is very welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am just trying to improve the article, and write in a neutral way, I am aware that we all have unconcious bias so would welcome any constructive criticism such as on the suggested text for the new lead, but I just seem to be barraged with a wall of policies i've violated rather than suggestions. 80.42.39.51 (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to format a proposed version

I got a bit confused by one of your recent edits to the talk page until I realised that you were contributing a draft rather than you stating a position. So I thought you might like to know about a formatting template that you could use to identify a draft, see template:quote. Here is an example of it in use:

Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this our son of York

which I did by typing {{quote|Now is the hour of our discontent made glorious summer by this our son of York}} See how it gets indented and set off. Its normal use is in main articles but there is no harm in recycling it to use in talk pages. You don't have to do this, it is just the way I like to do it. Other editors would just stick an asterisk in front of the draft like this:

Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this our son of York

(the asterisk gets turned into a bullet when you publish). Whichever you prefer. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that is really helpful 80.42.39.51 (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up

Thank you for making a concerted attempt to bring neutrality and objectivity to the UK Internal Market Act article, you are one of many to have attempted this against what can only be described the a wall of excuses and faux integrity to keep it otherwise. Please do not lose heart; logic and reason are on your side! 146.198.108.131 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind. They don't seem to be able to accept that other people might know things or have expertise.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Market Thanks

I just want to pay thanks to your contributions on the Internal Market article, they have really helped move the article forward. Please keep it up and I hope you stick around on Wikipedia. All the best. DrJosephCowan (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is really very kind of you! They same to you. I don't understand Cambrial at all how can you think academic opinion that even academics wouldn't describe as facts are facts. Either he's keen on the SNP or he just doesn't understand! It can be like banging your head against a brickwall! PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PlainAndSimpleTailor, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi PlainAndSimpleTailor! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi PlainAndSimpleTailor! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, At what point do you just ignore disruptive editors?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello, PlainAndSimpleTailor, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as 79.66.51.226 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. The policy includes a prohibition on logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address. Cambial foliage❧ 13:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello PlainAndSimpleTailor! Your additions to United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PlainAndSimpleTailor: I share some of your concerns about the Internal Market Act article and i understand it can be frustrating when it takes considerable time to get changes. But its important not to get provoked and best to just try and focus on getting agreement on the talk page. Just avoid commenting about individual editors and avoid potentially breaking the rules if you want to make sure that improvements to the article get made. It will take time but it would be worth it. CoiledAmp (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations against other editors

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill. Misleading edit summaries of any type are considered disruptive, as you were warned previously. Stop doing this immediately. Cambial foliage❧ 02:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks from User:PlainAndSimpleTailor. Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for personal attacks and violations of the harassment policy. Deriding the mental health of other contributors or calling them an Incel is beyond the pale. That isn't at all a manner in which one should conduct themselves.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 02:46, 15 February 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Sorry but I wasn't even given the chance to defend myself which seems a bit unfair. I have since starting on wikipedia been constantly harassed by two editors as you can see from comments from user Acturus and John Maynard Friedman both here and on their pages, I have consistently tried to improve the article and have been repeatedly bullied by those two. So after being at my wits ends I responded in kind, one even started stalking me across articles. I apologise if that's too far but you should look to see this all a bit one sided and hostile and then you might realise why wikipedia is such an unwelcoming place for women. Anyway I would like to keep editing, but I would suggest you review how I've been treated since joining PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please read WP:NOTTHEM, your unblock request is focused on the actions of everybody but yourself. What do you plan to do differently if you're unblocked? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:47, 25 February 2021 (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.

Probably just walk away from working on any article which a man feels they own, rather than trying to improve it and get bogged down with their microaggression. I would Point wikipedia wants to encourage more women. So perhaps you should look at why the culture here is so toxic. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/International_Women%27s_Day. Also please don't punish Arcturus they were really helpful and nice! PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how it works, PlainAndSimpleTailor. The burden is on you, as the individual alleging misconduct on their part, to substantiate your claims with diff evidence. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go hunting for it on-the-blind. I'll also add that I find it difficult to conceive why we should ever tolerate language of that nature for any reason (whatsoever). And that your attempt to minimize it with if that's too far is not a good look. If — really? El_C 03:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it shouldn't be some kneejerk block without even asking for my views or properly investigating? That must violate the Equality Act surely? That isn't fair or equitible treatment of a user.

This is one of the first messages I received after an editor noticed the behaviour of FDW and Cambrial

"Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I agree with your comments about new users. Wikipedia is, indeed, at times an unwelcoming place for them. It's nothing to do with sex, ethnicity or anything like that. It's more about a systemic dislike of new users, especially IP users. Many users who think they are "experienced" seek to limit the access of new users in numerous ways (semi-protection and extended semi-protection), even warning them off particular articles. Having said it's nothing about women editors, I know that the sometimes aggressive and confrontational environment of Wikipedia will put off many women from editing. In my not-inconsiderate experience of these things, women are more comfortable in an environment where co-operation is the order of the day. Sadly, such an environment is not often found on Wikipedia. A large number of editors prefer to assail other editors with a deluge of policy links to try and win an argument (the most important policy is WP:IAR). You may find the following of interest: [1]. It comes from this publication [2]. I hope you continue to edit here and are not put off by the prevailing climate. Arcturus (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "

If your position is established users can just drive everyone else off with constant microaggressions? how will wikipedia's user base ever grow beyond its overwhelming white and male status quo? They have both made me feel unsafe at late particularly when Cambrial stated following me to other articles. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PlainAndSimpleTailor, my position is that I'm not omniscient and must respond with urgency to egregious misconduct on the basis of the evidence I have available before me. What Arcturus said to you is most definitely not okay. And as soon as I'm finished submitting this response, I am going to warn them in no uncertain way against expressing themselves in such a manner ever again, to anyone, under penalty of impending sanctions of considerable severity.

That having been said, your response to this admittedly patronizing and paternalistic drivel was way over the top. You should have just told him that what he said was discreditable and insulting and wrong, and that you aim to report him so that he won't be able to say that to anyone else ever again. But calling him an Incel? How does that help anything or anyone? Someone might be misguided, even in such a wrong-headed way as this, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be treated with such outrageous contempt. Anyway, off I go to impart some critical "guidance" to him. (P.S. please read WP:DIFF so that you're able to provide actual evidence, instead of a quote that I don't know where it came from, etc.) El_C 03:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I have removed Arcturus' question here as inappropriate (diff), and have warned him against continuing to do so. El_C 15:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood my point Arcturus was helpful they were pointing out the microaggressions and gatekeeping was just a difficult part of wikipedia. They were being helpful. Please do not warn them. They were one of the only nice people here! PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]