User talk:Salamandra85
STOP!
[edit]
Before possibly thinking to revert my edits first read the accurate explanations of the wikipedia rules, because they are often used not correctly.
The general editing policy states: "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. <...> Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. <...> Adding another point of view to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems) The latter is required by the core rule about neutrality, explicitly coercing to include all the significant views with reliable sources as the necessary requirement but not yet sufficient one, which "should not be interpreted in isolation <...> the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight ... " (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view).
There is no deadlines in wikipedia, and among exceptions there is personal/private information which might need an urgent response, but not rather information about public events. My edits of the Me Too movement article don't belong to urgent situations in which one might need to exactly revert changes quickly (and instead to make corrections/improvements or request for more or better sources if needed) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#For_urgent_situations).
According to the wikipedia rule on sources wikipedia pages are just not encouraged to be used as sources and "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_use_it). The wikipedia page rule is in the section "Sources that are usually not reliable". So in a part of cases they can be considered reliable. The same about blogs, especially with exceptional content. Nearly with the lawyer-grade precision I can explain what these rules mean. That all generally means you rather either rewrite the page having links on wikipedia pages as sources or make other corrections (like to tag with "citation needed" because you should make the article better and basically to respect others contributions), checking the reliable backing up sources there to not make an irresponsible premature judgment, OR you revert the changes (say, you are confident enough and this is not against the rules) IF the specified wikipedia pages as sources, including the version(s) valid on the date of the source added and the possibly reverted edits there of the user, were NOT backed up with reliable sources in which case you also better address the problem of those latter sources and/or related content there (to be consistent). In other words, the wikipedia pages can be used as reliable sources backed up with corresponding reliable sources, e. g., as a temporary measure (which can last a long time though) or with the principle "better something than nothing" (because statements in wikipedia can in principle be with no source specified) or even because it sometimes may be more convenient (say, when it is about something not much important and you don't want to inflate content or especially its source). The verifiability rule is mostly about the preferences of what sources to use.
Also use the good faith rule properly. It is difficult to operate with it actually because it definitely should be obvious, otherwise you assume good faith. "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). <...> Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such. <...> When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. <...> If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns."(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith). Keep in mind the simple example that to assume bad faith is like to call someone a vandal.
And the last but not the least. "The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. <...> attributable, even if not attributed." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research). In view of the above presented text the "no original research" rule is mostly about accuracy of statements or citations, which also additionally suggests that such issues should usually be solved by editing, not removing. Concerning the Me Too movement that my blog, among different things, exactly proposes to arrange the presentation of the rest of the sources which exist.
More details about sources, self-published sources and exceptional situations.
"Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. <...> Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. <...> sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." (yet, primary sources can be used, especially if there is no other ones, but almost never to create a new wikipedia article basing only on it) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources).
"The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source).
"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact <...> and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." (even if it is opinion of a single author, taking the minimal space in an article according to its due weight) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion). --Salamandra85 (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]
Thanks! The edit summary will be there every time I don't forget about it. --Salamandra85 (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
|
September 2019
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Me Too movement, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. – Teratix ₵ 01:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Me Too movement. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. General Ization Talk 03:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Anastasia Melnichenko. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. General Ization Talk 03:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I guess you won't be blocked even though you reverted my important contribution for "Me Too movement" marking it as a minor edit without explanations. Why not to leave it there if that was a minor edit then? It is sad wikipedia has such censorship... Concerning Anastasia Melnichenko, the source was the wikipedia page about "Me Too movement" before it got reverted[1][2]. Everything is with sources. I guess you will not be blocked for false warnings either. Salamandra85 (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Contrary to your belief, Wikipedia pages are not permitted to be used as sources on Wikipedia, as they are user-generated and therefore unreliable. – Teratix ₵ 06:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, wikipedia pages are just not encouraged to be used as sources and "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources.". So they are rather subject to editing (wikification?), not reverting. Yet they are used as sources even by users with many contributions.[3] I guess they will not be neither blocked nor corrected. Nevertheless, a source was specified by me. And in regard to the original research rule applied to one of my edits I could say a part of it was both very reliable and pretty much directly reflecting a content there. Then I made a simple and plain edit as a part of the previous one, being a very important note, and it got reverted too, as a minor edit. Well, definitely I could use the direct quotes, but then I guess they could be reverted as exactly minor edits. Btw, the accents on this page would have to be somewhat changed, as they were changed by Ms. Milano once, as I tried to change them. But it appears there are double standards. Again and again. The original research rule, the wikipedia page rule and the blogs rule are in the section "Sources that are usually not reliable". So they can in principle be considered reliable sources. The reverted reference on the blog was a reliable one due its exceptional content (and also a place were organizing arrangements for the challenge could be made). Maybe I cannot provide all and such sources you would like to see right now as well as you cannot because the subject is not yet well established, being yet active as well as the Great Scientific Revolution, and rather had not yet be presented in encyclopedias, at least not with a bias. Check out the rule about neutrality. Maybe you would prefer then to clean up the page meanwhile. So what about censorship and spreading fakes without sources (like it is with Anastasia Melnichenko, as well as without any proof of her being related to the origin, as I explained in that one my edit) in wikipedia regarding all this? If there is no response in the nearest days, I will consider this a consent for me to edit the article again. Salamandra85 (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- If you think "Before possibly thinking to revert my edits first read the accurate explanaitions of the wikipedia rules, because they are often used not correctly" is a proper English sentence, if you think it's acceptable to cite Wikipedia articles as references despite the verifiability policy explicitly saying "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources", if you baselessly accuse others of censorship and vandalism, then I do not think you have the competence required to edit here. – Teratix ₵ 12:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- A typo is fixed. Maybe "about revering" is a better form, but yet maybe the original one was correct too. "There is no expectation that editors have high English skills. Minor spelling and grammar mistakes can be fixed by others.". The statement "Do not use" is a discouraging statement. And what if a wikipedia page is used as a source anyway? Then all should follow the rest of the rules. Yet, there are inconsistencies in the rules, however, the most of them can be resolved if you also take into account the order (by importance) of the pages with rules. I didn't accuse of vandalism, I said it looked like vandalism and explained why. About censorship I explained why too. Well, more suitable word would be "bias", which I specified too, however, a part of my contributions were subject to editing, not removal... Btw, self-reference has additional support in the rules. It is strange that I didn't get a notification. Salamandra85 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- WP:CIRCULAR is part of Wikipedia policy, plain & simple. Wikilinks are acceptable, but not as verification. Using Wikipedia to cite itself will get reverted every time an experienced editor discovers it. If you keep posting & do not abide by WP:V, sooner or later you will be blocked. If you continue to ignore WP:V after returning from a block, you will be blocked for longer, or eventually permanently. That is not a threat, that is simply how Wikipedia works. No amount of trying to argue otherwise on a talk page will change this policy. Peaceray (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- I provided detailed quotes with references. Never was I trying to change the policy. --Salamandra85 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- WP:CIRCULAR is part of Wikipedia policy, plain & simple. Wikilinks are acceptable, but not as verification. Using Wikipedia to cite itself will get reverted every time an experienced editor discovers it. If you keep posting & do not abide by WP:V, sooner or later you will be blocked. If you continue to ignore WP:V after returning from a block, you will be blocked for longer, or eventually permanently. That is not a threat, that is simply how Wikipedia works. No amount of trying to argue otherwise on a talk page will change this policy. Peaceray (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- A typo is fixed. Maybe "about revering" is a better form, but yet maybe the original one was correct too. "There is no expectation that editors have high English skills. Minor spelling and grammar mistakes can be fixed by others.". The statement "Do not use" is a discouraging statement. And what if a wikipedia page is used as a source anyway? Then all should follow the rest of the rules. Yet, there are inconsistencies in the rules, however, the most of them can be resolved if you also take into account the order (by importance) of the pages with rules. I didn't accuse of vandalism, I said it looked like vandalism and explained why. About censorship I explained why too. Well, more suitable word would be "bias", which I specified too, however, a part of my contributions were subject to editing, not removal... Btw, self-reference has additional support in the rules. It is strange that I didn't get a notification. Salamandra85 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- If you think "Before possibly thinking to revert my edits first read the accurate explanaitions of the wikipedia rules, because they are often used not correctly" is a proper English sentence, if you think it's acceptable to cite Wikipedia articles as references despite the verifiability policy explicitly saying "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources", if you baselessly accuse others of censorship and vandalism, then I do not think you have the competence required to edit here. – Teratix ₵ 12:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, wikipedia pages are just not encouraged to be used as sources and "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources.". So they are rather subject to editing (wikification?), not reverting. Yet they are used as sources even by users with many contributions.[3] I guess they will not be neither blocked nor corrected. Nevertheless, a source was specified by me. And in regard to the original research rule applied to one of my edits I could say a part of it was both very reliable and pretty much directly reflecting a content there. Then I made a simple and plain edit as a part of the previous one, being a very important note, and it got reverted too, as a minor edit. Well, definitely I could use the direct quotes, but then I guess they could be reverted as exactly minor edits. Btw, the accents on this page would have to be somewhat changed, as they were changed by Ms. Milano once, as I tried to change them. But it appears there are double standards. Again and again. The original research rule, the wikipedia page rule and the blogs rule are in the section "Sources that are usually not reliable". So they can in principle be considered reliable sources. The reverted reference on the blog was a reliable one due its exceptional content (and also a place were organizing arrangements for the challenge could be made). Maybe I cannot provide all and such sources you would like to see right now as well as you cannot because the subject is not yet well established, being yet active as well as the Great Scientific Revolution, and rather had not yet be presented in encyclopedias, at least not with a bias. Check out the rule about neutrality. Maybe you would prefer then to clean up the page meanwhile. So what about censorship and spreading fakes without sources (like it is with Anastasia Melnichenko, as well as without any proof of her being related to the origin, as I explained in that one my edit) in wikipedia regarding all this? If there is no response in the nearest days, I will consider this a consent for me to edit the article again. Salamandra85 (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
References
Important Notice
[edit]
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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.
Doug Weller talk 13:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Important Notice
[edit]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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
Doug Weller talk 13:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
November 2019 - Your edits on Me Too movement
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Me Too movement. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.
You are littering the lede with too much tangential detail and driveby tagging of content that is sourced in the body of the article. This could be considered disruptive editing. As this is a gender politics article, please be aware of the notices admin Doug Weller posted above. There is ample sourcing that these are not separate movements based on race, and your edits implying this could be seen as WP:OR, as well as being divisive. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- I've answered on the talk page of MeToo. If persisted, the last resort can be the direct intervention of Wikimedia. --Salamandra85 (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --- CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- OK, the same will be for you and Bishonen after the blocking is cancelled or expires. --Salamandra85 (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
November 2019
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 10:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Example: [1]. Bishonen | talk 10:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC).
Salamandra85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Block without a reason by the user Bishonen with violation of the most important not negotiable neutrality rule in that same source provided by the Bishonen. All the rest of detail about that is being prepared. Salamandra85 (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This does not address the issues in any way, and suggests that you do not understand why your behaviour was unacceptable. I am therefore declining this appeal. Yunshui 雲水 11:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
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 have declined your report about CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism. You have already made your concerns about this editor known at ANI, and they will be reviewed at that appropriate venue. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! There are variations of vandalism. Maybe you consider its worse forms. --Salamandra85 (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Eagles247: As you originally wrote to report again if that repeats (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASalamandra85&type=revision&diff=924915774&oldid=924862541), I just have to let you know that happened again. The user CorbieVreccan removed even a corrected typo which I initially corrected separately to increase chances the typo would not be reverted (as long as many like reverting here). Think yourself. --Salamandra85 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- I've removed the entire parenthetical, as it doesn't make sense in its correct form, the one you suggested, or anything else I could come up with. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Eagles247: As you originally wrote to report again if that repeats (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASalamandra85&type=revision&diff=924915774&oldid=924862541), I just have to let you know that happened again. The user CorbieVreccan removed even a corrected typo which I initially corrected separately to increase chances the typo would not be reverted (as long as many like reverting here). Think yourself. --Salamandra85 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 21:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)