User talk:Wearethemissile

Fearne Cotton/Ian Watkins edit

Hi Wearethemissile, thanks for reaching out. I reverted your edit because in my opinion it is not needed to stress Ian Watkins' personal problem in that context. If you disagree with mine and other editors' approach, please open a discussion in the article's talk page instead of reverting it four times. That's how Wikipedia works, thanks for understanding and happy editing. DoebLoggs (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre to describe that as a personal problem, but ok.

I don't think 'opinion' negates factual accuracy. Wearethemissile (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Wearethemissile!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, DoebLoggs (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Making sure you're aware of policy on multiple reverts by the same editor

Greetings! Since you acknowledged that you added the same material four times to an article—which means you made (at least) three reverts to the article, I want to make sure you're aware of the three-revert rule, which is a bright-line policy. With limited exceptions (none of which applied to your edits), any editor who reverts an article more than three times within a 24-hour span may be blocked for edit warring.

The article in question (Fearne Cotton) is currently semi-protected, so you are unlikely to violate the policy there at this time. However, there may be other articles on Wikipedia that you would like to make constructive contributions to, and I want to make sure you are acquainted with the policy. —C.Fred (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you. I wasn't aware, it was just what I was doing at the time. 2 of the reverts were in response to an auto edit by a bot which suspected vandalism - I changed the text slightly each time.

My original point remains - my additions were accurate and valid, and their removal goes against guidance to flag an article as disputed and resolve the issue in a talk page.

Anyway, I will bear this all in mind in future, although I am disappointed by my first glimpse of how the peer curation of Wikipedia works - arbitrary whitewashing of inconvenient truths! Wearethemissile (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Ian Watkins thoroughly explains the problems he had. If you still think something is missing, you are welcome to add it there (with the relevant sources of course). Adding a note about Ian Watkins' crimes in an article about a person he dated three years before his conviction, and that nothing makes anybody think she was aware of, seems to me to be more of a risk to cast a dubious light on Fearne Cotton rather than a kind of whitewashing. To be clear, I am not implying that this was your intention, but this may be an unintended result. --DoebLoggs (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Making sure you're aware of policy on editing in contentious topics

Hi - following on from the comments above, I would also draw your attention to our guidance on editing in contentious topic areas. The article you have been discussing is a biography of a living person, which falls within the contentious topics rules. You need to ensure that your conduct is top-top when editing in this topic area. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, all noted. I would say that my first experience of editing has been a pretty shitty one, but I will bear that all in mind. Wearethemissile (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what can we do to make sure your next editing experience is a good one and a productive one for the encyclopaedia? What topics are you interested in? How would you like to improve them? Are there any new articles you want to write? My suggestion is to read through the links in the Getting Started section of the post above, then start to put some into practice in your areas of interest. It would be great to channel your energy in the right direction, rather than have you walk away following a bad experience. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from editing the Fearne Cotton article for 3 months

In spite of the recent BLPB discussion, you have chosen to re-add the contested material. You are now blocked from editing this particular article for 3 months, though you may discuss the matter further on the article talk page. Favonian (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, apparently inconvenient and irrelevant are now synonyms!

It's literally the most interesting thing about her. And it is, sadly for her many fans, factually true. Wearethemissile (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Favonian what part of the BLPN policy did I breach? Please be very specific, thank you. If additional verifiable sources are needed, I will happily provide them. Wearethemissile (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction of WP:BLP (not "BLPN") describes a general requirement to adhere to policies that include WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS (from the verifiability policy) as well as WP:UNDUE (from the neutral point of view policy). The biographies of living persons policy also contains, by itself, WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE. There is also a requirement not to re-instate disputed material before a consensus has been reached (WP:BLPRESTORE). In a nutshell, of all the possible things one could do wrong, you have managed to do a surprisingly large amount wrong.

In addition to this, your aspersion-casting behavior on the article's talk page, accusing others of violating the paid contribution disclosure requirements of the Terms of Use (Special:Diff/1143702325), is disruptive. You have been informed about the behavioral requirements in this area before, but perhaps a more formal reminder is needed:

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.

If similarly disruptive behavior continues in the topic area described in the blue box above, you may be topic banned from editing and discussing such material, or blocked without an automatic expiration date and without a limitation to one article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And all for saying something factually true, and evidenced. What nonsense.

Do you get a membership card when you join the fan club, or do they just let you do this? Wearethemissile (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that you have read my message. There will be no further warnings as you are now aware of the policies and guidelines. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]