{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Your recent edits are functionally indistinguishable from trolling, as I evaluate them. Please spend two weeks pondering how to contribute positively to the world's #5 website, or else please consider blogging elsewhere. If any adminstrator thinks that I have misunderstood this editor's contributions, please feel free to unblock without my further input. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Appropriate action. I would still like an answer to the question you ignored regarding Beyond My Ken: what were you suggesting when you said "Looking through your contributions I think you should focus on editing pages like the Alt-right and Holocaust denial". IWI ( chat) 06:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
With
Cullen's permission, I've reduced your block to 48 hours. You can start editing again then (if you want to), but please be circumspect.
Deb (
talk)
15:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Welcome back. I would recommend you stay off any potentially controversial topics for a while. It's probably best to limit yourself to purely factual edits, like fixing spelling mistakes or dates, and always have reliable sources handy. I would also stay off BMK's talk page if you can, and avoid any further ANI reports because they can easily boomerang - as you have found to your cost. I also recommend that you avoid undoing or reverting anyone else's edits unless they are obvious vandalism, because people sometimes get upset about things like that - better to discuss things on the article's talk page. If you are in any doubt about what is and isn't acceptable, there is always the
Wikipedia:Teahouse where you can ask for other people's advice or opinions.
Deb (
talk)
11:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Guy (
Help!)
15:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Hi
Deb,
Was just reading through the ANI posts, I'm going to keep this as short as possible to save on the reading (sadly I can't send private messages on WP).
I can see that a lot of the users throwing accusations around claim they have done some "investigations" and are just awestruck at my "level of knowledge" of wikipedia. Honestly, I take this as a complement but I guess they don't realize everything I learned was verbatim either from BMK, couple of the admins and from the essays/WP articles.
A user claimed that using language like "we prefer secondary sources" is indicative of a puppet - humorous and ironic because this was literally my first interaction with BMK
[1].
Didn't get a chance to send
IWI this but the "lesser-known"
WP:DROPTHESTICK essay was posted on my talk page by one of the admins. Maybe before throwing accusations around, do a tad bit of research. Don't blindly follow what BMK is telling you.
Levivich had no problem point out
Hindsight bias to my accusers, but I guess you ignored him as well.
I looked up Gamer Gate and I never edited that page. If the individual is referring to a game-related page, I was editing a piece that was based on a researcher who's name is notorious due to her unethical scientific methods. I was surprised that people actually included any of her studies in an encyclopedia, but I understand the standards for scientific evidence are different for certain reasons.
Finally, I'm not even going to entertain what
Guy might have meant by "well-known problematic themes including racially charged themes", this comment is simply disgusting as a closure of a discussion. But I'll just advise him in the strongest terms to open up ANY medical textbook and learn about the million biological differences between ethnic groups - starting with embryology.
Anyway, thank you again for your support Deb, sadly I can't make any edits on ANI but I hope this resolves. I initially left wikipedia because it was incredibly confusing but I was told by colleagues the community is supportive about it. So far this has felt like a public lynching. If people are intimidated by my "knowledge of wikipedia" or the fact that I dared to add extra science to a
gestation article (which btw deserves more content which I'll personally be adding to), there is not much I can tell them.
Cheers,
-
Mwright1469 (
talk)
19:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock}}
request. See
WP:GAB. That’s the smoothest path forward. I’m going to close that silly ANI discussion.
Jehochman
Talk
22:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Hi Cullen, It's been quite a while since I have been on Wikipedia. I'm wondering if I could have my ban from 2018 lifted. Kind regards, Mike
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Your recent edits are functionally indistinguishable from trolling, as I evaluate them. Please spend two weeks pondering how to contribute positively to the world's #5 website, or else please consider blogging elsewhere. If any adminstrator thinks that I have misunderstood this editor's contributions, please feel free to unblock without my further input. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Appropriate action. I would still like an answer to the question you ignored regarding Beyond My Ken: what were you suggesting when you said "Looking through your contributions I think you should focus on editing pages like the Alt-right and Holocaust denial". IWI ( chat) 06:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
With
Cullen's permission, I've reduced your block to 48 hours. You can start editing again then (if you want to), but please be circumspect.
Deb (
talk)
15:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Welcome back. I would recommend you stay off any potentially controversial topics for a while. It's probably best to limit yourself to purely factual edits, like fixing spelling mistakes or dates, and always have reliable sources handy. I would also stay off BMK's talk page if you can, and avoid any further ANI reports because they can easily boomerang - as you have found to your cost. I also recommend that you avoid undoing or reverting anyone else's edits unless they are obvious vandalism, because people sometimes get upset about things like that - better to discuss things on the article's talk page. If you are in any doubt about what is and isn't acceptable, there is always the
Wikipedia:Teahouse where you can ask for other people's advice or opinions.
Deb (
talk)
11:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Guy (
Help!)
15:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Hi
Deb,
Was just reading through the ANI posts, I'm going to keep this as short as possible to save on the reading (sadly I can't send private messages on WP).
I can see that a lot of the users throwing accusations around claim they have done some "investigations" and are just awestruck at my "level of knowledge" of wikipedia. Honestly, I take this as a complement but I guess they don't realize everything I learned was verbatim either from BMK, couple of the admins and from the essays/WP articles.
A user claimed that using language like "we prefer secondary sources" is indicative of a puppet - humorous and ironic because this was literally my first interaction with BMK
[1].
Didn't get a chance to send
IWI this but the "lesser-known"
WP:DROPTHESTICK essay was posted on my talk page by one of the admins. Maybe before throwing accusations around, do a tad bit of research. Don't blindly follow what BMK is telling you.
Levivich had no problem point out
Hindsight bias to my accusers, but I guess you ignored him as well.
I looked up Gamer Gate and I never edited that page. If the individual is referring to a game-related page, I was editing a piece that was based on a researcher who's name is notorious due to her unethical scientific methods. I was surprised that people actually included any of her studies in an encyclopedia, but I understand the standards for scientific evidence are different for certain reasons.
Finally, I'm not even going to entertain what
Guy might have meant by "well-known problematic themes including racially charged themes", this comment is simply disgusting as a closure of a discussion. But I'll just advise him in the strongest terms to open up ANY medical textbook and learn about the million biological differences between ethnic groups - starting with embryology.
Anyway, thank you again for your support Deb, sadly I can't make any edits on ANI but I hope this resolves. I initially left wikipedia because it was incredibly confusing but I was told by colleagues the community is supportive about it. So far this has felt like a public lynching. If people are intimidated by my "knowledge of wikipedia" or the fact that I dared to add extra science to a
gestation article (which btw deserves more content which I'll personally be adding to), there is not much I can tell them.
Cheers,
-
Mwright1469 (
talk)
19:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock}}
request. See
WP:GAB. That’s the smoothest path forward. I’m going to close that silly ANI discussion.
Jehochman
Talk
22:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Hi Cullen, It's been quite a while since I have been on Wikipedia. I'm wondering if I could have my ban from 2018 lifted. Kind regards, Mike