Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Eaterjolly. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! JarrahTree 10:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit: previously section-titled "cut it out")
Look, sometimes people advance proposals so out of line with what Wikipedia is and how it works that they aren’t worth discussing. Your proposed change has a 0% chance of being accepted. I am reclosing it, again, and to be clear I am doing this as an administrator in order to stop disruption of the village pump caused by your proposal. If you open it again, expect to be blocked. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit: previously section-titled "September 2018")
(Redacted warning about restoring proposal, because agreed overreaction.)
@ Kirbanzo: @ Beeblebrox:
One cannot have an edit war in a discussion namespace.
Claiming otherwise is an abuse of wikipedia policy.
If the idea you want to censor by closing and collapsing, truly up-ends wikipedia, then no one will respond and nothing will happen.
Your acts of censorship only show cause to believe some merit exists in my argument.
I will take this to the arbitration committee if I must because this kind of bold censorship is an abuse of authority.
The discussion violates no policy. WP:SNOW explicitly states that it is not a policy.
Please assume I act in WP:GOODFAITH.
I shall assume the same and that you only mistook me for spam.
Eaterjolly ( talk) 22:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Kirbanzo ( talk) 22:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Kirbanzo:
I appreciate your apology. : )
Do you mind if I restore the proposal?
I don't intend on trying to canvas some "win".
I just want an earnest response to my criticism, my claims, and my proposal.
Eaterjolly ( talk) 23:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit: added "service" to section-title)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
The thread is WP:ANI/IncidentArchive993#User:Eaterjolly. Kirbanzo ( talk) 22:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Alex Shih: @ Beeblebrox:
So I read over WP:PEREN, not finding anywhere in there my proposal to specify how to find wikipedia appropriate information in otherwise unreliable sources (which happens often on wikipedia anyway imo). You even specified 1.6/1.7, but I don't notice any similarities between either proposal and mine, besides 1.7 and 1.6 also vaguely having to do with the sources allowed on wikipedia.
I also read over WP:NOTFORUM and that seems like an absolutely ridiculous policy to cite in a discussion area, and my discussion did have to do with "the task of creating an encyclopedia" so I don't get the problem.
I'd appreciate someone telling me why my proposal doesn't help rather than just throwing policy links at me and trying to shut me up.
Thanks : D
Eaterjolly ( talk) 10:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.I had previously told you that I didn't block your account and that I would allow you to post to WP:AN using it (your account) to challenge the IP blocks, provided that your consent was given to associate the account and IPs. Then the community would be able to review the situation fairly. You have continued to IP sock disruptively so I have indeffed this account.
If you want an unblock review on wiki then you will need to give your consent to checkusers to associate your account with IPs. Or if you would rather, you may appeal to the Arbitration committee and they should contact me as I have evidence for them.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 23:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Eaterjolly ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
First, I want to apologize for the hassle caused by my insisting on using IP. I believe in anonymity. I caused difficulties because I wanted others here to care as much as I do. Not an excuse but an explanation. I know I caused a mess with my IP signatures. I know that made reading or interpreting the pages I posted too difficult. At first I hadn't deserved blocked, but because I had no consistent IP to ping nor any consistent talkpage to talk to me 1 on 1 about how I should handle myself, admins had no other option. However because of the tone of the conversation about me I interpreted this as done with malintent. Futhermore because no other administrator criticized that tone had at the very beginning of the process nor had anyone suggested to me what I should do to compromise, I perceived this as a political block that had naught to do with my IP use and that just being a ruse. I still feel like I can only guess what the administrators want from me. I guess if I contributed only with my account and never as IP that would satisfy them. I could probably guess that before. I was wrong for not offering that solution at the very beginning. If I feel unsafe sharing my opinion on venue online, then I shouldn't share that opinion. I shouldn't expect wikipedia to protect me, at the cost of so much hassle. Eaterjolly ( talk) 18:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla ( talk) 12:31, 15 May 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.
Evidence
|
---|
|
I feel as though today I've learned an important aspect about how wikipedia operates.
If someone wishes to include a notable perspective in an article
they should not try to directly neutralize the article.
Instead they should reduce the perspective down to the facts you believe.
(in other words, try not to explain "why") and share those facts in talk.
Try to find widely-viewed sources which validate your perspective.
If you looked yet failed to find any, then saying so counts as very helpful.
Editors will use your perspective to find more sources for the article.
Most importantly...
one should ALWAYS express their perspective...
absolutely anonymously.
Eaterjolly ( talk) 18:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Template:Social phenomenon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TheImaCow ( talk) 20:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Note that I capitalize Wikipedia, not because Wikipedia might turn out a proper noun, but because; Wikipedia (in the style of Behrouz Boochani) itself possesses agency, perhaps to ideas, but also; to private social graphs. I wrote already how Wikipedia does and should act like a "quatertiary" source, which checks tertiary sources for mistakes by corroborating primary or secondary sources cited or inferred as original sources. If secondary sources obviously misinterpret a primary source, either we should quote the primary verbatim or seek clarifying sources. The internet provides unprecedented means for fact-checking which led to Wikipedia's success in the first place.
Lately, I've observed a continuation in the trend of disregarding that advantage with the article on Judy Mikovits, who either prefers misinterpretation uncleared or has no platform to clear misinterpretation. Rhetorical devices such as "only you and your", "planned" in the sense of "accounted for", "manufactured" in the sense of "waste by-product", etc. Wikipedia should give sanctuary to the "truther" or "conspiracy theorist", because both have a very potent desire for reliability. Those groups derive motivation from skepticism.
Yet, indirect COI'es perpetuate whereby if Wikipedia questions the reliability of an established source in any specific contexts, through cognitive dissonance questioning a potentially vital reference for their daily work, that causes unnecessary difficulty in the livelihoods of editors. Even base skepticism or the first questions in the process, might cause undue discomfort. I have no solution. Mob rule arbitrarily declares the truthers uncivil. Likewise, mob rule arbitrarily declared I violated the BRD cycle. Not bitter, I wear the lie like a badge of honor. "Look, I spoke such truth, only a lie could silence me." The only solution seems to have separate (lowercase) wikipedia'es for separate people, tiered according to comfort with skepticism. Skepticism doesn't mean publishing baseless imagination in an article, but skepticism does mean entertaining baseless imagination for investigative purposes.
Eaterjolly ( talk) 10:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Template:Typeset has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Eaterjolly. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! JarrahTree 10:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit: previously section-titled "cut it out")
Look, sometimes people advance proposals so out of line with what Wikipedia is and how it works that they aren’t worth discussing. Your proposed change has a 0% chance of being accepted. I am reclosing it, again, and to be clear I am doing this as an administrator in order to stop disruption of the village pump caused by your proposal. If you open it again, expect to be blocked. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit: previously section-titled "September 2018")
(Redacted warning about restoring proposal, because agreed overreaction.)
@ Kirbanzo: @ Beeblebrox:
One cannot have an edit war in a discussion namespace.
Claiming otherwise is an abuse of wikipedia policy.
If the idea you want to censor by closing and collapsing, truly up-ends wikipedia, then no one will respond and nothing will happen.
Your acts of censorship only show cause to believe some merit exists in my argument.
I will take this to the arbitration committee if I must because this kind of bold censorship is an abuse of authority.
The discussion violates no policy. WP:SNOW explicitly states that it is not a policy.
Please assume I act in WP:GOODFAITH.
I shall assume the same and that you only mistook me for spam.
Eaterjolly ( talk) 22:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Kirbanzo ( talk) 22:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Kirbanzo:
I appreciate your apology. : )
Do you mind if I restore the proposal?
I don't intend on trying to canvas some "win".
I just want an earnest response to my criticism, my claims, and my proposal.
Eaterjolly ( talk) 23:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit: added "service" to section-title)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
The thread is WP:ANI/IncidentArchive993#User:Eaterjolly. Kirbanzo ( talk) 22:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Alex Shih: @ Beeblebrox:
So I read over WP:PEREN, not finding anywhere in there my proposal to specify how to find wikipedia appropriate information in otherwise unreliable sources (which happens often on wikipedia anyway imo). You even specified 1.6/1.7, but I don't notice any similarities between either proposal and mine, besides 1.7 and 1.6 also vaguely having to do with the sources allowed on wikipedia.
I also read over WP:NOTFORUM and that seems like an absolutely ridiculous policy to cite in a discussion area, and my discussion did have to do with "the task of creating an encyclopedia" so I don't get the problem.
I'd appreciate someone telling me why my proposal doesn't help rather than just throwing policy links at me and trying to shut me up.
Thanks : D
Eaterjolly ( talk) 10:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.I had previously told you that I didn't block your account and that I would allow you to post to WP:AN using it (your account) to challenge the IP blocks, provided that your consent was given to associate the account and IPs. Then the community would be able to review the situation fairly. You have continued to IP sock disruptively so I have indeffed this account.
If you want an unblock review on wiki then you will need to give your consent to checkusers to associate your account with IPs. Or if you would rather, you may appeal to the Arbitration committee and they should contact me as I have evidence for them.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 23:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Eaterjolly ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
First, I want to apologize for the hassle caused by my insisting on using IP. I believe in anonymity. I caused difficulties because I wanted others here to care as much as I do. Not an excuse but an explanation. I know I caused a mess with my IP signatures. I know that made reading or interpreting the pages I posted too difficult. At first I hadn't deserved blocked, but because I had no consistent IP to ping nor any consistent talkpage to talk to me 1 on 1 about how I should handle myself, admins had no other option. However because of the tone of the conversation about me I interpreted this as done with malintent. Futhermore because no other administrator criticized that tone had at the very beginning of the process nor had anyone suggested to me what I should do to compromise, I perceived this as a political block that had naught to do with my IP use and that just being a ruse. I still feel like I can only guess what the administrators want from me. I guess if I contributed only with my account and never as IP that would satisfy them. I could probably guess that before. I was wrong for not offering that solution at the very beginning. If I feel unsafe sharing my opinion on venue online, then I shouldn't share that opinion. I shouldn't expect wikipedia to protect me, at the cost of so much hassle. Eaterjolly ( talk) 18:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla ( talk) 12:31, 15 May 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.
Evidence
|
---|
|
I feel as though today I've learned an important aspect about how wikipedia operates.
If someone wishes to include a notable perspective in an article
they should not try to directly neutralize the article.
Instead they should reduce the perspective down to the facts you believe.
(in other words, try not to explain "why") and share those facts in talk.
Try to find widely-viewed sources which validate your perspective.
If you looked yet failed to find any, then saying so counts as very helpful.
Editors will use your perspective to find more sources for the article.
Most importantly...
one should ALWAYS express their perspective...
absolutely anonymously.
Eaterjolly ( talk) 18:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Template:Social phenomenon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TheImaCow ( talk) 20:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Note that I capitalize Wikipedia, not because Wikipedia might turn out a proper noun, but because; Wikipedia (in the style of Behrouz Boochani) itself possesses agency, perhaps to ideas, but also; to private social graphs. I wrote already how Wikipedia does and should act like a "quatertiary" source, which checks tertiary sources for mistakes by corroborating primary or secondary sources cited or inferred as original sources. If secondary sources obviously misinterpret a primary source, either we should quote the primary verbatim or seek clarifying sources. The internet provides unprecedented means for fact-checking which led to Wikipedia's success in the first place.
Lately, I've observed a continuation in the trend of disregarding that advantage with the article on Judy Mikovits, who either prefers misinterpretation uncleared or has no platform to clear misinterpretation. Rhetorical devices such as "only you and your", "planned" in the sense of "accounted for", "manufactured" in the sense of "waste by-product", etc. Wikipedia should give sanctuary to the "truther" or "conspiracy theorist", because both have a very potent desire for reliability. Those groups derive motivation from skepticism.
Yet, indirect COI'es perpetuate whereby if Wikipedia questions the reliability of an established source in any specific contexts, through cognitive dissonance questioning a potentially vital reference for their daily work, that causes unnecessary difficulty in the livelihoods of editors. Even base skepticism or the first questions in the process, might cause undue discomfort. I have no solution. Mob rule arbitrarily declares the truthers uncivil. Likewise, mob rule arbitrarily declared I violated the BRD cycle. Not bitter, I wear the lie like a badge of honor. "Look, I spoke such truth, only a lie could silence me." The only solution seems to have separate (lowercase) wikipedia'es for separate people, tiered according to comfort with skepticism. Skepticism doesn't mean publishing baseless imagination in an article, but skepticism does mean entertaining baseless imagination for investigative purposes.
Eaterjolly ( talk) 10:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Template:Typeset has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)