User talk:2601:249:9301:D570:A9C1:1D77:609B:E4FD

January 2023
Hello, I'm Zsinj. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ZsinjTalk 18:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I removed them because the individuals in question are deceased. 2601:249:9301:D570:A9C1:1D77:609B:E4FD (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why does that matter? The list isn’t exclusive to living honorees, is it? ZsinjTalk 18:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In the past, these pages have had deceased individuals being removed upon their deaths, likely because the page is meant to chronicle living such members. For example, this edit shortly after the death of Prince Philip saw his entry removed, along with other deceased individuals. 2601:249:9301:D570:A9C1:1D77:609B:E4FD (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems that your basis for saying "it seems to be the intent of the articles to only list living holders of those honors" is that one or two anonymous editors have removed information when people have died. Nothing in the articles says that dead people should be removed, and you were told above that your understanding was mistaken, but made no response, and continued doing the same thing. I am willing to believe that you were acting on the basis of a misunderstanding, rather than malicious intention, but you need to be willing to learn from other editors, and to discuss matters if you think that they are mistaken, rather than just carrying on in your own way, ignoring what you are told., do you think in view of the above statements from the editor there is a case for removing the block? JBW (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I did give the other poster a response in this edit, where I explained my reasoning to them, posted directly under their comment with the time stamp 18:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC). However it was reverted here after I was blocked. Since manually adding it back where it originally was might seem like manipulating the situation, I'll repost it here. This is what I said: "In the past, these pages have had deceased individuals being removed upon their deaths, likely because the page is meant to chronicle living such members. For example, this edit shortly after the death of Prince Philip saw his entry removed, along with other deceased individuals. 18:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)" I guess that since there's nothing that specifically says what constitutes the page, I won't unilaterally remove entries in the future. 2601:249:9301:D570:A9C1:1D77:609B:E4FD (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies. In the course of mass-reverting edits which appeared to be vandalism, I unintentionally reverted one of your edits to this page, in which you did post an answer. I have now restored the message which you posted. Removing the material from the articles was a mistake, but I can understand why seeing that other people had done the same thing encouraged you to think it was the right thing to do. That being so, I see no reason why you shouldn't be unblocked, if you acknowledge that you are now aware that removing people who have died isn't appropriate. However, I prefer to wait to give  a chance to comment if he wishes to, in case he knows of facts which I don't know but which might influence the decision. He hasn't edited since I posted my message above, but I hope he will be available before too long, so that you don't have to keep waiting for an answer. JBW (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would not lift the block at this time (the block was for three days). When we review the IP's last seventy edits it seems that most of them have been reverted. A single mistake is excusable, one mistake after another is harder to forgive. A simple misunderstanding is hard to credit here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect and I don't mean to cause offense, the reverted edits you described all related back to the issue I mentioned above, that being the assumption that the pages in Category:Lists of state honours awarded to heads of state and royalty shouldn't have deceased individuals listed, which I thought was keeping the pages up to date. The reason why there were so many edits was because I made those changes one section at a time, because I thought that doing so would be faster than doing the whole page edit function and manually scrolling down to each section and seeing which I thought needed to be removed, so instead I used each sub sections edit button. I didn't receive a talk page message about it until several pages down and when I received it, I made a reply explaining my reasoning for doing so. In retrospect, I probably should have waited for more discussion given that there was nothing specifically saying what should have been on the page and that's on me. I apologize for my actions.2601:249:9301:D570:A9C1:1D77:609B:E4FD (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your comment "a single mistake is excusable, one mistake after another is harder to forgive". If the editor had once made the mistake of genuinely believing that removing dead people from the lists was the right thing to do, then it would be perfectly natural for them to do so to numerous cases: there are numerous actions, but all based on one mistaken belief. It would also be a very easy mistake to make, considering that they had seen other people doing the same. All of us, when we start editing, learn what is acceptable by seeing what other editors have done, and sometimes we unfortunately but perfectly innocently choose the wrong examples to follow. If you care to look you will be able to find cases where I did so in my early editing, and if you never did so then you were very lucky. JBW (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User:JBW, if you wish to unblock please go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)