User talk:Edgth

Don´t template me!

Advice
Hi Edgth, I wanted to give some friendly advice here. I realize you're a new user and we didn't start off on the right foot so to speak. Basically, here at Wikipedia, we welcome everyone to edit, as long as they're here to improve or maintain the encyclopedia. As long as you're making good-faith attempts to build the project, you'll be welcome. The problem comes when users approach Wikipedia with other motives, Wikipedians are generally hostile towards them. If it seems like someone is editing Wikipedia to promote something or make a point, they usually have a hard time with the community here. Of your 150 edits so far, about 90% of them seem to be devoted to changing gender-neutral language. While changing "humankind" to "mankind" isn't strictly forbidden, it isn't in-and-of-itself particularly helpful to the project. In general, going from page to page making the same argument about a minor issue is usually frowned upon here. You're welcome to have your own opinion of the matter, but that shouldn't be the only thing you do here. If you try to build the project in other ways instead of only working on the whole "mankind" thing, I think you'll find Wikipedians to be more receptive to you arguments. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. However 90% of my edits are actually changing humankind to humanity. From the title of the discussion you opened, Man vs human, I think you misread the edit (though granted my first edit to the page changed to mankind as it´s so similar to the rare ´humankind´, when another editor disagreed, I made it humanity). I´d love it if that percentage was much lower, but as that talk page discussion shows, it increases because Dr.K is trying to fight me wherever possible. I don´t want such a small and what should be irrelevant aspect of my editing, changing humankind to the more common humanity, to balloon into long disputes that take up so much time and effort. It´s going to if Dr.K follows me. I read an essay or policy on wikihounding and would like a solution. Edgth (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark mentioned "mankind", but my guess is that he doesn't care what the actual word in question is. Rather, I would highlight the statement "In general, going from page to page making the same argument about a minor issue is usually frowned upon here." Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There shouldn´t be an argument as there´s nothing wrong with the edit. I´m the one making these simple edits, not creating the arguments. Edgth (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bang on about this, but your reply suggests a lack of familiarity with what the word "argument" means in the context used here. Are you sure you are the best person to correct word usage on Wikipedia? Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well the arguments are created when Dr.K reverts a minor change like this. I feel like I´m qualified to correct this word. After all, they mean the same thing, just one is far more often used. Edgth (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I read ´making the same argument´ as repeating this dispute (argument) with Dr.K from article to article. Edgth (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You've made three reverts on VHEMT today, it you revert again you may be blocked for WP:3RR. I don't think you have consensus to make those edits at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously? It´s just Dr.K and he´s just following me from previous disputes. Edgth (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you follow the WP:BRD guideline: if your edits are disputed, don't continually reintroduce them. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then wtf am I supposed to do if he keeps following me just to revert me? Edgth (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the way I see it, you have three options: 1. keep going page to page making the same change and clashing with Dr. K. 2. Go to WP:ANI and ask for Dr. K to be banned from interacting with you 3. forget about "mankind" and "humankind", at least for the time being, and improve the project in some other way. I think option three is the best idea. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I´m not just focused on changing humankind to humanity, but it is a part of my editing (should be an irrelevant part) so I think the interaction ban, voluntary or not is the best option. Edgth (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree slightly with Mark, in his elaboration in item 1. I think it should read "keep going page to page making the same change and get blocked". That you're edit warring in various articles on this point is clear, you've been reverted by plenty different editors to make the point clear, and you've been warned. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It´s a little more complicated than that. The recent dispute with Dr.K just has him objecting to the edit, while others did so for different reasons. Opposition to mankind which was fixed, mistakes about MoS which was explained, requirement for consensus which is blocked by only Dr.K. Edgth (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
Hello, Edgth. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 08:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for edit warring, as you did at Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You have recently been blocked twice for edit warring. In each instance, you have been reported for battling over the term "humanity", "humankind", "human race", etc. Despite your failure to obtain a consensus for your view, you continue to disrupt articles, most recently Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Worse, you falsely claim a consensus for your changes, even though there's been no further discussion on the issue in over a week on the article talk page. I see no indication that you have grasped the problems with your conduct, despite the earlier sanctions, which is the main reason for the one-month duration of this block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I intended commenting here after reverting the change at Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, but was delayed by some real-life issues. I did not expect a block—it is often the case that weeks of time have to be lost before an admin will act—nevertheless I will make the gist of the comment I had earlier planned. Wikipedia relies on a collaborative community, and actions which interfere with that collaboration are very damaging. Vandalism and nonsense like WP:BLP attacks are generally easy to handle, but persistent low-level disruption is corrosive, and if unchecked would drive good editors away, leaving only those who enjoy battles. Readers have very diverse backgrounds, and some would be familiar with a word like "humankind", while others would not. It is neither possible nor desirable to remove all words that may be unfamiliar to some readers, so anyone conducting a campaign to remove a particular word is going to needlessly cause disruption. Please just accept that people have different backgrounds, and are different. We have WP:ENGVAR precisely to tell editors to stop fighting over whether "color" is superior to "colour"—in principle, a uniform style of spelling would be desirable, but given the world-wide nature of Wikipedia, enforcing such unifomity would be pointlessly disruptive. It is far better to accept that half the world spells the word incorrectly, and put up with it. Then, good editors can focus on developing articles without pointless disputes over trivia. While it may seem over-the-top to block someone for a month because they want to use "humanity" rather than "humankind", such sanctions are essential to maintain a collaborative community—editorial style should not be dictated by those who are most persistent. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to write that. I do take it on board, though I´m not actually conducting a campaign. I´ve removed humankind on only four articles when I happened to come accoss them and I´ve seen at least half a dozen other editors also express disapproval of ´humankind´. There wouldn´t actually be any disruption if not for the good doctor. Edgth (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)}}


 * The above unblock request was made more than 24 hours after the block, so it is reasonable to assume that its content was considered carefully. In that case, what does "None of them except Dr.K objected to the change" mean? Any reading of Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement shows plenty of other objections, so how could the views of the other editors be missed? Also, what is meant by Edgth's comment "I´m going to replace the rare, jarring and awkward ´humankind´ with humanity when I happen to come across it, whether or not it´s done here"? That is followed by a "nevermind", but the latter does not seem to be directed at what looks like a clear campaign statement. I suggest that comments like "There wouldn´t actually be any disruption if not for the good doctor" (just above, ) should not be made, and particularly should not be made when seeking an unblock. The same comment includes "I´ve seen at least half a dozen other editors also express disapproval of ´humankind´." which can easily be clarified—please identify the six other editors and the pages where they expressed that disapproval. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I only saw that I had been blocked a few minutes before I made the request. There aren´t any other objectors, just Dr.K. That comment was in response to your concern that a change in this article would convince me to go around Wikipedia replacing the word. No, it´s not directed at that. There is John Carter, BiologistBabe at Mythology and --Soundofmusicals, ~Adjwilley at Bahá'í Faith. Okay 5 editors in total. Edgth (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This user's disruptive and tendentious editing has not been limited to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement article. Just sayin. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 04:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol, I´m very curious about you. Can you tell me what I did that started your campaign? An honest answer if possible, I´m not interested in a boring narrative designed for others. Edgth (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * * Quite true, I object to the use of the word "humankind" and would rather see "mankind" employed since "mankind" is more encyclopedic, "humankind" which specifically addresses perceived gender bias holds other connotations. (Makes me think of science fiction stories, not professional encyclopedias.)
 * However I don't approve of edit warring when there is an RFC open. :) The time to edit war is prior to the opening of an RFC. :) BiologistBabe (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The above is a concern because it shows a clear inability to interpret simple discussions and edits. Starting at Voluntary Human Extinction Movement: The above is addition to reverts by User:Dr.K., so it is absurd to claim "There aren´t any other objectors, just Dr.K.". I don't feel like investigating more at the moment, but Edgth mentioned User:John Carter and User:BiologistBabe as supporting the removal of "humankind" at Talk:Mythology. That appears to be correct for the latter editor, but is not so clear for the former. Also, there is another editor not named above at that page who wants "humankind" retained. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Mark Arsten reverted.
 * User:Johnuniq reverted.
 * User:Buster7 commented (with refs) that "humankind" was good.
 * User:Drmies gave links to three different editors who reverted Edgth's changes (two not mentioned above), and was definitely not supportive of Edgth's edits.
 * At Mythology, we see reverts of Edgth ( and ) made by two additional editors.
 * I don't feel like investigating Bahá'í Faith, but a quick look makes it appear that a further two editors reverted Edgth's change of "humankind".
 * Regarding edits at Bahai Faith, see for the first change from "humankind" to mankind. It is followed by 4 edits in 10 minutes making multiple changes from humankind to mankind. What follows is edit-warring and repeated disregard for the comments of multiple editors. User:Soundofmusicals, User:Jeff3000, User:Dr.K., User:Smkolins and myself all tried to convince Edgth with different and correct reasoning. Edgth would have none of it. A lengthy discussion is had at Talk:Bahá'í Faith but it becomes clear that Edgth is hard and fast in his decision to change humankind to mankind (or other options) not just at the Bahai article but anywhere he finds it. Mythology continues the weeks old debate. In spite of an overwhelming number of reasoned attempts, Edgth remarkably begins to claim that consensus is on his side. WP:Rope comes to mind. ```Buster Seven   Talk  06:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)