User talk:Nblund/Archives/2019/August

Correctist
Hi, Nblund, glad to hear you're a correctist. Maybe put it on your userpage? (We correctists need a userbox!) And seriously, it was a very good point. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC).
 * Thanks, ! I have a distinct feeling that we correctists are the real silent majority. I took a stab at a userbox. I have been meaning to fill out my userpage for a while, I guess there's no better way to start than by referencing my own joke. Nblund talk 04:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of us should definitely get together and harness our power to oust the wrongists. (Mistakenists?) Bishonen &#124; talk 08:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC).

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. w umbolo  ^^^  17:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Related checks
FYI diff, however I suspect you have already looked into other accounts, so I consider this a low risk to consider. I am not familiar enough with the background to the SPI case you raised to make a more informed judgement as to where any possible red flags might be, if any. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Fæ, just based on the behavior, that account looks unrelated. For what it's worth: I don't think there's a whole lot to be gained by expressing suspicions of sock-puppetry to that user unless there's solid evidence to open an SPI case. If the user is a sock, they'll just say "no" and go to ground, and if it's a real user, they'll just find it alienating and intimidating.  Nblund talk 13:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If the match was obvious, I would have gone straight to SPI. The reason for pointing out the declaration process is that the account may have clean started for good reasons. However being involved almost exclusively in sexuality topics from the start, and the odd history, raises doubts that a genuine contributor may want to address.
 * It's a marginal behavioural call I admit, and I tend to leave fairly obvious socks alone, unless they are inserting themselves into some battle ground or are significantly involved in votes. Whack-a-mole is very pointless in my view.
 * Thanks for your thoughts. --Fæ (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Your threats
I don't appreciate you making threats on my TP. I did not realize you were still in school. As one who has taught many years at university, may I suggest you get your dissertation done? 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 17:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * SashiRolls: I left a politely worded warning on your talk page where I explained my problem with your editing. It's not a threat, it's a courtesy, and it's a fairly common one. I don't expect you to appreciate those messages necessarily, but it's not something worth getting bent out of shape over. Nblund talk 17:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * diff of threat 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 17:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In the future I'll just save myself the trouble and template you like most editors would do in this situation.  Nblund talk 18:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Your removals of references to the case of Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons
Hi Nblund, you removed two references to the case of Jessica Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons, calling one unsourced (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Columbia_Human_Rights_Tribunal&oldid=prev&diff=910219565) even though there are many reliable sources confirming the existence of the case and it has attracted international attention.

You said in the article deletion discussion: "at best, this story might warrant some minimal coverage at the page for the BC Human Rights Tribunal. Since the Tribunal has not yet handed down a decision". So, what's the problem?--Xavdeman (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Xavdeman I called it unsourced because it didn't have any sources - just saying "sources exist" doesn't really work, we need to cite them. Other editors have disagreed about whether or not the Yaniv case belongs at the BCHRT page, and so you should join that discussion if you want to try to build consensus around it. Nblund talk 02:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

BCHRT & Jessica Yaniv
Hi, NBlund. This is about the BCHRT page... and the Jessica Yaniv page... and the associated WP:BLP/N discussion... and the AfD for the Yaniv page... and the WP:ANI entry that stemmed from the Yaniv page... and the DRV for the AfD for the Yaniv page... and well, it feels like we've been butting heads on this forever now. I just wanted to say that despite our complete and polar disagreement on the topic, I appreciate your comments. I apologize if my "back was up" at any point during all this. The whole event has been tiring, as I'm sure it's been for you too, and so please accept my apologies for any conflict. No matter how the DRV turns out, I hope we can continue to work together, despite disagreeing on pretty much everything. :P Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Cosmic Sans I appreciate that, and the same goes for me! No hard feelings one way or another. Nblund talk 14:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

 * Your CSD#G4 is way out of order. It fails on all three of these:
 * "is substantially identical to the deleted version"
 * "any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted"
 * And then you link a deletion request for Jonathan Yaniv
 * Now maybe you don't like Jessica Yaniv much (AfDs passim), but that's no reason to start this sort of transphobic deadnaming! At least give her that much respect.  Also this one-sentence version could hardly be further from the previous Jessica Yaniv page, and the BLP1E issues it raised, and was put forward for deletion on such a basis. It's just not CSD territory to delete this "Jessica is a transgender activist" page for any G4 reason – although it's certainly not expressing much for WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Andy Dingley: calling it "deadnaming" is asinine. The deletion discussion references the same person who was referenced in the deletion review, it also references the name Jessica Yaniv. The new entry doesn't address any of the reasons for the deletion (or the endorsement), and it obviously isn't going to survive an AFD. What's the point?   Nblund talk 19:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

How to add a forwarded screenshot that shows the source for an edit?
He forwarded the screenshot of the email. How can I add it? Shinzurochi (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Shinzurochi, that won't really work, unfortunately. Screenshots aren't really considered reliable sources. Reliable sources are outlets that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I'm sure you're telling the truth, but we need to be able to reference a widely trusted source before we add it to Wikipedia. Further: the entry is a list of notable twitter suspensions, which means that we need to be able to point to secondary sources to prove that his suspension was something that the mainstream press took notice of. If a newspaper writes a story on the suspension, then we might be able to include it, but if we just included everyone who got suspended from Twitter it would be a very long list. Nblund talk 15:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Slow down
Could you slow down and discuss your mass deletions on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard please? I've seen one I disagree with and I'm sure there are others who would like to discuss rather than seeing you take a hatchet to their work.🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 15:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * SashiRolls I'm done for the moment, but you should just voice specific objections on the talk page. "Slow down" isn't actually a reason to revert or keep content, and you acknowledged it needs a trim. Nblund talk 15:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I also pointed out three further deletions I disagree with on the talk page. I suspect Humanengr would probably also like a look before you delete all their ork on the page.  I'm not going to reply further to your TP bludgeoning (I've made my position clear) and I also did not appreciate the coincidental attack on my TP. § Funny how these Dan the Plumber types pop up every time it's time to work Gabbard's page over, especially concerning Syria or Modi smear... color me skeptical about that coincidence.  I'm going to do some RW work rather than argue with y'all on teh internets. I suppose this is meant to be my punishment for adding the Haiti stuff to Clinton's page? 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 20:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I would like to repeat my apology for associating you with Bulldog Antz's personal attack. I hope, in time, you will accept my apology, as I am being sincere when I say that I should not have associated you with their trolling. By doing so, not only did I irritate you, but I set in motion a chain of events that magnified their trolling rather than de-escalating / ignoring the matter as I had initially planned.  For the record I would also like to say that I am not a "fascist scumbag moron" as was asserted. ^^ 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 04:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just change your editing habits. Nblund talk 12:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, you might want to slow down and check that you're not violating 1RR. I would not be opposed to requesting 1RR be lifted for a day or two that said given the massive changes.  But still, rules are rules, right?  🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 20:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * SashiRolls do you have a specific content issue you're referencing? If so, please take it to the article talk page. Unless I'm missing something, I think that's all new stuff, so I don't really know that there's a 1RR issue. Nblund talk 21:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Crazy. Policy (in the pink and red box) says " An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." (source) That completely contradicts the WP:RVV essay that is linked to in the 1RR notice.  How fun! 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 21:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I don't really know that this would count, but if there's a specific content issue you're taking issue with then I can self revert. Since you seem to have changed your position on what constitutes wikilawyering, I'd appreciate it if you would strike through your comment at ANI. Nblund talk 00:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

1RR, 2RR: The first diff contains 9 individual changes, the second 3, I think. Your interpretation here is what I mentioned at ANI. No need to follow up on this... I'm not going to haul you off to a noticeboard, I just wanted to point this out gently so you would slow down. I appreciate you making me aware of the fundamental contradiction between policy and the revert essay. It'd been a long time since I'd read that essay. 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 05:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see the content. Again, I don't really think that violates 1RR, because it involved minor rewords to entirely new content, but if you have specific content that you object to, then point to it on the talk page and I'll self revert if possible. Please take those conversations to the article talk page if you want to discuss content further. Nblund talk 14:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)