User talk:Photonsoup



Hello, Photonsoup, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
 * Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
 * Check out some of these pages:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode


 * If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, [ ask me on my talk page], or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! This is actually a new account, I’ve been editing for about 15 years and just wanted a clean start to focus on some more technical subjects. :) Photonsoup (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Photonsoup (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletion
Hello, Photonsoup,

Do not tag any more pages for speedy deletion until you review Criteria for Speedy Deletion so you understand the criteria better and know when they apply to pages and which pages they apply to. You can't use tags that are used for Articles on Draft pages.

Also, every time you tag a page for any kind of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/CFD/TFD/etc.), you have to post a notice on the talk page of the page creator. I recommend using Twinkle because once you set up your Preferences to "Notify page creator", the program will do this for you. Although you say you have editing Wikipedia before you created this account, you still must educate yourself on standard practices and policies. If you have questions, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you persist in this behavior, I'm going to issue you a block so that you read the messages on your talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. F ASTILY  23:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh really? If you were worried you were wrong, then why did you continue edit warring?  From what I can see, you're not sorry about the edit warring, you're just sorry you got caught.  -  F ASTILY   00:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Seriously? I'm not trying to edit war over someone's draft page about themselves, I in good faith interpreted the criteria for speedy deletion to include clear personal junk pages and even followed up on the reverting wikipedian's page following said revert, rather than just reverting it and saying nothing and even admitted that my interpretation there may have been flawed. I'm fine eating a 31 hour ban but this feel rather silly considering, to be clear, the entire content of the article I nominated for speedy deletion was, quoting here: "mike duhart is a pretty swell guy likes to blow up big block tall decks though but that's okay I guess" Photonsoup (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seriously. If it's still not obvious why your behavior was problematic, I'm going to extend your block to indefinite.  Tell us how you'll do better, not whether the draft you were edit warring on was junk or not (spoiler alert: it's not relevant to your block). -  F ASTILY   00:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I did admit where I may have been wrong. Explicitly. Repeatedly. I'm absolutely fine acknowledging I was wrong here, again, I interpreted the speedy delete categories to include obvious spam. I acknowledge the mistake in this context, though I would appreciate any pointers on where to go to understand how to best address this kind of article in the draft space. I definitely take issue with "continue edit warring" being used to describe a single revert with comments on the page of the person who reverted explaining which rule I (believed I was) following when I posted the speedy delete. I'll admit to struggling to see how a single revert with explanation constitutes "continuing edit warring". " you're just sorry you got caught" feels enormously bad faith, especially considering following my revert I followed up an explanation of said revert on the page of the person whose edit I was undoing. Photonsoup (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate some other admin noting that this point here: "If you were worried you were wrong, then why did you continue edit warring?" doesn't really follow, I never reverted anything following the expression of concern I may be wrong. There was a single revert in this case, which was coupled with me linking to the specific rule I believed I was invoking on the page of the wikipedian who undid my nom for speedy delete, and the reversion of the nomination for speedy delete specifically said it doesn't apply to draft spaces, which does appear to have been done in accord with the guidelines for the speedy deletion of drafts. While I can admit a mistake I am absolutely baffled by this being rapidly escalated to a ban. If there was a mistake made in my reading of the rules here then please, keep me banned by all means and point me to where I can better educate myself, since subsequent reading post-ban has only made this more confusing. As far as I can tell Drafts contains the following line, which directly contradicts this ban: "The general section of the criteria for speedy deletion may be applied to drafts. Drafts that are copyright violations, vandalism, disparage or attack their subject, are tests, or unambiguous advertising or promotion will be speedily deleted." Even if I am in the wrong here, which again I will acknowledge is possible, this seems far less cut and dry than the warning statement of "You can't use tags that are used for Articles on Draft pages." Photonsoup (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Above, you have linked to the page Speedy deletion of drafts, referring to it as "the guidelines for the speedy deletion of drafts". If you look at the top of that page, just below the page title, you will see a notice which states that it is not "one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines", and that it merely "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors". Anyone can create a page announcing their personal opinions.

That may have been a simple mistake, caused by jumping straight to the part of the page you thought was relevant, without checking the page heading. We all make mistakes of that kind. However, more difficult to understand are your misunderstandings of Drafts. You correctly quote from it the following two sentences (though your attempt to link to the page was mistaken). It is surprising that you failed to notice that in both cases the wording which you quoted does not apply to what you did. Despite that, I agree that a block for two reverts (not one, as you said) followed by an attempt to discuss the matter on 's talk page was overkill, and I invite to reconsider. I see no good reason not to lift the block. JBW (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The general section of the criteria for speedy deletion may be applied to drafts. (My emphasis.) The speedy deletion criterion you tried to apply was not from the general section: it was from the article section.
 * 2) Drafts that are copyright violations, vandalism, disparage or attack their subject, are tests, or unambiguous advertising or promotion will be speedily deleted. You did not nominate the draft on the basis that it was a copyright violations, vandalism, that it disparaged or attacked it subject, or that it was a test or unambiguous advertising or promotion; you nominated it on the grounds that it "does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject".


 * Thanks for the explanation (and clearly I mistook my own number of reverts, which makes the ban slightly more sensible to me). Regardless of the outcome re: I'll strive to better understand the rules on this one. Photonsoup (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@JBW: No objection to unblock on my end. @Liz: Any thoughts/concerns? - F ASTILY   22:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, in waiting for @Liz is does seem that my appeal is sort of getting skipped over entirely despite JBW weighing in, since the block is about to expire. Again, I can understand why an action was taken but considering how quickly you moved to issue me a temporary ban I'm a little disheartened to see the appeal dragged out for the entire duration of the block. Considering the wikipedian in question has been fairly actively editing since you asked them to weigh in and I'm just riding out the entire block this feels pretty bad faith, even though I was in the wrong here. Regardless, I'll make sure to familiarize myself more with the specific procedures for speedy delete and make sure I don't repeat my mistakes again. Photonsoup (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I totally sympathise with what you say. See my comments in the closed unblock request above. JBW (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Photonsoup, it did not matter that I was an administrator. If any editor removes a speedy deletion tag you have placed, do not edit war about it. It's a sign that the speedy deletion is not uncontroversial and you should find other solutions. You took a battleground approach that is not compatible with editing on a collaborative project. To edit here, you must be prepared to have other people disagree with some of your edits. Usually, the editor who has policy on their side is more successful in a conflict. And always assume good faith. Good luck on the project. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I think you need to reevaluate your own role here, as much as I'm willing to admit to being completely in the wrong with regards to the reason for my block in the first place. It feels fairly gross to accuse me of not assuming good faith considering the entire context of my block, especially after another admin has weighed in saying they believed the ban was overkill and you have somewhat glossed over the entire fact that I attempted to discuss it on your talk page. I thought this was over with JBW's last message but I think it may be best if I bow out of editing at this point, this is my first time in over a decade where I've faced any kind of administrative response and it feels genuinely absurd that you've doubled down a here. I'm sorry but I in no way am willing to believe you not weighing in while tagged and letting my entire block ride out all the while actively editing was done in good faith. I'm willing to assume good faith, but not in the direct face of evidence to the contrary. Photonsoup (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

== Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Untouchability. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Photonsoup (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC) ==

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Untouchability. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Photonsoup (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

But why can't I add Original research. Why is the untouchability article So biased! Why can't we add about Untouchability in other societies Wikipedia is supposed to a neutral unbiased site. But all I'm seeing Is biased articles The article stats Untouchability (common;not in India) Hence; Information about Other untouchable societies must also be added It's necessary and it's the right thing; and I was about to give credit to the original article But you just removed all of it. For what purpose exactly??? Where will I find Original research And why is there a need to do it When The sources and articles are already present on different Wikipedia sites and source Our job is to Make sure the article remains Resourceful. , unbiased with accurate information and reliable sources And Wikipedia can already provide all of that. I have all the valid points To keep my edits What is your justification For vandalising my edits???? Odinson878 (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The idea of mentioning other examples of untouchability in history isn’t bad at all, but Wikipedia has a strict standard for sources and original research and YouTube will never fly. There are some good guides on Wikipedia’s standards in the welcome guide, but please familiarize yourself with them before continuing to edit major sections into articles! Photonsoup (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Photonsoup (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has those sources It's technically original research YouTube was just a typing mistake I was saying that Wikipedia already has everything to make this article better Why can't we just add It. Can I just inter change a bunch Of lines And then Add Those references Will it work Then?? Why is Wikipedia so biased

Why Is a single country being dragged into all of this This creates misconception Odinson878 (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Because India is the foremost example of a society with an existing untouchable caste. The article’s mention of Cagots is sufficient for their historical significance, to me. If you disagree I encourage you to take it up on the article’s talk page, but I’m going to request an administrator step in if you continue to add large blocks of original research. Photonsoup (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Sons of Korah
Can you please withdraw the AfD and let me fix up the article? It's unfair for people to not consider the significant coverage that is there. Please? Deus et lex (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Please bring this up on the AFD, but I don't think there's any way around the fact that Sons of Korah has a WP:GNG and WP:BAND issue. I don't think this page will survive the AFD process, but you can make the case for it over there. This band simply does not seem notable. Photonsoup (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)