User talk:Pretzel butterfly/Archives/2021/June

Welcome!
Hi Pretzel butterfly! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! TFD (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

AOC
Your failure to listen to other editors' comments about policy including BLP, RS, NOR and SYN is becoming disruptive. Could you please stop. Other editors have read your sources, your proposed edits and your arguments and determined that they violate policy. There is no point in repeating them. TFD (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD, I appreciate you discussing this with me but your critique feels disingenuous and unfairly harsh. The way you are framing this, it implies that it's me-against-everybody-else, but I'm not the only one who with my position. There are multiple people who support inclusion of the material and multiple people who oppose it. The sources fully support inclusion of the material, meet relevant Wikipedia criteria, and every point to the contrary has been fully refuted. I did carefully pay attention to your feedback and have provided references to address it. Once I provided these references, you posted the above message to my talk page. I object to you asking for my silence instead of engaging in reasoned discussion based on evidence. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why did you misrepresent the contents of the USA Today article? TFD (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I live my life with the utmost of integrity and regret the misunderstanding. This article shows ongoing attention to the incident - it links to a past USA Today article covering the House resolution (the link has the text "anti-Semitic tropes", and the linked article discusses AOC's backing for the resolution. Assume good faith! :)
 * Don't you think that in order for the article to be evidence of "ongoing attention to the incident," it would have had to have mentioned the incident? Don't you think also that the link would have been in the section about AOC if it was relevant to her rather than in the section about Omar? TFD (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In short, no. The more recent reference linked to an article on the incident, thereby giving it attention. The linked article clearly highlights AOC. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to differ with you, sir. The linked article, "House overwhelmingly passes resolution condemning hate after Rep. Ilhan Omar's comments" does not highlight AOC, clearly or otherwise. It highlights Omar. AOC is mentioned once. TFD (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good sir, I'm worried we're starting to move the goalposts. The incident was a resolution about Omar, so it makes sense it's filed primarily under Omar, but AOC played a prominent role in it. At the time, AOC's role was alluded to even in a New York Times headline ( "House’s Anti-Semitism Resolution Exposes Generational Fight Over Ilhan Omar"). Mainstream sources said at the time that AOC's role was prominent in the incident, and mainstream sources continued to reference the incident long after. So don't worry, I think we're okay. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's like looking for Wally/Waldo. You have to be looking for it and even then it eludes even the most trained eye. Therein lies the rub for we be are like watchdogs than blood hounds. If something's screaming out at us we put it in but if it slithers under cracks and hides in dark corners we let it go. But fear not for there be the Washington Examiner, Fox News hosts, Breitbart News and other honorable custodians of truth to set the record straight.
 * Why have you given no attention to OAC's foot? It has received more coverage and is a more interesting story.
 * TFD (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I really do appreciate your use of humor here, thank you for that. But we're talking apples and oranges here. The resolution debate was headline news in political sections of newspapers. Nobody was claiming the foot thing was a major legislative development. If we start saying that events aren't notable if they get less coverage than certain memes, than a lot of Wikipedia would get taken down. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And this was in the NY Times, not right wing media! Pretzel butterfly (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Policy says, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." As you can see, we can and must say that events aren't noteworthy because they get less coverage. Since AOC has been mentioned in over 1.3 million articles returned by google news search, we can't include everything. When you write your 300 page book about her, you might include a paragraph about this, but then you'd probably include a couple of paragraphs about her foot too. It was very interesting how it attracted a lot of attention and how it was finally resolved. Not to mention roof dancing and owning a jacket. Her macaroni recipe seemed interesting too. Lots of stuff there, unfortunately we don't decide what is noteworthy, but rely on reliable sources to do that for us. TFD (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we're mostly on the same page, we agree that references determine noteworthiness. And so I think we're good! It was headline news at the time, it has received ongoing attention since, and we have gobs of references to show both of those things. We did it! Pretzel butterfly (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

If you think the USA Today reference is too indirect for "ongoing attention", here's a reference from months later that links to the NY Times article which refers to AOC in the headline Pretzel butterfly (talk)


 * It hasn't received the degree of coverage necessary to establish noteworthiness. In fact it has received less coverage than the other stories I mentioned: roof-dancing, the foot, the jacket and the macaroni recipe. We would have to put them in first, but then the article would become unwieldy. At least I had heard of them. TFD (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, love the humor. I'm still not fully following your argument. I'm not sure if it did receive less coverage than the macaroni recipe, but are you saying that if it did, then it wouldn't be noteworthy? Consider Michael Jordan - the meme of him laughing at an iPad received a lot of coverage, much more so than his company 23XI, but the latter is mentioned but the former not. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * It's a shame that the Fourth Pillar has become the forgotten pillar, or in some cases the vilified pillar. Thanks for trying to keep Wikipedia a civil place! (And, for the record, I feel that the info should be included in the AOC article, but I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.) GrammarDamner   how are things?  23:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I appreciate the kinds regards. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Without condoning, condemning or otherwise commenting on the content of the conversation, my Canadian constitution compels me to concur with my colleague's congratulations, your candor was consistently careful, cautious and (if you'll pardon the slightly divergent expression) cheerful. So yeah, cheers! GrammarDamner, I'm also glad you came, and hope that some day everybody knows your name. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Closure notes
Hey Pretzel butterfly (lovely name by the way), I wanted to let you know I closed your recent RFC. I know this can be a pretty disheartening experience, and it might seem like it was preordained from the beginning or whatnot. I wanted to assure you the close is solely meritted on pre-existing Wikipedia policy and not for any other reason.

You clearly are passionate about the things you believe in, but when an experienced editor like gives you advice you should probably listen to it. If you can do that, then you will have a much better time on this site than you currently are having.

Look forward to seeing you around, – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate the kind admonishment. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
I'll make this simple. Do NOT re-add that WP:BLP violating, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH-laden WP:POVPUSHing nonsense to the BLP again. It absolutely violates wikipedia policy and your RFC failed. STOP IT. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

American politics AE
TFD (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this is helpful to be aware of. I'll be a little tied up for a few days but I'll respond in more detail soon. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021


A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy vanishing
Hello, Pretzel butterfly,

I saw your edit stating I'm about to go on wikibreak so am letting the matter drop for now. However, according to Courtesy vanishing, A courtesy vanishing may be implemented when a user in good standing decides not to return, and for whatever reason wishes to make their contributions harder to find or to remove their association with their edits and It is not a fresh start and does not guarantee anonymity. Any of the deleted pages may be undeleted after a community discussion.

So, by making use of courtesy vanishing, you are saying that you will not return to editing Wikipedia. This is not a wikibreak, this is not a clean start, this is meant to be a permanent departure. Liz Read! Talk! 15:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , Could you please undo this courtesy vanishing? This editor has been checkuser ✅ to have created User:Chocolate butterfly to continue the same disruptive edits.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry, didn't know they will start sockpuppetry. -- CptViraj (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, there are several misunderstandings here, all of which are my fault. I have been pretty overwhelmed by how heated things have gotten and decided to delete my account, and followed the instructions here . I blindly followed those instructions and didn't read Courtesy vanishing to explain what that step entailed. Maybe we should edit the Wikihow to prevent others from doing the same. As part of deleting my account, I deleted the randomly-generated password from my password manager. Then I changed my mind. From WP:VALIDALT it doesn't appear that I did anything improper as everything was disclosed, although I can understand why you felt suspicious given the tendency of people discussing controversial topics to do shady things. Anyhow, I'm too overwhelmed by the insurrection and the heat of the recent discussion to do any editing on contemporary political topics for at least a few months. Ponyo, you raised some concerns that my edit patterns have been improper - if there are any policy documents you think I should read, feel free to let me know and I can review those before I potentially edit on those topics again (although given how heated things got, I might not). Either of you should feel free to block the Pretzel butterfly account per WP:VALIDALT - I can't get into it. Feel free to let me know if there's anything else I should be doing to stay above-board with the community. Benevolent human (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be for an admin to just make a note at the AE log that has agreed to not edit under the American political topic for 3 months and any admin is allowed to block if  in any previous disputes that they did as . – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I broke any rules or the spirit of any rules in any disputes, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. I won't edit on any post-1930 American political topic for three months (for my own mental well-being only, as described above), and I'm happy to make a binding commitment out of that if it defuses tensions with other editors so long as in doing so I am not in any way admitting wrongdoing. Beyond that, I'd rather not sign onto any restrictions beyond what every Wikipedia editor is bound to do, particularly because that would be stigmatic. I like this plan as it would be helpful to experience other areas of Wikipedia before working in controversial areas again. Benevolent human (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)