User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2022/January

Thanks, and request
Thanks for the advice you posted at User talk:John D Clark 5678. By my count, however, his contribution history shows well-more than a dozen biography entries where he added content related go a subject being Jewish without any reference to a reliable source. Some have been reverted, but a clean-up effort is needed on the rest. I haven't used WP:BLPN before, but it appears the process is one entry there for each biography affected? Care to help? Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about modern Jews. I'm more at home about ancient Israel. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Block
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy. Doubling down on diagnosing "reading disability." Lack of self-awareness to retract is concerning. This is also in the context of WP:BITE concerns. Please do better. A less aggressive conduct is expected moving forward. 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:. El_C 08:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not an unblock request, but asking for advice. Sorry for the diagnosis part. But how should I approach editors who systematically misread WP:RS and diffs? What are the do's and the don'ts? In the end those misreadings are not a figment of my imagination. So how can I make clear there is a problem without getting blocked for whistle-blowing?

It seems that all my work at WP:ANI was in vain for using the D-word. Again, sorry for that word. I didn't know how sensitive is using that word. I had colleague students who were dyslectics, but they weren't ashamed of it, and they were open about it. See https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=dyslectic+proud tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * By asserting that there's an inability (WP:AGF) or an unwillingness (WP:PACT) to comprehend something; i.e. intellectually . Not a disability, which is clinical . Diagnosing fellow editors in any way like that is a strictly prohibited act, subject to sanctions of considerable severity if repeated. Kina surprising I need to spell this out to a veteran editor, yet here we are.
 * I'll add that I take a dim view to you trying to soften the violation by talking about the reclaiming a hitherto seen disabilites (i.e. neurodiverese). You do not get to do that to a content opponent. They get to reclaim, you don't get to claim on their behalf that they are disabled, which isn't really what the trend in question is about anyway; i.e. reclaimed with positive attributes in mind. El_C 14:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)




 * This is not a great apology (understatement), tgeorgescu. Also, apology to whom? The collective? Hmm. The fact is that you asserted that your content opponent has a learning disability. You do not get to play clinician providing a diagnosis. And this after the unrelenting warning bomb too them as an IP, which even included a WP:COI warning — for what? For being an LDS adherent?
 * If you can't use WP:DR/WP:DRR like everyone else is expected to, then there's a serious problem here, regardless if you're more often than not right on the content and encounter many editors with a predisposition toward fringe, magical thinking, etc. I don't like how you're seemingly trying to navigate the WP:GAB prerequisites while still attempting to soften from the severity of the violation. I, therefore, object to an unblock at this time. Too wishy-washy. El_C 14:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Point granted. In the future I will jump to WP:DRN instead of WP:ANI. If you want that I change my behavior, just tell me what to do. I am always willing to learn from others. Tell me positively how to change my behavior, i.e. provide other ways to solve the problems I see. I will follow those ways. If you tell me use DRN instead of ANI, it is very easy for me to implement such change. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You know who has undone your edits at you know where. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's probably best if you just stick to discussing your unblock request, which is really what you're supposed to be doing while you're blocked. Someone could conceivably take that as a request for me to proxy for you, which I'm sure isn't what you intended. Even if I came across it on my watchlist now, I wouldn't feel comfortable editing there after having been pointed there by someone who is blocked. valereee (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was blocked for using the D-word, but the content dispute never got mediated or adjudecated. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I read it as that you were blocked for saying another person must have a disability that prevented them from being able to read, and that after you were warned that wasn't appropriate, you doubled down, and when you were blocked for it, you argued in your unblock request that because some people are happy to discuss or even proud of their learning differences, it's not offensive to speculate on whether someone has such a disability based on your assessment of their editing. Frankly this is sounding more and more disingenuous. I think you should stop while you're ahead. At minimum go read Guide to appealing blocks, as you're doing it wrong. valereee (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't know all the taboos of Wikipedia. Now I know this taboo and I will behave accordingly. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't think this is Wikipedia-specific. Here in the US it's something that would be frowned on in most professional workplaces. But thank you for committing to complying with this standard of behavior. valereee (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Just want to point and  out to any reviewing admin.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was a syllogism too far. I should have kept the syllogism to myself and never make it public. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked
 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

tgeorgescu, you've made nearly 15 individual additions to your unblock request since Val's last comment, with each seeming to become more and more distraught. You need to take a break from this page. This is a short block. Thanks. El_C 03:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm sorry to see this, especially as a first block (since 2002?). I agree it's best to just let it expire at this point, then I suggest if necessary to clarify any misunderstanding at El C's talk page. Meanwhile (and especially if frustrated), a short change of air is often the best... See you soon, — Paleo Neonate  – 03:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Also sorry to see this. But. This too shall pass. jps (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

reply
I've protected the page and left a warning at the other editor's talk about their edit summaries. Look, you have like 700+ edits to ANI and hundreds to other noticeboards, so I feel like I shouldn't have to tell you that
 * 1) briefer is better
 * 2) calmer is better
 * 3) evidence is necessary
 * 4) ANI is only for behavioral issues, not content

You came into ANI and started going on and on and on with lengthy complaints about a newish editor you were having a content dispute with. You started arguing with them back and forth and at length about content right there at ANI and demanding people go read the sources.

You could have been coming from a position of strength, as the editor was basically edit-warring against consensus and leaving personal attack edit summaries, and you'd left two warnings on their user page, and they hadn't come into the talk page to discuss their reverts. If you had come in with those diffs briefly and calmly stated and then stopped talking, you'd have likely walked out with them warned that they were being disruptive and their user talk on more than one admin's watchlist. But instead you started out angry, increased the temp the longer you were there, and finally let yourself get so frustrated that your behavior was worse than theirs had been. At ANI, and I shouldn't have to say this to someone with your experience, that is fatal.

It's not enough to be in the right. Also, a better first step would have been WP:DRN, something else I shouldn't have to tell you. valereee (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yup, sorry, I can't stand unsubstantiated claims, and I assumed that every experienced user feels the same. I was too passionate about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, realize you are still actually dealing with a very new editor. Time doesn't matter anywhere near as much as # of edits, and this person has like 60. Think about where you were when you had 60 edits. valereee (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When I began editing Wikipedia I was a religious nut, so I don't think I could have been a great editor. But even then I did not defend the theological orthodoxy, since I realized that my own views were heresy. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

??? confusion???
I'm confused, you left me a message about making edits while logged out, but I'm logged in? Also, you left me a message saying in part "Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page "Religious views on masturbation" did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed" but all I did was add it to the category of Original research and Copy edit, and left an OR tag. Why are you saying I left unverifiable information? Also, I'm not from the Philippines I'm from the united states. JewelsVerne (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, good to know. I had suspected you were the same person as the IP. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)