User talk:Tym Whittier

Creating a "Talk" page.

Question:
Can I go around Wikipedia and manually change all my entries (in "Talk" pages, mostly) manually from an IP Address to the signature (IP hidden) of this account? Is there a tool that will do this automatically? I read about "tools" used on Wikipedia and no nothing other than that. They exist, and that's all I know.Tym Whittier (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes see WP:Oversight. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've emailed the Oversight Committee.Tym Whittier (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My comments were in response to numerous other comments regarding the use of the term "conspiracy theories". Here's just one excerpt that I've taken (at random, I could find a more) from a long discussion.


 * Conspiracy theories are dangerous. Stop believing them and stop advocating and defending them here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I read comments similar to these in the Discussion and therefore assumed that they are acceptable. We're not talking about "conspiracy theories" in general (moon landing hoax, etc...), but the specific meaning of the word, whether or not it should be used in the Article, and why or why not.  My contribution was to attempt to deconstruct the term and explain why I agreed with the majority opinion on why the term should be used.  Please explain to me how my comments were substantively different in terms of not#FORUM than the majority of others in that Discussion.Tym Whittier (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Discussion of conspiracy theories as they relate to article improvement are appropriate where they relate to reliable mainstream sourcing. Amplification of the conspiracy theory and posting lengthy detailed discussion and analysis of the event as conspiracy theory advocacy is not appropriate. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your views on the event, or for fringe theories.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC).
 * I'm mulling over the phrase "amplification of the conspiracy theory". Deleted two previous responses.Tym Whittier (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How about "going on at great length to discuss conspiracy theories in an approving tone instead of discussing article improvement." Not as concise, but descriptive. Don't use talkpages to post conspiracy theories.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice
 Acroterion   (talk)   02:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

 Acroterion   (talk)   02:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts, you may be blocked from editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is your second warning for posting personal theories and observations to talkpages. If this happens again you can expect a block for disruptive editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Which comment are you referring to? I've made several.Tym Whittier (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is just a forum-style post concerning your personal speculation - you even say you're just spitballing ideas in the last line. That's not what talkpages are for on the encyclopedia.   Acroterion   (talk)   20:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But, but, but... the stamps CLEARLY (or apparently) don't have postage cancellation marks on them. Do "forever stamps" get postage marks like any other? If the image is printed in a reliable source, AND they don't have postage marks, STILL Wikipedia Editors are prevented from noticing and then commenting on it, in a "behind the scenes" type of "heads up"?  And this whole thing seems to fluctuate madly from "NOTFORUM" to "Conspiracy Theories are DANGEROUS", and so which is it?  Both?  A recent Tea House response to my post raising these issues says "short" and then later down on the list "short" yet again, so "message received" and I keep it SHORT about a seemingly safe issue like a picture of a bomb/device/hoax device being "delivered" apparently without with no postage marks.


 * Anecdote #1: Just last week I watched a video news report on ABC that ran video in the background of clearly showing "Antifa attacking Proud Boys" while the news reader said "Proud Boys charged for attacking Antifa", and if an Editor took the transcripted audio from that broadcast and used it as a source in a Wikipedia Article, by terms of RS the Lede would say "Antifa attacked Proud Boys".


 * Anecdote #2: Just this week during a middle-of-the-day CBS news broadcast, CBS newsreader said "President Trump said "x", which was incorrect." and my response is "Well it all depends on your definition of the word (whatever). And that was ALL CBS said, no clarification, no substantiation, no nothing, baldly "correcting" the President of the United States as if it were news. Just moved on to the next story.  So my question is; "Was the President factually "incorrect, or was he "politically incorrect", with the follow-up "Can I trust CBS to differentiate between the two?


 * Can I trust Wikipedia to differentiate between the two? When it seems that any conversational attempt to crack open the possible difference in the Discussion Pages results in "notforum" and "conspiracy theory", warnings and ultimately a block, or worse?


 * Point is, "context matters". I've read it like 3 times in the last 2 days, hoping some magical insight will supernaturally just seep into my consciousness so that I can "unsee what I have seen" and "unlearn, what I have unlearned".  I read all these policies, numerous times, and in many of them, I see not only the "cautionary" side of the equation, but frequently how I actually have a point, i.e. "Assume Good Faith". And the only thing that keeps me from persisting is your warnings.  I know I'm not 100% wrong here, and I also know that I'm not the worst offender in that Article.  If I've got special scrutiny 1) for being new and 2) for needing a clue, then great, I'm all in favor of that, but 3) shouldn't other Editors who presumably have a clue be held to a higher, and not lower standard?


 * I know you are busy and "firing off " wisdom at 100 wpm, so I won't try to enmire this with numerous examples, but I do want you to know that I could.


 * Note also that despite the lack of sources, Wikipedia Policy, etc... my suggestion to include the days of the week in the "timeline" structure of the event was immediately adopted and implemented, so my "spitball" efforts have improved the Article at least once. "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", which has a passage about ignoring rules if they become an impediment to the creation or improvement of an Article, but the TRULY DANGEROUS excerpt comes from Wikipedia's "Too Long, Didn't Read" essay:


 * The tl;dr label is often used to point out excessive verbosity or to signify the presence of and location of a short summation in case the reader doesn't want to take the time to read the entire detail (i.e., as a way to find a quick summary for those who think that the article is too long and won't otherwise read it).[4] It can be misused as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing or a stoop to ridicule.


 * Focusing on the idea that at least this Wikipedia Policy can be used to "misused as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing". Calling something a "conspiracy theory" can also be used for the same purpose, while ignoring the intent of the Editor, as well as using the pejorative to marginalize or dismiss the Editor's arguments. Just because I happen to believe in something that can legitimately be considered a "Conspiracy Theory" with regard to criminal collusion between MSM, the FBI, et al... does not mean I advocate the propagation or perpetuation of that belief inside the Article(s) itself. It's unsourced, unreliable, etc...


 * Further, with tentative regard to "reliable sources", the backside of AGF is "not a suicide pact", and while not directly, concretely applying here to this issue, the sentiment is something to consider. Just because someone is skeptical of the reliability of a source, or several sources, "context matters" and it's "not a suicide pact". So while some Editors make a regular practice of "NOTFORUM", etc..., at least one other Editor gets a 2nd "warning". Am I supposed to not be able to see this?


 * I'm going to stay away from the Article I think, at least until after the election. How soon do these "warnings" go away, and I don't have a ban hammer waving over my head?Tym Whittier (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * TL:DR applies here again. All you have to do is to resist the urge, however strong, to post your personal views or analysis on talkpages. That's it. If everybody started posting a personal analysis of what might have happened on a given subject, article talkpages would lose their function as a means of article improvement.
 * And please remember that Wikipedia editors have very little patience for advocacy of fringe theories and conspiracy theories - the encyclopedia is consciously organized to present mainstream views on all subjects, sourced to mainstream media and scholarship. Once again, that's one of the ways that the encyclopedia avoids becoming a battleground for differing versions of perceived truth.
 * Administrators are charged with enforcing talkpage decorum, please take the advice you've received from several editors seriously, you appear to be trying to circumvent clearly-established boundaries.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sending you a message to let you know I'm starting to see your point. My problems are multiple, but the greatest advance in my awareness came about when I started looking at comments that I've made in areas outside the "2018 bombing" Article.  I took the attitude that the scope of the criticism was limited to just the one Article, and so I only looked there.  But just a few minutes ago I read something I posted in a totally different Article and the "forum quality" was undeniable, and has never been mentioned to me before.  It was obvious.  I didn't need anyone to tell me; it was as obvious as could be. Part of it I think was the separation of time and emotion.  After a few days, I no longer felt that way, and devoid of that emotion, and looking at the post I made from a more objective perspective "neutral", it was clearly, obviously and undeniably "forum-like".  Also when I stopped looking at "what I've done" and instead took a look at "what was inside me when I posted that".  I'm starting to "get it".  The changes I need to make are on the inside, and not on the outside.Tym Whittier (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are two "blue block" messages that do not appear when I "show preview". They appeared simultaneously, and I assumed it was a typo. At the time, I did not know they were "warnings". I thought they were "friendly, informational messages".  It wasn't until I received the next one (2nd?  3rd?) that the word "warning" was used, and so now I am concerned about "disciplinary process".  Was this a typo?  Did I receive two warnings for one offense?  Two warnings for two offenses? What's the overall scale here? How many "strikes" until I am "out"?Tym Whittier (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

What Teahouse is and isn't
Tym - you got an automated note that your TeaHouse query was archived. As described there, you can still access what you wrote and the responses, and are free to start a new query if you feel parts of what you asked went unanswered. This does not mean moving the content back to the active list. TeaHouse is not Wikipedia staff. It is volunteer editors who put in their own time and energy helping other - often new-to-Wikipedia - editors. David notMD (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at WP:Teahouse. John from Idegon (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I corrected his spelling. Are you sure this is appropriate?Tym Whittier (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Tym, please do not proofread and correct other editor's talk page comments unless that editor explicitly gives you permission to do so, or if the error is in their wikicoding and causes major obvious problems. Many editors preceive this as pedantic and unfriendly. Please feel completely free to correct typographical errors in articles.


 * As for your concerns about being blocked, my advice is to avoid disruptive or tendentious editing. If you edit productively, you will not be blocked. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Does the term "editing" also include actions done in Talk/Discussion areas? I haven't changed a single Article yet.  Decided it was too risky, and I thought sticking the Discussion pages trying to make "helpful suggestions" was "safe".  Wrong.Tym Whittier (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Editing" refers to all of your contributions to every single area of the encyclopedia, which includes talk pages. Editing articles is not at all "risky" as long as your changes comply with policies and guidelines, and are not disruptive. One example of disruptive editing is promoting conspiracy theories, so avoid that behavior. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Tym Whittier. If you find spelling errors in articles (be careful of MOS:ENGVAR though), then feel free to correct them. Just make sure you leave an edit summary explaining why. Correcting errors found in talk page posts made by other editors, however, is probably something you should avoid doing per WP:TPO (except in the specific cases listed in WP:TPO) since talk pages are not held to the same editorial standard as articles. It's not uncommon to find posts with spelling or grammar errors. These could be just typos, etc., they could be errors made by a non-native speaker, or they could actually not be errors at all. Some people might not care and even thank you for correcting their posts, but others might get really offended. Moreover, if the correction you make somehow changes the original meaning/intent of the post, then your good intentions might lead to some serious problems. Talk pages are primarily for facilitating discussion among editors; so, if someone posts something that is unclear or there's an error which might lead to a misunderstanding, then it perfectly OK to ask for clarification.Finally, if you notice any such errors in posts you make, then you can feel free to correct them as long as you do so in accordance with WP:REDACT. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 02:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Tym, to expand on my our colleague Jim's comment above: it is far easier to appear "disruptive or tendentious" when writing extemporaneously on talk pages than when actually editing articles. You can't break Wikipeda, man. Just go do it. If it's wrong, you'll get reverted, and hopefully, you'll get an explanation. If you don't, post to the editor's talk asking why. Don't try to defend your edit, just politely enquire. If you don't understand their explanation, enquire at the Teahouse. If, after all this, you still disagree and can articulate a reason based in sources, policies and guidelines, then start a discussion on the article talk page and try to gain consensus. Remember, a consensus is a meeting of minds, not a vote, so it is important that your demeanor remain collegiate and as friendly as possible, and you approach the discussion dispassionately, even if others don't. I'd also suggest you choose non-controversial topics for your first edits. Many editors start out on their hometown or alma mater, but remember we really only want info paraphrased from reliable published sources. Areas to avoid would include: politics, anything to do with Arab-Isreali relations, Northern Ireland, Bitcoin, gender relations (see Gamergate), conspiracy theories, 9/11, and more, at least until you thouroughly get your feet wet.
 * No one wants to see you get blocked, but if you continue soaking up as much time from other volunteers as you have been without actually making any contributions to the encyclopedia, it's a fair bet you will be (see WP:NOTHERE). As my first boss told me way back in the 70s when I was a management trainee for a major retailer, "Sometimes you just have to do something, even if it is wrong". It's time. Go edit something, please. John from Idegon (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I will second that. Some New-to-Wikipedia editors commit large amounts of there time to their own User page, or become habitual questioners at TeaHouse or Talk pages without contributing to the encyclpedia itself. From looking at your contributions since you registered, close to 100% various Talk or Teahouse, perhaps 1% editing an article. David notMD (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived
What does definitely apply to talk pages are our policies on copyright (basically don't copy verbatim more than about 220 words and attribute those) and WP:BLP. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The Current State of My Development as a Wikipedia Editor
I'm learning that if you put effort into learning Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines as a means of self-defense, you'll end up using them in self-defense, instead of learning how to implement them yourself. There's a lot more going on that, that I'm going to keep to myself, but still feel compelled to make some acknowledgement that I've been wrong out of ignorance, and am realizing this.Tym Whittier (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Formats for references
T - A format for a website and a format for a science journal. To use these, click on edit, copy into your sandbox, the replace what is in these with what you want to cite. And yes, the reference content gets embedded in the text, right after the period at the end of the sentence. When you click in Publish changes it appears in the reference list. David notMD (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

REF REPAIR TEST 2

REF REPAIR TEST 3
 * Thanks! I'll mess with this tomorrow.Tym Whittier (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are shortcuts. For example, at this website https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi entering the eight digit PMID number for an article that appeared in a science journal automatically creates the reference, which can then be cut and pasted into the article with the <  > and  ref brackets at front and rear ends. I suggest you practice in your Sandbox. When I was starting out on referencing I made so many mistakes that the edit history in the articles had my four or five or six attempts to get it right. David notMD (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've seen that number several times and wondered what it was, and how it was used.  I'll keep that in mind as I move forward, tinkering with things.Tym Whittier (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Terry v. Ohio
Hi, just wanted to reply again to your message. The facts Terry v. Ohio were based on are open to dispute. A good article to read is: "Terry v. Ohio at Thirty-Five: A Revisionist View" by Lewis R. Katz. He claims the evidence was very weak. I think it was more a case of the political and social turmoil in the sixties that forced the decision. Then, Nixon got a Supreme Court Chief Justice that was very anti-Warren and from then on a lot more power has been given to the police. So, Terry v. Ohio was more like an opening that others exploited.

I agree with your vision. Actually, I am encountering kind of a problem. There is a very complex case of explaining all the law and there is a simple case of "the police got more power". So, I can get lost in all the details. I guess it is a talent to pull out the relevant facts and tell a good story everyone can understand.

As for suggestions on things to do, starting discussions on the Talk pages would be a good idea. Also, trying to find other people interested, since the Talk pages seem to be pretty dead right now. But, there are some people that are editing the pages. I understand that you're new so don't want to do too much at once. I think the best approach is a combination of doing a little bit at a time and getting other people involve. And, if you have any questions, feel free to ping me!

Seahawk01 (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Star Trek, you may be blocked from editing. ''Don't remove talk page threads. It was a legitimate comment that was answered. It's particularly galling that you attempted to justify its removal as removing a YouTube link when you have added YouTube links to talk pages yourself.'' Meters (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never added a youtube "link". What I've done is post obscured HTML as a reference in case Editors are interested.  My understanding of Youtube policy is that it prohibits posting "live" links to Youtube, and that policy exist regardless of what I, or any other Editor, may have done.  So the "you've done it too" reasoning fails.  It's either within policy, or it's not.  Second, the live link I deleted was to a fan compilation that had zero value to the Article, and third I explicitly stated my reason for deleting it was that it appeared to be "spam".  I still think it's spam.  So your accusation of "disruptive editing" seems histrionic to me, particularly since you've failed to address the stated reason for the deletion which is that the link appears to me to be obvious spam.  Either justify it's continued existance, or I'll remove the link again.  In case you don't know, spammers regularly attempt to include "live" links to their Youtube videos in an attempt to manipulate Google search results, which I assume is the reason why the live links are prohibited.  Also please stop trying to threaten or coerce me with threats of "blocking", as the more strident you become in defending the existance of a spam link, the more you yourself are likely to be blocked from editing.  The linked youtube video is trash, and has no value to the Article, and it's only possible reason for existance is to manipulate Google search results.  You've ignored it's (lack of) value, the fact that I called it spam, and so now I'm wondering if you have some other, non-encyclopedic interest in maintaining the presence of an obvious spam backlink in Wikipedia's "Discussion Pages".

Tym Whittier (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The link was added to the talk page, not to the article as you claim. It was in support of an edit request, and was arguably a good faith edit. It's not a link we can use, and the suggested addition to the article was correctly rejected. The thread serves as a record of what has been discussed (we can hope that no-one will bother suggestion that addition again) and should not be removed. If you think there is a valid reason that the link should not be on the talk page then redact the link, but don't remove the entire thread. From user: Chris857's comments in the edit request denial it appears that the content in the YouTube video is likely a copyright violation, which would be a valid reason to remove the link.
 * Please read WP:EL. particularly WP:YOUTUBE. YouTube is neither prohibited, nor Blacklisted., and this particular video is not on the spam blacklist. We don't normally use external links in the bodies of articles, and YouTube videos are particularly problematic in that many of them are copyright violations or not reliable sources, but there are exceptions. We can and do use YouTube links in external links sections when appropriate, and as .references when they are reliable sources.
 * Suggesting that I have an ulterior motive here is verging on a personal attack. Please redact that. Meters (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to redact my statement that your behavior in this situation was questionable, as soon as you redact the part where you ignored my stated reason for deleting the link, failed to address that stated concern (that it looks just exactly like spam, and still does), and instead tried to coerce a desired behavior by threatening to have me blocked for "disruptive editing", when it was perfectly obvious that I was acting in "good faith". I also think your desire to have the evidence of your attempts at coercing me into allowing a spam link to continue to exist "redacted" as both questionable and suspicious, and may indicate your bad intent.  Once you've fully acknowledged how it was you that committed the error, and not me, I'll be glad to delete the evidence of all the things that you've done in this situation that are wrong.Tym Whittier (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Advice
Tym- I read other people's talk page and it is none of my business. You can ignor anything I say. In the Wikipedia world, they do not care for your personal knowledge. It does not matter if you know something is true or not. Information has to come from an outside reliable source not from your head. Opinion about anything is personal. It is not fact that you see written somewhere else. You can't add it to the encyclopedia. I see where other editors are trying to give you advice but they are using wiki speak. New people do not understand wiki speak. For example, I watch a movie. I read the movie article and I see something is wrong. I cannot change it. I just saw it and I know it should be changed. I can not use my personal knowledge. I would need to go find something written that I can reference and then change it. I have only read your talk page and apparently you put you opinion on some article talk page. That is not allowed. Your knowledge and opinion is POV is wiki speak {personal point of view). Only the facts as written elsewhere that others can check and verify are ok for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place to discuss things. I don't know but I think you are an attorney(I am but they do not like you to talk personal). You can never say anything about someone else.  Why do I think you may have legal training.  You argue about everything.  You type long answers.  You defend yourself.  There are wiki policies and you should try to follow them.  Everyone generally want to help.  You just need to listen and not try to find some authority to back up your position.  Because somebody else did is never acceptable. Wikipedia editing is self taught.  They generally do not care about errors for hopefully someone else will fix it.  They hate edit warring.  You write something and then I change it and then you change it. If that happens 3 times you can be blocked for days. Blocking is the way they enforce rules. I always talk about they and them but it really is anyone who types and gets interested. It seems people come and go. Talk about long answers. Really you can hear my advice or ignor it.Eschoryii (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC) They really like you to sign things. I'll shut up. It's hard.


 * I don't know what I did to not have it print out. I am not that experienced another reason to take or leave this note Eschoryii (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * See your last edit. Eschoryii (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Unblock requests
It is deeply, deeply inappropriate for you to place an unblock request on another user's talk page. I don't want to ever see you do that again. You are free to protest a block, but unblock requests must only be made by the person who was blocked (or, in this case, banned). --Yamla (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay well thanks. Now I'm curious about the "seriousness" of the act.  Is there a Wikipedia Policy on this?  I assume not, because you didn't quote one.  Is this just "you" talking, or is there some kind of unwritten consensus of Editors, or what?  My point is that there seems to be a big difference between "Don't do that and here's why", and what you said.  You seem to make it seem like it's a really, REALLY big deal, but then if it's such a big deal, where's the explanation?  Feel me, here?  Sometimes when people go sort of "over the top" it's because the situation is much more involved and/or extreme than a simple matter of a new Editor doing something inadvertently, such as the possibility that I may have inadvertently stumbled into a big huge WAR with serious consequences, particularly with regard to the statements I made about organized groups of Leftist Wikipedia Editors using the bureaucracy of Wikipedia to censor, block, ban or otherwise "deplatform" Editors that refuse to go along with the Leftist/Socialist/Communist agenda, and attempt to implement the spirit of Wikipedia's Policies (particularly regarding censorship), rather than using them to do the exact opposite (which is what these bands of organized Leftists are doing.


 * Also, you made it personal, by saying *I* ("don't want to ever see you do that again"), as if you have some kind of personal, emotional investment in this situation. I'm a new Editor.  I made a well-meaning mistake, owned the thing in advance of your response, even.  And yet, despite the fact that you fail to provide any kind of substantive reason why it is "deeply, deeply inappropriate" do request an unblock (or unban, or whatever), for some reason it also seems "deeply, deeply" personal to you.  Which seems very odd to me. Almost like you've got some kind of investment in the situation that has little to do with "building a better encyclopedia", but instead has something that awakes some real passion; like ideology. Is this you, as a dispassionate Editor talking, or is this you as a fervent ideologue talking, "cracking the whip" and warning of dire consequences if your ideological system of politically correct speech norms are questioned and/or violated again?


 * Again thanks. You have my assurance that I'll never do this kind of thing again.  Curious to see if you respond, what that response might be, and also if my suspicions are correct and that your passions are centered on something other than simply improving the encyclopedia.Tym Whittier (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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:.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If a personal attack against any editor like the one above recurs, the next block will be indefinite.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw your post where you railed against Yamla. Any admin will recognize how wildly inappropriate your "unblock request" on User talk:Ridiceo was, with these claims about leftist editors; this is hardly Yamla's personal opinion. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that's nice but what about all my questions? Not a single answer. I find it very interesting that the totality of the substance is ignored (i.e. "Is there some kind of policy that prevents one Editor from requesting another Editor be "unblocked"), but all the DRAMA and EMOTION and IDEOLOGY gets address DIRECTLY and with a BLOCK.  I posted what I posted hoping that none of it was true, but ever single response is proof that it IS true.  Where's all this "welcoming" of the new Editor explicit Wikipedia policy talks about?  Also, let's see some kind of argument that illustrates what I said was "aimed" at "Yamla".  If Yamla doesn't like having his motivations questions, he/she should refrain from violating Wikipedia policy and by making things personal ("I don't ever want to see you do this or that ever again."), instead of simply saying "don't do that, and here's why".  If Yamla cannot exemplify Wikipedia policy, how can he/she expect to ENFORCE it?  Leadership is by example, and Yamla sets a poor one.  No explanation for the very odd and personal attack Yamla made ("deeply, deeply inappropriate", etc...").  Let's be clear here.  I'm the new Editor here, and learning.  Making mistakes, and asking questions.  And you people are the heavy-handed ideologues failing to answer basic questions from a new Editor, threatening deplatforming and censorship because another one of your ideological operatives has been "outed" for all the world to see. That's what it appears like because there's no other explanation for it.  Else, where IS the policy on asking for other Editors to be "unblocked".  Does it exist?  I don't think it does.  I think a mob of ideological Lefitsts have manufactured this unofficial policy, and the reason why I think it is because, thus far, despite all the responses to the issue, no one has been able to provide a single link to support the assertion.  Plus, it's "inappropriate".  SO WHAT?  Is it AGAINST POLICY?  Where exactly is the Wikipedia Policy on "inappropriateness" as a standard for what is and is not considered acceptable on Wikipedia.  Sure I'm making mistakes.  I'm a NEW EDITOR.  What are you, collectively, excuses?  You're all very, very bad at "Administrating". You make up rules on a case-by-case basis, when you can't say something is in violation of a policy you make up a new standard called "inappropriate", you govern by ideological consensus, fail to answer fundamental questions and use censorship as a first resort to solve the problem that you aren't very good at being Administrators.Tym Whittier (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you may be new here, but you're an adult, I assume, and so you should know that your yelling "ideologue" and whatnot, and this chatter about left-wing whatever, and whatever is being outed here (?), is simply inappropriate. If an administrator says "I don't want to see you do that again", and you take that as "I have a personal opinion about you based on my hardcore leftist political views and I'm going to make your life miserable by making up rules", rather than as "don't do that again", then...well, I don't know why you'd say that instead of "OK". Or, "OK, but please be more explicit". Or "OK, but hold on, I was just trying to help someone". All of those things could maybe, maybe have made administrators here overlook the very strange, combative, conspiratorial content of that unblock request. Now you have a choice, I suppose. You can post another one of those screeds, and then you are likely to be blocked indefinitely with your talk page access revoked, and claim "censorship" on Twitter to your family and friends. Or you can not do that, and wait out your block, and see how you can actually contribute to this website. Your choice. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't believe this is a new editor at all.--Jorm (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Jorm, I don't believe so either. The lack of skillz doesn't change that. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to put a LOT of effort into making accusations like this. It seems to me that you put more effort into getting into other people's drama than you do actually editing the encyclopedia. And I think it's totally weird, and yet strangely expected that after I make general and ambiguous statements about a group of ideologically motivated Editors that use Wikipedia Policy as a weapon to push POV on Articles, disparage or otherwise "delegitmize" other Editors (which frequently results in their being blocked or banned), and suddenly, from out of the woodwork YOU appear, like Beetlejuice.  But no one said your name.  Not even once.  Please note *I'm* not making the accusation, but it sure looks like YOU are.  Tbh your name was not in my mind when I was thinking of this of this organized gang of ideologues, and yet, strangely/not strangely, HERE YOU ARE.  And I can see you point here.  It's called "redirection".  When the evidence gets so overwhelming that even people that don't want to know something cannot continue to ignore it, people have to create some drama ("oh LOOK!  There's a SOCK PUPPET!" (or whatever).  Always someone to accuse when things get a little to HOT, eh?  Feel free to review my history.  See if you can find any evidence of having mad "high level skilz".  It's not me that quotes exotic and esoteric Wikipedia Policy when trying to influence the direction of an Article, or when there's a discussion on whether or not someone is "disruptive" and/or should be blocked or banned.  But SOMEONE does that.  Here's a nugget for you.  Not only is Leadership by Example, but standards are HIGHER for Leaders, and not lower.  Meaning that, people that have superior knowledge of Wikipedia Policy, etc... have a HIGHER standard to maintain, and not a lower one.  And, it seems to me, the bar is quite variable, and frequently gets lowered for people when it should be raised instead.Tym Whittier (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice
 Acroterion   (talk)   15:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)\
 * Can you point me to a link or a page that details Wikipedia Policy regarding the automatic inclusion (or not) of the biographical details of a person, particualrly with regard to thinks like race, ethnicity, religion, etc.... I've read debates like this before and the conclusion has always been that these types of details are considered "basic", like birth dates, gender, marital status, etc... and are always included, yet your remarks seem to indicate this is not the case. Or is not always the case.  Or is always the case, until someone decides it's not.  To avoid future problems, I'd like to inform myself on this issue to the greatest extent possible.Tym Whittier (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Beginning with WP:NOR, continuing to WP:BLPGOSSIP, and WP:CAT/R. There are periodic rashes of editors who go on Jew-tagging sprees, see this current ANI discussion WP:ANI. Wikipedia isn't a mouthpiece for chan board attacks - precedents for sanctions have been established in the GamerGate arbitration of a few years ago. Talkpages aren't for spitballing theories about people, and quotation marks aren't a shield.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * BLP applies here too, you aren't entitled to spitball or echo ideas advanced on the chan boards in the spirit of speculation (or "setting the record straight") anywhere on Wikipedia. I've removed your last comment on that basis. If you do that again you may be sanctioned for BLP violations.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. Why are you deleting entries that I've made on my User page?  I thought the thing was mine.  Second, I've read "BLP" and fail to see how it "applies", for the reason that the "rumor" is a piece of hard, and identifying information (like gender, or marital status), vs. some kind of lurid allegation of criminal activity.  I see a clear difference between these two extremes, and you seem to be saying that the prohibitions of BLP apply to both equally, and the restrictions   I've seen situations like this before and they usually end like this:  "Well, if a reliable source says she's "X", then we can discuss it." or thereabouts.  You are censoring my questions as if I'm trying to include the "rumor" into the Article itself, as if asking questions about the "rumor" is the same thing as including the rumor in the Article, which seems highly counterintuitive to me.   I was just interrupted and coming back to what I've written and rereading it I might have had a bit of an epiphany.  I'm getting the general idea that there is a hard, site-wide ban on any kind of conversation, for any purposes, discussing any kind of information about a Living Person that does not have a hard-copy, reliable source asserting it.  Is this, more or less, and accurate characterization of Wikipedia's Policy on BLP?  I sort of get the point.  It seems to me that in terms of Wikipedia's "value system" (whatever word best fits here), protecting the reputation of a living person trumps everything else.  True?Tym Whittier (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia's talkpage, which you are allowed to use to further the encyclopedia project. It is subject to the same rules that apply everywhere else on the encyclopedia. In particular, you may not reproduce speculation about a living individual that is not supported in the reliable sourcing that Wikipedia uses for such topics. In particular, you may not import talking points from messsageboards that are notorious for racist, sexist, libelous, bigoted and patently malicious falsehoods, and who actively encourage attacks on other people. BLP policy is well-established and coordinates with the other primary Wikipedia policies. You've been pushing boundaries for some time now - this one is not a good one to test.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your point and can work within the parameters, however my intent was to use Wikipedia as a "check and balance" against incorrect information however I can see how in terms of "values" preventing discussion of rumors is more important that whatever purpose I originally thought was more important. Policies make more sense when there is a "why" behind them.Tym Whittier (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert, relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, please read
Doug Weller talk 11:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Specific provisions that apply to you
All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.

Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you confuse me with someone else? To the best of my knowledge, I haven't had anything to do with that Article, to the extent that I don't even think I've read it.  Or is this some kind of informative "advance warning", in case I do end up there?  I have no interest in that Article.  I'm already involved in Gab, which is risky enough.Tym Whittier (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right, I got confused. Never mind, no harm done. Kinky Friedman eh? I've got a few songs by him. To notify someone you can tyhpe  Doug Weller  talk 19:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (this is an experiment) It was interesting to read an Article about a personality that I felt like I "knew" locally. I assume that I can delete this from my Talk page?Tym Whittier (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The ping didn't work I think because of the "nowiki". I forgot to say you can't fix a ping once it's save, you need to start a new post. Anyway, you can delete most things and it's assumed that you've read them. But you might want to read WP:ARCHIVE. Doug Weller  talk 11:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks.Tym Whittier (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, in case you don't know, FYI Kinky Friedman falls squarely in the Austin, Texas cultural meme of "Keep Austin Weird". He's one of the, decidedly non-traditional Texan icons.  Nobody takes hims seriously, but no one ignores him, either.Tym Whittier (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Political science
Tym - I am a poli-sci person and Wiki community is a group of strangers. How they interact to create this collection of knowledge is amazing. You for some reason has attracted my intention. Do you have your own motive or do you want to add to the encyclopedia? We all act out of self interest. It seems you put your ideas and information on talk pages and not into the articles. You state that you are new and keep seeking advice. And you love to argue a point. I am making this comment to encourage you to start really editing. To edit is not to add your point of view. If you have an agenda left or right; pro or con on a topic; opinion or fact you need to cite a source that may agree with you. I really do not think you need advice, You know enough  but you are still testing the Wiki community. The rules want neutrality and objective facts. Yet certain editors write for and protect their own topics of knowledge. Some editors only care about protecting Wiki style and rules. People come and go all the time. It's time for you to leave talk pages. Editors will revert you and do not take offence. Keep adding verifiable facts with references cited. If you edit an article say why. Always id yourself. The talk page is really the place to discuss what facts should be in the article. Talk pages are not a place to discuss ideas but only a forum to improve the article. I think you know all this. I could be wrong but I am trying to give you that little nudge to start editing instead of talking about process. You will find a group of editors that agree with you and a group that do not. Wiki says everyone is equal but do not offend a more powerful editor. Just back off and move to another topic that interests you. You should always be free to ignore my advice. You can ask me questions but when I am not reading other people's talk pages, I edit film articles. I am no good at all on technical advice. Sorry to be so long winded. Eschoryii (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read several situations where Editors have ultimately been banned from Wikipedia for doing exactly what you describe. In fact I do have a political perspective and that is my greatest enemy, and so I have made the decision to move as slowly as possible in learning Wikipedia Policies, the general culture, read examples of where things have gone wrong (the "Administrators Board", or whatever it is called, etc...).  Also, knowing the danger of being considered an "SPA", I make efforts at trying to contribute to Articles that interest me. I've made a couple of edits that did not get reverted, and I've made a couple of suggestions in "Talk" pages that have been implemented immediately by more-experienced Editors that knew how to do what I thought should be done.   And I'm learning, with full awareness of what being "not there" is all about.  But the main point to you is that I've seen first hand what happens here when you "let it all hang out" and do what you think should be done (i.e. "be bold"), etc...  You can read around my history if you like, and find evidence of what I'm talking about.  I've learned quite a bit already.  One thing I've learned that, in certain Articles, there is a polar difference between what Wikipedia Policy defines as "how things should be", and how they are in actual practice.  In actual practice, policy is used to push POV.  Ideals like balance, neutrality, etc... only apply if it advances the POV of a certain group of Editors, and are ignored when it does not.  IMO, this is not a healthy environment, but it is the only one there is.  I have great love and respect for Wikipedia, it's ideals, etc... and put a lot of effort into connecting what those ideals are in the abstract, finding out why (because there's always a reason why), and then thinking about how best to implement them.  I do not believe this idealistic view is shared by everyone, and there's nothing I can do about it but slowly learn, grow and remain cautious.  Thanks for your encouraging words.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not know what an "SPA" is so my advice may not be that useful. You are exactly right about being bold.  That only means if you do it the Wiki way.  Every group has its leaders and followers.  And the banning process is like shunning.  You are right to be careful but if you want to push a certain point of view that drives the Wiki "police" crazy.  It's the push and pull that I like to watch.  My edit in film does not draw much attention.  Good luck. Eschoryii (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)   I looked up SPA. Eschoryii (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * SPA is "single purpose account", see WP:SPA. Tym, I know that a lot of people don't understand WP:NPOV. For one thing, it doesn't mean being neutral. Another thing that is common is editors not understanding that this is an encyclopedia, and a mainstream one at that. Of course the farther and editor is from the mainstream the more difficult it can be, although I do see, for instance, Creationist editors generally editing well even in religious articles. Of course, absolutely everyone has a pov, including a political pov (something I learned from studying political science at Yale). I really don't like the loaded word "police" by the way. It makes it sound as though the job of trying to make sure articles and editors follow our guidelines and policies is a "policing" job when it should be just a routine editing job, the job of any editor of a real encyclopedia like Wikipedia. But of course people do get heated, partially because if you've edited here long enough (13 years and over 200,000 edits) you encounter the same misunderstandings and anger about our policies time and time again, and it gets irritating, even stressful, to have to go over the same arguments over and over. Doug Weller  talk 14:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Sometimes I wish there were some kind of "Beginners Manual" for Wikipedia available, and sometimes I think about writing one myself."Tym Whittier (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * SPA = "Single Purpose Account" with the added connotational load that the only purpose of the account is to push POV in a single Article, or class of Articles. Could be political, but also could have a for-profit motive.  One example might be to do reputation management for personal, professional or business reasons.  A corporation, trying to improve their public image.  One way to differentiate between an account with an agenda (vs. Wikipedia ideals) is to find out if the account has any interest at all besides one particular area.  SPA's are more likely to end up with the accusation of POV-pushing, and are more likely to get banned as a result of this badly-motivated focus.  It is one area of Wikipedia that I've learned that has necessarily balancing ideals.  The best example I've found, which is "black letter law" documented is the "Assume Good Faith/Not a Suicide Pact" dichotomy, meaning that, while AGF is an ideal, it's application IRL does not mean that other, and equally important Wikipedia ideals should be sacrificed.  One does not, and should not, AGF to the point that Wikipedia Articles are degraded, or totally destroyed, with regard to other ideals such as balance, neutrality, etc...  At least that's the current state of my awareness.  I mention all of this as a caution to you, who while arguing in favor of "Be Bold", seem to think that this is some kind of unlimited ideal that should be pursued blindly.  I'm aware enough to know that nothing about Wikipedia is blindly idealistic, and organizational self-preservation is absolutely, always, and necessarily a part of the overall equation.  You can end up banned by failing to take this into account, as I have read numerous examples of this happening, in the Administrator's Notice Board, etc...  Also advocating "Be Bold", and not knowing what an SPA is seems a bit "off" to me.  Leadership is by Example.  Giving advice is a form of Leadership, and comes with a measure of responsibilities.  Example you advise someone do "X", and as a result of someone taking advice, they have consequence "Y".  It's important for people that give advice to recognize this.  It's also important for the people that are considering taking the advice of someone else to give serious consideration to the credibility and qualifications of the person that giving it.  On banning, most of the time what I see is a chaotic mass of accusations, provocations and harassment, and the subject is forced to openly display their decision to either react to all of that, or ignore it and remain grounded in Wikipedia ideals and policies, and their commitment to implement and uphold them.  It's hazing, and I think intentional.  I've seen several otherwise good Editors that have failed this test; not because they were particularly wrong on content, POV, etc... but because they chose to react to the hazing, instead of remaining grounded in foundational principles and overall mission.  If you operate in safer areas, none of this may apply to you, however should you decide to become involved in areas and Articles that are more controversial, this may be of critical value, i.e. it might save you from getting banned.  Sometimes I wish there were some kind of "Beginners Manual" for Wikipedia available, and sometimes I think about writing one myself.  I enjoy this conversation, and thank you for your support, encouragement and insight. (the above was written during an edit conflict with Doug Weller (above).Tym Whittier (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sealioning is an article
You made a comment that looks as though you think it's an essay. You might want to do something about your post if I'm right. Doug Weller talk 19:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I noticed that too. WP:Forum. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I caught that after I posted. Thought about deleting it. At core it's a question, with a bunch of other stuff. Figured it was safe, since the Article doesn't seem particularly controversial to me.  It's a new internet term, the meaning of which is still being discussed.  Figured my comments might useful. Curious why you didn't just delete it and admonish me for forum.  Fixing it now.  Also curious how an Administrator differentiates between an "extended question with lots of background" and a "forum" post.  Keep in mind I'm learning here...Tym Whittier (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Tym Whittier, I'm newish too and I think deleting responses off the talk page is very frowned upon, especially when someone has responded to it already. Personally (this isn't a policy) if I were you in the above case instead of deleting the entire conversation (including my response), it's better to just edit your own comment/post and acknowledge the criticisms made. Deleting the whole thing looks suspicious. I don't really care that you deleted my response in this case, but I wouldn't do it in the future. Wait for someone who knows the rules better to do it. I would have done something like "Edit: sorry for the essay/forum post. I've taken the recommendations from others (below) and revised my post to..." and then post you revised question/statement and leave others responses there. Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought so too, and didn't know what to do. Typically when something is "forum", the person that makes the call deletes the text.  This time I get a note on my Talk Page from two people.  Two people tell me I have a tail, maybe I have a tail and should...what?  Leave the text?  Delete the bulk of the text, but leave the objections below it alone, even though they no longer apply (since the text is deleted).  I knew what I did was "iffy", but tbh I couldn't think of a better alternative, so I did what I did.  Not out of ignorance, but not despite full awareness either.  I mentioned this on my talk page; the idea that it wasn't deleted.  I rolled the dice, closed my eyes and put my fingers in my ears and prayed.Tym Whittier (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * An alternative is to strike through the whole thing or parts of it. Particularly if there's been a response. "Tail"? Or people with the article on their watchlist? That's more likely. As for deleting a post, it's a judgement call. This hat nothing to do with Administrators. Some stuff should definitely be deleted, eg blatant BLP violations, trolling, etc. Doug Weller  talk 05:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)\
 * Tbh the idea of "striking" didn't occur to me, since I've always thought that the primary "group" objection (meaning Wikipedia) to "forum" was the use of space. Since striking the the space-consuming text still leaves the space occupied, it's counter-intuitive to me to think of this as a viable option.  Maybe I should have 1) Deleted the whole section, and then 2) added a new section if I thought the original question (in the title) was still constructive?Tym Whittier (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also on "tail". I didn't mean tail as in "following me", I was referencing something that I heard once that went something like: "If one person tells you that you have a tail, you should ignore them as they are obviously foolish.  If two people tell you that you have a tail, you have to think about how likely it is that two people are foolish.  If three people tell you that you have a tail, perhaps you should turn around and look at your backside, because you probably have a tail."  It's the idea that after more than one seemingly disconnected people tell you that you have a problem, or a defect, you should probably investigate.  Some people are very good at ignoring the criticism of others, and this little adage is for them.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Ed Krassenstein
Hello Tym Whittier. I saw your question at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ed Krassenstein. In general, the talk page of a closed discussion is a poor place to get your question answered, very few people will see it. I just lucked across it. If you think he is notable because multiple independent reliable sources are discussing the topic in-depth, then I'd recommend you re-create the article via WP:AfC. Just because his name is listed at Twitter suspensions doesn't strike me as guaranteeing notability, or even particularly as a strong indication of notability. I hope that helps. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It does help. I'm not qualified, nor am I interested enough, to start a whole Article, so I'll let someone else.  There's numerous RS all over the place now. that they (brothers) have been booted of Twitter.  Maybe.  There's rumors that the ban is a big show, and that Twitter will quietly let them back on after the furor has died down.  Should I delete that post then?  Thanks for giving me the heads-up.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Purpose?
TYM - I'm back. I just read your Ohnoitsjamie discussion and the new advice on this talk page. And I want to ask what is your purpose? You love to argue and all that effort should go to improving the encyclopedia. Your "I'm new here" is no longer being believed. I see at the top the Wiki Foundation is trying something new for editor to talk to one another. It may be perfect for you. See the Learn More button above. The diehard Wiki people work hard. They don't want to see opinion on talk pages or take time to answer philosophy questions. Your purpose should be to edit articles. If someone deletes it then you go to the talk page and then only talk about the article. Of course you can continue to draw attention to yourself and attract discussions. At some point you will be blocked. Boy are your answers long. I think I'm done watching you. Take care. Eschoryii (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My purpose is to become a proficient Editor of Wikipedia, full stop. For those that "don't believe", maybe they should think back to how they learned what they learned, and how long it took.  And also to what extent their belief in their proficiency is the result of never having it challenged, or being forced to actually exemplify the policies and principals that Wikipedia is founded on.  And also, if "I'm new and still learning" is not believed, then what's the alternative explanation?  I'm not going to be a "diehard Wiki person" who is going to "work hard", particularly for free, and then try to claim some kind of ownership where "me and the work that I've done" trumps fundamental principals.  Instead I intend to pick and choose which Articles I try to get involved in, and be a legitimate advocate for my POV within the standards of Wikipedia and accept defeat gracefully.  All I need is time to learn all this stuff.  But here's the thing.  You read the "Jamie thing" and for some reason failed to mention that 1) the allegation has more or less already been proven to be false, and 2) the person that made it can't, won't or hasn't substantiated it.  How can I, or anyone else, be expected to work with people that cannot exemplify the standards they believe they are qualified to enforce?  Leadership is by Example.  I'll look into the "Editors talking to Editors" feature.  What Wikipedia SHOULD do is publish a Beginners Manual.  They should also have a rank system besides just "Editor" and "Administrator", where standards are gradually increased as an Editor increases in "rank".  Does this sound like "arguing"?  Thanks for your post, advice, and encouragement.Tym Whittier (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Quick comment. Wikipedia doesn't have ranks. We do have people with different software access levels, some of which aren't obvious to new users, eg WP:Rollback which most active editors have. I have the ability to look at details of user's IP addresses and to suppress edits so that even other Administrators can't see them, ie I am a Checkuser and and Oversighter. We also have the elected WP:Arbitration Committee which deals with conduct - I was an Arbitrator for two terms which is how I got those permissions. But these aren't considered ranks, and an Admin or even an Arbitrator has no more authority over content. The closest we come to ranks is Awards. We do have a beginners manual at Introduction.  Doug Weller  talk 06:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I appreciate the value of your time & expertise. My focus was quite a bit lower on the non-ranked hierarchy, where new Editors are labeled as such explicitly, maybe by a dedicated color for their signature, so that all other Editors will know who they are dealing with when that new Editor makes a mistake.  Or lots of mistakes.  Or perhaps, every single thing they try to do is a mistake, and to the perception of an annoyed and more-experienced Editor, everything they perceive of that new Editor looks like something other than the normal and expected kinds of mistakes that "bold" Editors are going to make.  Also, from my perspective I note the absence of a "unified field theory" that joins and explains mutually contradictory principals of Wikipedia, the "be bold" green lights action and the "assume good faith" assures a measure of safety, with "not a suicide pact" as a limit on both, which all serves the purpose of preserving Wikipedia as a functioning institution.  How all of this actually plays out in Talk Page interactions is both infinite complex, and difficult, as I'm sure you are aware.  I've found hints, here and there, in various essays, etc... that form a rough outline of "dots".  Connecting those dots is difficult, time-consuming and fraught with peril.  Having some kind of single document, or a manual, would be helpful to support one of Wikipedia's objectives, which (roughly) is about an open door, "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit".  I recognize it's larger and more complex than that, but ATM my ability to express myself is limited.  I have invested my time & energy, and the value of the time & energy of other Editors, for the pure and singular faith I have in those principals, even if I only partially understand them.  In short, I am aware of the value of that time and energy, and I thank you for the value of yours.Tym Whittier (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Currently reading thisTym Whittier (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Mary Jackson
Heya Tym, thanks for your edit at Mary Jackson! Figured I'd leave a note here to show you how I formatted it:. One handy thing about Wikipedia is that you can often find policies/guidelines/etc. by just typing into the search bar "WP:" and a word relating to what you're doing; in this case WP:NÉE is a shortcut that goes to the Manual of Style guidance on how to format previous names, including when people changed their name due to marriage. If you don't have any luck, though, what you did (just going ahead and making the edit as best as you can and leaving a note to whoever happens to see it and might know a better way) is better than nothing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare What did you think about the government document I found showing her marriage date and (I think) father's full name?Tym Whittier (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not mentioning that in this comment, I didn't see it until after. I already replied on the article talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A friendly word of advice
- before you end up being blocked again: You seem to have gotten off to a wobbly start on Wikipedia, even if as you claim, you had previous experience as an IP user. One of your problems is your verbosity. No one is going to read your 500 word diatribes and answer them, neither at The Tea House or on 's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Leadership is by example. Standards are higher for people in positions of power and responsibility, and not lower.  Many Editors here, particularly to include the Administrators, think that the exact opposite is the case.  They role model poor, substandard, "less than exemplary"  behavior, and less-experienced Editors emulate that low standard and then are blamed for it, and end-up being banned, blocked etc...  Meanwhile, I read statements from Administrators talking about the lack of qualified, competent Editors, as if the first thing, and the second thing, have nothing to do with each other, instead of direct and causal relationship between the two, which there is.  Meanwhile, I read lofty Wikipedia foundational principals such as "don't bite the newcomers", and then I read "friendly advice" posts like this one, that do not sound particularly "friendly".  There seems to be an institutional dynamic of arrogance among some, but not all Editors and Administrators, that involves a sense of entitlement, and of ownership, and it also seems to me that these Administrators and Editors make a regular practice of baiting, harassing, etc... less experienced Editors, who make the mistake of assuming "that's how things are" on Wikipedia, primarily I think as a means by which to avoid having to deal with other Editors who may have perspectives (particularly ideological perspectives), that are at variance with their own.  And this is despite the fact that explicit Wikipedia policy places value, and celebrates, this "diversity" of perspective.  I've made the mistake of emulating bad (meaning unprofessional, and "not collegial" behavior), and you can see the results (above).  It's one of the reasons why I keep it active on my Talk page; as an object lesson to any other less-experienced Editor, and also for more experienced Editors and Administrators who care to see the natural consquences of their inability (and unwillingness) to "police" themselves.  I also note your use of the word "claim" (which implies bad faith), instead of the better, more collegial, and AGF word "state", or "said" (I learned that one while working on the Article for Gab).  One day I woke up and realized that the skill involved in "crafting" language, with an enhanced awareness of meaning, and connotation, for the elevated purpose of "building an encyclopedia" can (and should) also be applied directly to the Editors (and Administrators) and how they interact with each other, particularly with regard to how they interact with less-experienced Editors. I want to thank you for your "friendly advice", and shall leave it here on my Talk page, as a sort of trophy, for the people who have defied the prediction of "not reading long diatribes".  Some people LIKE long diatribes.Tym Whittier (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Not read. What did I say about your 500 word diatribes? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "It can be misused as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing or a stoop to ridicule."Stoop to ridicule "There seems to be an institutional dynamic of arrogance among some, but not all Editors and Administrators, that involves a sense of entitlement, and of ownership, and it also seems to me that these Administrators and Editors make a regular practice of baiting, harassing, etc... less experienced Editors" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9Tym Whittier (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)