User talk:Walterblue222

Welcome Walterblue222! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are registered editors!

Hello Walterblue222. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm Pdebee, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page and someone will try to help. To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload create your own personal sandbox] for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put  on your userpage.

Please remember to: The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the Insert-signature.png button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes  at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
 * Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.

 Sincerely, Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 23:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)   [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdebee&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)] Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

Civility at Talk:Feminism
Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, and decisions on Wikipedia are made primarily by consensus. When there are disagreements about the content of a Wikipedia article, this is resolved by discussing it on the talk page of the article. So, when your edit to the first sentence of the article was reverted, raising a discussion at Talk:Feminism afterward as you did was the right thing to do.

One of the core principles of Wikipedia is civility. Part of this is assuming good faith, and discussing calmly with other editors. Quoting the guideline: Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably. Titling your discussion at Talk:Feminism "Deceptive Omission of Defining Terms" looks combative, or that you might be assuming deception on the part of other editors. This would be a failure to assume good faith. Rather than worry about how the content of the article that you disapprove of got that way, why not simply concentrate on how to improve it?

In fact, much of your post is doing exactly that, where you are arguing your points, questioning existing wording, and providing dictionary definitions. That's the right approach. On the other hand, instead of abandoning the use of the term deceptive in the section title, you've doubled down on it several times since. That could be seen as WP:UNCIVIL or an accusation by some, so please don't continue that approach. Instead, continue laying out your arguments and trying to gain the support of other editors who agree with you, as you have been. Consensus provides a roadmap on how to do this.

Don't hesitate to reply below (see WP:THREAD for proper protocol), and please ping me or use template reply to get my attention. If you ever want to ask a question on a new topic, feel free to add a section on my Talk page. You can also ask your question in a new section below, adding the token  somewhere in your message, and an experienced editor will be along to answer your question. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was already informed that raising a discussion at Talk:Feminism after my edit was reverted was the right thing to do, I'm not quite sure why you felt the need to reiterate this.
 * You claim that "instead of abandoning the use of the term deceptive in the section title, you've doubled down on it several times since." This is simply not true; I used the word "deceptive" a single time, and did not "double down on it" at all, let alone doing so "several times since". The only time I used the term "deceptive" was after explaining my position, saying that "I hope you can see why I consider it deceptive and incomplete".
 * Mathglot, you are claiming that my conduct "could be seen as WP:UNCIVIL or an accusation by some", but this is predicated on the false claim that I "doubled down on it several times since." I don't appreciate being accused of incivility, particularly when the basis of this accusation is false. Can any other more experienced editor help me deal with this? Walterblue222 (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't an appropriate use of the help me template and you should not be asking other editors to engage in your dispute. If you need more opinions please see WP:DRN. Praxidicae (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Praxidicae, I guess? I asked for assistance because Mathglot told me to... "You can also ask your question in a new section below, adding the token  somewhere in your message, and an experienced editor will be along to answer your question." Not sure how I was supposed to know that this wasn't an appropriate usage, when told to do so... Walterblue222 (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The thing regarding  was intended to be about questions on new topics; sorry if I was not clear about that.
 * Regarding your comments about what you did or didn't say, the revision history preserves earlier versions:
 * 00:25, Jan 21:
 * "Deceptive Omission of Defining Terms" (section title)
 * "...and it seems manipulative and deceitful..."
 * 01:25, 21 Jan: "Manipulative and deceitful is my opinion, you're correct."
 * 03:15, 21 Jan
 * "how can this be seen as anything BUT deception?"
 * "I hope you can see why I consider it deceptive and incomplete."
 * 01:32, 22 Jan: "My personal opinion is that the definition in the first sentence is misleading and deceitful."
 * I wouldn't have bothered mentioning any of this, but for your astonishing: This is simply not true; I used the word "deceptive" a single time, and did not "double down on it" at all, let alone doing so "several times since". Sure seems like doubling down to me, over and over. Mathglot (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you're a liar. I said "you claim that "instead of abandoning the use of the term deceptive in the section title, you've doubled down on it several times since." This is simply not true; I used the word "deceptive" a single time, and did not "double down on it" at all, let alone doing so "several times since". The only time I used the term "deceptive" was after explaining my position, saying that "I hope you can see why I consider it deceptive and incomplete".
 * None of the examples you provided support your claim.
 * "Deceptive Omission of Defining Terms" - okay, that's 1 use of the term "deceptive".
 * Next: "...and it seems manipulative an deceitful" well, that's not another use of the term "deceptive".
 * Next: "Manipulative and deceitful is my opinion, you're correct" hmm again, no use of the term "deceptive".
 * Next, "how can this be seen as anything BUT deception?" still, technically not the term "deceptive", but I guess I can see your point of view if my glasses are off and I squint a bit.
 * "I hope you can see why I consider it deceptive and incomplete." Whoo! Our first example of using the term "deceptive", other than the title.
 * Next: "My personal opinion is that the definition in the first sentence is misleading and deceitful" hmm, again, no use of the term "deceptive".
 * I don't know if you have trouble counting, dyslexia or some other problem processing information, but you've provided no information to counter the claim that "I used the word "deceptive" a single time, and did not "double down on it" at all, let alone doing so "several times since"."
 * All in all, I used the word "deceptive" a grand total of 2 times, and one of those times was when I was explaining why I used that term. So, when you claim that it "Sure seems like doubling down to me, over and over.", well, that's just not true.
 * In conclusion, I would appreciate if you refrain from perpetuating falsehoods regarding me in the future, no matter how "astonishing" you may find the truth to be. Walterblue222 (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you mean, "There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you started." I don't appreciate your repeated personal attacks, demeaning attitude, unjustified reversions, and blatant lies about me and my motivations, even after I took the time to explain that your assumptions were not true.
 * Your behavior is inappropriate, deceptive, and manipulative, and you seem like a bully, not someone here to contribute or collaborate but rather here to disrespect others who are trying to contribute, and disrupt their (our) contributions and edits. Walterblue222 (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your behavior is inappropriate, deceptive, and manipulative, disrespectful of others who are trying to contribute, and disrupting of others' contributions and edits. Walterblue222 (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
I checked out the "sock puppets" you are accusing me of having and they bring up some solid points. They are not my accounts. As I have repeatedly stated, this account is my only account on wikipedia. I have ever owned or used any other wikipedia account. You say that "unblocking (me) would be a very bad idea" - how so? I have provided relevant contributions and always try to follow wiki rules and guidelines, I do not engage in personal attacks (even though I have been the subject of multiple personal attacks in my short time here), I listen to and respond to any other editor whether they agree or disagree with me, and attempt to achieve consensus by discussing proposed edits. I am relatively new to this community, yet in my short time here I have learned, unfortunately, that there are some truly hateful, self-righteous people who abuse their power here on wikipedia, who perpetuate falsehoods about those they disagree with - rather than engage in a mutually respectful conversations, as I would prefer - and unfairly destroy work and contributions because they disagree with the editor, regardless of the justification and applicable sources supporting the assertions and edits made. I seem to have been given no "good faith", despite this being a "fundamental principle" WP:AGF - why? Walterblue222 (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)