User talk:Wookian


 * }

Thank you
Hi, Wookian. Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. In fairness to the a*****e who posted it, I am overweight with way too many chins! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Yeah, I could lose a lb or 20 myself. Wookian (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Note

 * About this; you have notice of the DS above.


 * Please read WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:Controversial articles and think about them carefully with respect to what you are doing at the Jeong talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * About this you misrepresented what I wrote here and here. Do not misrepresent people. Please see WP:TPNO. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I posted my latest reply before being aware that you added this section to my talk page. You said "check your talk page", so I checked my Talk page, and all I saw was the generic notice in the previous section, and assumed that was what you meant. Not sure what order of operations you followed, or whether I failed to refresh the Talk page correctly. On a side note, I am a little bit curious about why you would be making administrative warnings against me while engaged in debate with me. That seems unusual, but maybe it's not? Wookian (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have provided the warnings here, on your talk page, where they belong. See Dispute_resolution.
 * Per your edit count, while you have had an account for 6 years, you are an inexperienced editor, with only around 400 edits.
 * I am doing everything I can to let you know that you are on thin ice, and to be more careful. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you would focus on the content, rather than on the participants in the debate. Instead of just telling me that it's untrue that you said a quote of the two tweets in question should include quotes of other third party/racist tweets (which is what your words implied - sorry, it just is), you could maybe re-state that original post I was responding to to avoid that implication. I am not as experienced in Wikipedia as you are, admittedly. However, my grasp of the English language is not necessarily inferior to yours, and I would like to cheerfully suggest that your post did in fact imply what I said it implied, to an ordinary reader. Wookian (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * At the talk page I am focused on content. Again per the section of DR, I am dealing with your behavior here. It does take time and effort to become familiar with the policies and guidelines and how the editing community uses them.
 * The community cooked up the idea of "discretionary sanctions" for good reason, and people are given notice of them for good reason.
 * Assuming it is "enough" to have a "grasp of the English langauge" while working on a subject under discretionary sanctions is unwise at best, and expresses actual disdain toward the intention of the community in setting them up and ensuring that people are given notice of them and understand them.
 * I have done my best to give you a heads up. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, you're avoiding the question. Your post did imply what I said it implied. And by jumping to administrative sanction warnings instead of engaging on content, you are chilling discussion. I am pretty sure that is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Look, I get that emotions run high in debate. Admins would be well advised to guard against the temptation to (ab)use the administrative sanctions system to bypass legitimate debate, wouldn't you agree? Wookian (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My emotions are not high. You are on thin ice. You will be mindful of that, or not. I have no more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (btw I am not an admin; am just saying that in case you believe I am.) Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, my mistake. If you are just an ordinary editor who resorted to threats of sanctions instead of engaging on content, when called out for suggesting a seriously POV-encumbered opinion without support from RS's, then that does make me breathe a sigh of relief. I was really worried there for a second. I really hope a Wikipedia admin would never behave as you are behaving. Wookian (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are not alone, there are a set of users putting DS warnings on the talk pages of pretty much everyone who supports including her tweets. Sort of how things work around here on contentious articles. You have made solid, articulate arguments inline with the big picture of what WP strives for, which is being a great encyclopedia. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, uh... "26". ;) Wookian (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No one holds a grudge against 26...., but people remember Wookian. Sometimes it is easier to be anonymous and just try to improve WP, but other times it is a lot harder because you go into every argument with no credibility. This is, after all, the encyclopedia anyone can edit so it is fun to see over time when that is, and isn't, true. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh. That makes a lot of sense, unfortunately. It's also unfortunate that someone like Jytdog would post these sanction warnings, and then post a personalized sanction warning against me like he/she did above. I assumed he/she was an admin. I didn't know ordinary editors went around doing that kind of thing. It was definitely chilling. It's so much nicer when people focus on debating the subject matter rather than attacking/criticizing/threatening their debate opponents. Of course administrative sanctions need to exist, but... yeah, anyway. Wookian (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * about this, I am giving you a chance to strike or amend your misrepresentation of arguments on the other side. Please me know if you intend to do so or not. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. Please explain and be very specific. Satisfying this request of mine will require you to engage with the content rather than just accuse me of breaking rules without giving specifics. Verbatim quotes are very useful in this type of exercise. Wookian (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Added note: linking to that paragraph of mine is not specific enough, unless you are claiming that every single word there is a misrepresentation of others, which doesn't seem right. Wookian (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I already warned you above about misrepresenting me and others. Your statement Your post (like many, many other posts on here) talks about "full interchanges", which as far as I can tell is a reference very much like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. Often mentioned by those who want to defend Jeong from "harm" (in one editor's words), but never produced for these two tweets. completely distorts the arguments on the other side from you and is, in addition, tendentious.  You might find misrepresentation to be a useful form of argumentation elsewhere. It is not acceptable here. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Full interchanges" in that context suggests back and forth on Twitter. The two tweets under consideration were not part of Twitter threads. Your concern here is not warranted. Wookian (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You also directly violate BLP in this diff by citing a source clearly labelled as opinion and repeating what it says as fact. As the BLP policy says explicitly, we do not treat content from opinion pieces as fact, but rather, if we use such sources at all, we attribute content generated from them. (see also the NPOV policy at WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) Yet you wrote in that diff As my link indicates, the tweets are absolutely indefensible as fact. You can leave that if you like. If you don't fix that, that is also evidence for the TBAN.
 * It appears that instead of taking the notice of DS to heart and being more careful, you have become much less careful. That is your decision to make, of course. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What you characterize as opinion here would be absorbed into the article as an obvious fact in a heartbeat if about half the editors in this discussion had final say, so that point is debatable. Saying that "dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants" doesn't express racial animus is simply a very strained position. That I linked to an opinion piece is reasonable for you to note, however not as significant as you suggest. The reason the article can't absorb it as fact is that the strained interpretation is widely accepted, so it's disputed what the facts are here. Wookian (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your replies. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This is not accurate advice. The coatracking has not gone unnoticed either. You are skating very close to a topic-ban. Please reconsider your style of participation on the talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't told me what was inaccurate in my post. Can you explain? Wookian (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding your coatracking allegation, that seems like an opinion. This is a highly contentious change being debated for the article, and I am one of many who propose adding the tweet quotes. We have collectively made strong arguments for the tweets' inclusion based on following the best examples of neutral, journalistic RS's. You and others are entitled to disagree, however please respect that yours is not the only opinion. My opinion may not carry the day, but I don't need to be banned for expressing it, and I'd respectfully suggest that participating in my side of the debate shouldn't be considered coatracking. If that's not what you meant, then apologies, and feel free to explain. Wookian (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The inaccuracy in your advice is that wikipedian's opinions about the subject is irrelevant and liable to be redacted. Repeated failure to understand that is likely to lead to sanctions. Abecedare (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. I said "you are entitled to your opinion" in that post to be friendly and tactful in my lead up to the point I was making, which was that the encyclopedia need not (and should not) voice any opinion on the question. I did not mean to imply that sharing editors' opinions was a good idea on Wikipedia. I hope you can appreciate (a) my attempts at friendliness and tact, and (b) my main point that the Wikipedia article should not editorialize on the topic being discussed. The thrust of my post was already in line with your reminder here, and I'll try to clean up the loose strings to be in line as well. Reasonable? Wookian (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried to go back and apply some strikethrough to that paragraph to make it clear that nobody is entitled to express personal opinions on Wikipedia. However the problem I ran into was that my paragraph already makes it clear (if you keep on reading and don't stop on the first clause) that such opinions are legitimate in Wikipedia discussion only as derived from the sources. So on further reflection I would suggest that Abecedare was mistaken in his/her reading of this paragraph. Wookian (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

 * the sanction has been precipitated by this edit in which you again indulged in the coatracking and subtly-phrased BLP violation you had recently been warned about. Abecedare (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"Democrat talking points"
I find it exceedingly odd that you used an epithet to describe a group of people, and when editors corrected you you insisted you meant no offense yet you refused to do anything about it. What's the meaning of this? Are you saying that you believe it's not an epithet, and you stand by your choice of words? Do you realize that you don't have to agree it's an epithet in order to acknowledge that some people are offended by it and it interferes with the consensus-building process? You're free to chalk it up to excessive liberal sensitivity--off-wiki, of course. R2 (bleep) 21:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for visiting. I disagree that I used an epithet. The word "Democrat" is sometimes used as an adjective, and sometimes not. I agree with you that the phrase "Democrat Party" is not normal usage - and in fact I didn't use that phrase, per se. It is "exceedingly odd" (to borrow your words) that you keep on falsely implying that I employed that specific phrase in our recent conversation. If you read through the article you cited you will learn that in the English language it is very common to employ nouns in an adjective role in a sentence, a phenomenon which according to Ruth Walker of the CSM is growing in modern usage. Her guidance (per that article) is that Democrat is usually a noun - implying sometimes it can be adjective.
 * My advice to you is when you find yourself in a debate situation, focus on the topic under discussion, and don't allow yourself to be distracted by a temptation to call out someone you disagree with for something irrelevant. There's a stereotype that leftists can't engage in debate without calling their debate opponents racists, Nazis, and bigots. I am not saying that you are a leftist or that you exemplify that stereotype, just mentioning it as an extreme case of the logical fallacy I'm talking about - and it is indeed a logical fallacy that impedes reasoned, productive debate of the kind that actually seeks consensus. Wookian (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in engaging in "reasoned, productive debate" with editors who insist on wikilawyering away their use of polarizing epithets, intentional or not. If a "leftist" were to call a fellow editor a racist, a Nazi, or a bigot on WP, they would be swiftly sanctioned. Referring to "Democrat talking points" similarly poisons the well, just to a lesser extent. R2 (bleep) 22:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And by the way, "leftist" is another one of those words that some people have been using the last few years to put down people they disagree with politically. I suggest you learn how to use more inclusive language before your comments end up biting you in the butt. You're free to talk about talk about "leftists" bringing up "Democrat talking points" on Twitter or your discussion forum of choice, but not here. R2 (bleep) 22:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think speaking disparagingly of the "right wing" or of Trump supporters falls under the same category as what you characterize as disparagement of Democrats or leftists? For example, if one speaks negatively about "right wing media," should that be OK on Wikipedia? Curious for your thoughts on this. Wookian (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking negatively about the "right wing media" isn't the same thing as speaking disparagingly of Trump supporters. The former is fine, the latter is bad. R2 (bleep) 05:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting perspective, and I don't understand your thought process here. Are you equating "right wing" with fascist or something? How is it OK to consider "right wing" objectively bad? (Or am I misunderstanding you, in which case I'm happy to be corrected?) Wookian (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the distinction is between "media" and one's fellow editors. R2 (bleep) 22:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thanks for explaining. Wookian (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Admingate, lol.
Not asking for you to get involved just thought you might like to see what youre up against. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shinealittlelight#12_year Orange Man Bad! Happy wikiing!Batvette (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Batvette, sorry to hear of all the unpleasantness. Wookian (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
I'm concerned that your comments reflect a battleground, non-AGF mentality that is eventually going to get you into trouble. Today, after it was already made clear to you that I struck Throwaway's comments because they were an obvious block evader, you accused me of striking an editor's comments "to repress a view that is in contradiction to [my] own." You can repeat the letters "AGF" all you want, but that is not AGF. Moreover, I don't know what views you've ascribed to me, but you have no idea what my personal views are. In fact, in the only discussion in which both Throwaway and I participated, I agreed with them. What I'm most concerned about here is that you see me as The Enemy because you believe I'm on the other side of the partisan fence, or something like that. That is reinforced by the fact that you refuse to retract comments you made last month about "Democrat talking points" and "leftists." Put these together and it shows an ongoing pattern of political battlegrounding. Please refocus on collaboration. R2 (bleep) 20:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your statement might subtly change the meaning of my words for some readers. What I wrote was: you are using strikethrough to repress a view that is in contradiction to your own. This statement does not claim to know your intentions, but rather is a factual and literally true description of your actions. It is clear to me that the suspected sockpuppet views the Russia investigation as a "crumbling narrative," which is a position rather obviously contra to your strong support for the "Spygate = conspiracy theory" position. It is OK to disagree with people and I don't feel threatened by discussions with people who disagree. However when you cited WP:DENY as your reason for striking-thru the suspected sock's comments, it bothered me that your reason was an inappropriate reason. Have you actually read WP:DENY? Does any part of the suspected sockpuppet's remarks sound like trolling or vandalism? Please do not take my remarks as a personal attack or a political battle, but rather as a friendly reminder to walk the narrow line of editorial openness, which includes not posting obviously bogus reasons for censoring other people's comments. Wookian (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, several points here:
 * If by your "to repress a view" comment you didn't mean to say anything about my intentions, then you should fix it. Because as currently written it does mean that you knew my intentions. A better way to convey what you're saying you meant to is that my striking of Throwaway's comments had the effect of repressing a certain view.
 * Quite honestly I hardly even read Throwaway's edits and never processed the views they were expressing. I saw that they were obviously a sockpuppet and that they were stirring up a lot of fuss. That's all I needed to know. And it wouldn't have made a difference; they could have been some raving Trump hater, and I would have done the exact same thing.
 * I don't know why you're so hung up on my reference to WP:DENY. I didn't include that in my edit summary as the policy basis for striking Throwaway's comments. Yes, I have read it.
 * Saying that my reasons for striking Throwaway's comments were "obviously bogus" is another violation of AGF. Saying you disagree with my explanation is one thing; calling it "obviously bogus" is quite another. Do you know what "bogus" means? M-W defines it as "counterfeit; sham." Are you suggesting I've been dishonest, or did you misspeak?
 * R2 (bleep) 20:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You write: I didn't include that in my edit summary as the policy basis for striking Throwaway's comments. However, your edit summary according to the Talk page log is no more and no less than a link to WP:DENY. So I'm confused - do we mean something different than each other by "edit summary"? I don't mean to imply that you have been dishonest. You may have made an error due to unfamiliarity with WP:DENY. However, your citing of that page is a bogus reason in hindsight and is a situation that needs to be fixed. Why don't you just fix what you did wrong, and move on?
 * Please believe me when I say that I am a bit annoyed to be spending my time sticking up for a possible/likely sockpuppet. I wouldn't bother if either you hadn't given a wrong reason, or if there was not the potential appearance (not claiming intent) of silencing an opposing view. Appearances are important. Editorial openness in encyclopedia building is important. Wookian (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Best of luck. R2 (bleep) 21:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * R2, my very sensitive friend, you also made reference above to comments you made last month about "Democrat talking points" and "leftists". I also am interested in drawing attention to that previous conversation. Back then, apparently you felt aggrieved at some of my remarks when I mentioned that it is a common stereotype of leftists that they are said to attack their debate opponent with an ad hominem, rather than engaging in debate and letting each argument stand or fall on its merits. The example I gave was that leftists sometimes take a shortcut of falsely calling someone a "racist" or "bigot" to shut them down, thus avoiding honest discussion and debate. Since then, I've thought of a theoretical example of that. An example might be if an editor pointed out that there were Muslims in New York or New Jersey who celebrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A leftist Wikipedian editor who conformed to this unfortunate stereotype might respond by calling that editor's comment "racist" for advancing this claim, even if substantiated from reliable sources. Would the leftist be justified in this? In a Machiavellian sense, yes, in that they might very well convince other leftists and maybe even an admin or two to join in and shut down the editor by thus slandering them as promulgating racist material. In another sense no, of course, since winning isn't everything, and how you win is important to those who speak truthfully and assume good faith of others. The leftist would be abdicating logic and reason in favor of an ad hominem attack. And of course it would be a serious category error to slime the editor as a racist -- the Islamic religion isn't even a race, and extrapolating from a defensible (or at least debatable) statement of fact based on reliable sources over to calling such a statement racist would require making a hostile assumption about the secret intentions within another editor's mind. Note that the above hypothetical example would still carry a similar punch if the editor being attacked as "racist" had other disruptive misbehaviors that merited censure. One must not falsely accuse another of murder even if they are a thief. Either they committed murder or they didn't. Wookian (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * More talk of "leftists." I guess listening isn't your strong suit. As for your "theoretical" example, I really have no opinion on that, but I suspect TonyBallioni would. Shall I ping him for you? R2 (bleep) 03:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My hypothetical example is for your consideration. You can do whatever you want with it. I think it communicates a basic principle of fairness and truthfulness worth assimilating and applying quite widely in one's personal communications on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Wookian (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "leftists sometimes take a shortcut"... LOL! That cuts both ways, so I wouldn't use that type of argument. Neither side is innocent. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I can cautiously agree 100% with you here, BR - it's not an argument against leftism and certainly "both sides" are guilty of this sort of fallacy. It's probably used as a stereotype of the left more often than of the right, however there certainly are leftists/liberals/whathaveyou you will find engaging perfectly honestly in debate. A debate between two people who totally disagree with each other, but are determined to snipe at each other's arguments rather than at each other as people... mmm, mmm! A beautiful thing to behold. Wookian (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts
– bradv  🍁  21:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)