User talk:Porchcorpter: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Porchcorpter (talk | contribs) →Removed sections: some replies |
Notification: listing of Template:Newsubpagename at WP:Templates for discussion. |
||
| (42 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOINDEX__ |
__NOINDEX__ |
||
'''NOTICE:''' Are you '''''really''''' sure you want to post here? Well, if you do, the following policies, guidelines or essays '''apply''' to this talk page. Please make sure you comply with all of these policies, guidelines and essays. If you do not follow '''any''' one of these pages, your post will be labelled as such to one of these pages: |
'''NOTICE:''' Are you '''''really''''' sure you want to post here? Well, if you do, the following policies, guidelines or essays '''apply''' to this talk page. Please make sure you comply with all of these policies, guidelines and essays. If you do not follow '''any''' one of these pages, your post will be labelled as such to one of these pages: |
||
*[[WP:CIVIL]] |
*[[WP:CIVIL]] |
||
| Line 21: | Line 20: | ||
You are welcome not to sign your posts on this talk page. However, you must give a clear indication that it was ''you'' who wrote the comment. |
You are welcome not to sign your posts on this talk page. However, you must give a clear indication that it was ''you'' who wrote the comment. |
||
== Speedy criterion G7 == |
|||
== Redirects listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] == |
|||
Hi Porchcorpter, I contested your speedy deletion nominations because [[WP:G7|that criterion]] is for pages you created '''for which you are the only substantial contributor'''. Regards! [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 04:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
===Seperated section (not related to this topic)=== |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|40px|left]] |
|||
{{hat|Not related to this topic. We were talking about my G7 nominations. ''[[User:Porchcorpter|Porchcorpter]]'' 11:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)}} |
|||
An editor has asked for a discussion to address one or more redirects you have created. You might want to participate in [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 13#Several redirects to Template:Edit protected, Template:Edit semi-protected, and Template:Edit template-protected|the redirect discussion]] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Jackmcbarn|Jackmcbarn]] ([[User talk:Jackmcbarn|talk]]) 18:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: I've tagged a couple of them for merges because I think they'd make more robust articles together than they do standing alone. Do you fancy doing the merge, maybe some expansion, as you're more familiar with the topic? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 10:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
{{hab}} |
|||
== Suggestion == |
|||
== Broken welcome templates == |
|||
Hi Porchcorpter. Can I suggest that editing your userpage to complain, regularly over the course of months, is not a productive use of your time? You've not made any Wikipedia edits in a long time - there are places where you can be of help, either through working on articles or helping to make Wikipedia a better place. Sitting here and brooding is no good for you and if that's all you want to do, I suggest you might want to quit. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 10:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Porchcopter, your welcome templates seem to be broken. Because of this, I removed them from [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates]]. Once they are fixed, feel free to put them back. Thanks, [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy|talk]]) 17:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:"''Helping to make Wikipedia a better place''"? You might want to answer how ''others'' made Wikipedia a better place for me. ''[[User:Porchcorpter|Porchcorpter]]'' 11:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Btw I am using Meta for all this instead here. ''[[User:Porchcorpter|Porchcorpter]]'' 11:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== June 2016 == |
|||
== [[List of tomboys in fiction]] == |
|||
<div class="notice" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px"> [[File:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon]] You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks|indefinitely]]''' from editing because it appears that you are not here to [[Wikipedia:NOTHERE#Clearly_not_being_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia|build an encyclopedia]]. Your ability to edit your talk page has ''also'' been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then contact administrators by submitting a request to the ''[[Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System|Unblock Ticket Request System]]''. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 11:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:Uw-nothere --> |
|||
:{{on hold|On hold: until discussion is over}} |
|||
I'm truly sorry, Porchcorpter, but you are clearly not here to help us build the English language Wikipedia any more - your block expired '''four years ago''', yet you are still doing nothing but complaining about what's bad about Wikipedia and how badly you believe you were treated. I think I am one of the most lenient admins on the project (though not as lenient as Worm), but even I cannot avoid the clear conclusion that enough is enough. This block is really aimed at helping you to put the past aside and move on with your life. You are clearly not suited to working in the Wikipedia environment, and I strongly urge you to forget about it and get on with your life in other directions - and I wish you well in your future endeavours. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 12:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | :Just to note, this is where my mind was heading and the reason for my suggestion. I expect I would have blocked myself had any more grumbling appeared on your userpage. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 18:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
{{UTRS-unblock-user|16042|Jun 27, 2016 03:01:11|closed}}--[[User:UTRSBot|UTRSBot]] ([[User talk:UTRSBot|talk]]) 03:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*To any reviewing admin who looks here, please see [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Porchcorpter/Problem_of_English_Wikipedia&oldid=15726314 this Meta page] in which Porchcorpter reiterates his inactivity policy on English Wikipedia. Remaining inactive and doing nothing to contribute to the project, but just using his user page to carry on a years-long stream of complaints, is not doing us or him any good at all. For his own good and for ours, he seriously needs to drop the stick and just go away. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 10:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{UTRS-unblock-user|16070|Jul 02, 2016 08:16:29|closed}}--[[User:UTRSBot|UTRSBot]] ([[User talk:UTRSBot|talk]]) 08:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{UTRS-unblock-user|16073|Jul 02, 2016 23:45:56|closed}}--[[User:UTRSBot|UTRSBot]] ([[User talk:UTRSBot|talk]]) 23:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== [[WP:ACE2016|ArbCom Elections 2016]]: Voting now open! == |
|||
{{discussion top|Better to keep this section closed, until the issue is resolved.}} |
|||
{{collapse top|Discussion began with only two of us editors, and then [[WP:Inflame|escalated]] with more editors getting into the dispute and reverting the edits. I do plan on removing this section, but, only after the dispute resolution is over.}} |
|||
I'm looking at your addition of Betty Barrett from ''Atomic Betty'' to the list. You cite three sources, but I don't see where any of them say Betty is a "tomboy". Did I miss something? - [[User:SummerPhD|<span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span>]] ([[User talk:SummerPhD|talk]]) 14:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi there. Thank you for posting here. First of all, did you check the sources? They do not say directly she is a tomboy, but they do have other stuff, such as: |
|||
:* [https://www.commonsensemedia.org/tv-reviews/atomic-betty First ref] is "''Parents need to know that this action-adventure cartoon centers on a smart, self-assured tween girl who’s more concerned with saving the world from evil domination than she is with stereotypical pursuits like popularity and fashion.''" |
|||
:* [http://www.tv.com/shows/atomic-betty/ Second ref] is "''On Earth, she loves music, using her skateboard, hanging out with her best friend named Noah''" |
|||
:* [http://www.tv.com/shows/atomic-betty/ Second ref] is "''In space, she likes racing her star cruiser and fighting treacherous super-villains.''" |
|||
:* Third ref is the "Atomic Betty theme song", did you read/listen to the theme song? It has "''Toughest chick in the alien world.''", "''Atomic Betty, I'm a fighting girl.''", "''Atomic Betty, gonna rock your world.''" and "''Atomic Betty, gonna save the world.''" |
|||
:Thanks. -[[User:Porchcorpter|Porchcorpter]] <sup>([[User talk:Porchcorpter|talk]]|[[Special:Contribs/Porchcorpter|contribs]])</sup> 00:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::The problem is that none of the sources directly say "tomboy". While you may feel it's obvious, the history of articles of this type is one of endless lists of POV examples based on [[WP:SYN]]. Everybody and their cousin has an example that they think fits [[MacGuffin#Examples]], [[List of signature songs]], etc. The result is either a long, pointless list and/or edit warring (pick three people at random and ask them what Michael Jackson or the Beatles' signature song was...). - [[User:SummerPhD|<span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span>]] ([[User talk:SummerPhD|talk]]) 01:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::''Unnecessary & unwanted cmt removed.'' [[User:Porchcorpter|Porchcorpter]] 03:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think I should probably end this discussion, and leave the two prior entries on my talk page. Because it backed up by sources that ''imply'' tomboy. Next step is talk page discussion. I'll probably remove this section soon. [[User:Porchcorpter|Porchcorpter]] 22:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I've removed it now, too. You need to provide sources that say that she is a tomboy. Not sources that "imply" she is as you state. As SummerPhD says, this amounts to [[WP:SYN]]. [[User:Only|only]] ([[User talk:Only#top|talk]]) 23:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Well, even the show's theme song implies that she is a tomboy, why is it not good enough? And also, to an addition, please see [[List of Atomic Betty characters]], where it states "''Betty is a human/alien hybrid tomboy''". Thanks. But btw, I'd like to thank you Only for reverting with explanation. I want some more responses before I remove this whole section, and leave only the other two threads. [[User:Porchcorpter|Porchcorpter]] 23:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Also, I want to know why that implying is not good enough. Many sources in the past have implied instead of directly stating. Also, in regards to [[Special:Diff/641932767|this]], I didn't realise that edit summaries can only have 255 characters, and Twinkle tends to exceed them. [[User:Porchcorpter|Porchcorpter]] 23:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::And, also to an addition. There are MANY sources that state she is a tomboy, but not reliable sources, but there are many of them. [[User:Porchcorpter|Porchcorpter]] 23:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Well that might be the case, but as you're well aware, we need to rely on [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. The problem with just ''implying'' is that we, as editors, are making our own conclusions. This goes against our policy, [[WP:SYN]]. To quot that: "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." That last part is the most relevant part here. [[User:Only|only]] ([[User talk:Only#top|talk]]) 23:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Second point, in regards to [[Special:Diff/640476847|this]], please see [[WP:DTTR]]. Thanks. -[[User:Porchcorpter|Porchcorpter]] <sup>([[User talk:Porchcorpter|talk]]|[[Special:Contribs/Porchcorpter|contribs]])</sup> 00:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry, with all of two prior entries on your talk page and no archive, I didn't look and see "regular". - [[User:SummerPhD|<span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span>]] ([[User talk:SummerPhD|talk]]) 01:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Just to actually note, I am going to discuss this on the talk page, third opinion, RFC, or something. But I'll remove this section, anybody want to discuss anything else, feel free to start a new thread. [[User:Porchcorpter|Porchcorpter]] 00:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:You're welcome to open a discussion on the talk page. It's too premature for an RFC as RFC is only used after other options (discussing on the talk page) are exhausted. Third opinion wouldn't work here because that's when it's a dispute between 2 editors. [[User:Only|only]] ([[User talk:Only#top|talk]]) 01:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
The whole point is that the revert to my addition was in fact performed '''two days later''', after my addition, and the user that had initiated this thread did not revert it themselves. If we are taking ''implications'' from sources, that '''''is''''' indeed true that we are in fact making our own conclusions, but that's only in some cases, in other cases they are different altogether. And also to note that [[WP:SYN]] is a section of [[WP:OR]]. In this case, the third ref, which is the show's theme song, had in fact the most of all and the clearest lines which stated that the character is a tomboy. The first two sources, however, might not be (good) enough though. Of everything, I am just curious as to why an implication does not provide good sources and is against [[WP:SYN]]. Because, as I said, only in some cases implications are efficient, and in other cases they are not. (Also, it states in a [[List of Atomic Betty characters|Wikipedia article]] that the character is a tomboy.) [[User:Porchcorpter|Porchcorpter]] 10:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)<br /> |
|||
One more thing: It's been said ''all over the internet'' that the character I included is a tomboy. And the sources stated or implied that that character that I included is a tomboy (i.e. ''behaving'' like a tomboy). So why is it unsuitable for Betty Barrett from Atomic Betty to be included in the article? [[User:Porchcorpter|Porchcorpter]] 03:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Please discuss the issue on [[Talk:List_of_tomboys_in_fiction#Synthesi|the article's talk page]]. Thanks. - [[User:SummerPhD|<span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span>]] ([[User talk:SummerPhD|talk]]) 04:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{discussion bottom}} |
|||
{{Ivmbox|Hello, Porchcorpter. Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2016|2016 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. |
|||
== Re: WP:FORMER == |
|||
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. |
|||
Hello, the list on that page contains the fifteen most-recently removed admins, regardless of their current administrative status. Because Boing! said Zebedee was removed from the list of former admins (however briefly), he is on the list of recently removed admins. '''[[User:Graham87|Graham]]'''<font color="green">[[User talk:Graham87|87]]</font> 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates|the candidates' statements]] and submit your choices on '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/399|the voting page]]'''. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Removed sections == |
|||
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/28&oldid=750606345 --> |
|||
==Not looking to be adopted any longer== |
|||
Hi Porchcorpter. I've removed a section from your userpage, and from your edit notice. They are not appropriate for Wikipedia. If there has been a problematic incident, you can contact me by email and I can advise you how to proceed regarding it. No matter what's happened though, tarring an entire section of the population with the same brush is never acceptable and strictly against Wikipedia policies. If you restore the section, I will be forced to block you. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<font color='#060'>talk</font>]]) 10:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks for the assistance. [[User:Kartano|Kartano]] ([[User talk:Kartano|talk]]) 22:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks, [[User:Worm That Turned|Worm]]. But I'd wonder why you removed those sections. I wasn't singling ''any'' editor out. I'm actually surprised you have a problem with me <s>thinking about female editors: can you explain how?</s> <small>(striking per below)</small> First of all: how is saying what I think about other editors on Wikipedia a problem? Sorry, about the difference between real-life appropriate behavior and Wikipedia appropriate confuses me. But in all this, are you seeming to have a problem in my talking about(s) and experiences in my points/opinions regarding female editors? |
|||
{{Talkback|Kartano}} |
|||
:But I'd like to ask you why you removed it from my edit notice. It's just a '''rule''' about how female editors should post on my talk page <small>(changed per below)</small>, can you explain what the problem/issue is? Sorry, but like I already said, there is a big difference with real life appropriate behavior and Wikipedia behavior. And, you're saying "''if there has been a problematic incident''" -- well, there is ''no'' problematic incident with ''any'' female editors, the ''only'' problematic incident is with this community. I've just implemented a section on my user page that reflects on nature and parts of this community. (I was going to take longer to add that section, and that section would appear ''much'' later, but because of you removing them ''and'' posting this on my talk page, I added that section sooner, just today.) |
|||
== Nomination for deletion of [[:Template:Newsubpagename]] == |
|||
:Cheers and thanks. But btw, I wonder if I could get back into mentorship. (I haven't been active, but just wondering.) [[User:Porchcorpter|Porchcorpter]] 06:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|30px|link=]][[:Template:Newsubpagename]] has been [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion|nominated for deletion]]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Template:Newsubpagename|the entry on the Templates for discussion page]].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> <big>[[user:q28|Q]][[user talk:q28|𝟤]][[special:contribs/q28|𝟪]]</big> 16:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Just to clarify, the biggest incident is that absurd 6-month block. After you a ''lot'' helped me improve, ''and'' become a great editor, did I do something even ''worse'' than wanting to become an admin? If I did, then what did I do. But you opened up an [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Different proposal|alternative]], stating ''very clearly'' that I made a ''whole lot'' of improvements, but your proposal got instantly rebutted. [[User:Porchcorpter|Porchcorpter]] 07:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | : |
||
:::Well, then. If it is "sexism", that indeed ''does'' make a lot of sense. I still don't think that adding those sections are inappropriate in any way, but sexism ''does'' make a ''whole'' lot of sense indeed. By the way, could you link me to the "sexism" policy/essays? |
|||
:::By the way, in everything else I've said about this community, I've forgotten how ridiculously the community thinks of me as "immature". I am most certainly ''not'' immature, and I very ''recently'' went to college. (Does college mean high school in the UK? If so, then tertiary education.) Even you [[User talk:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Porchcorpter#Reasons why other people think why Porchcorpter cannot become an admin|disagreed that I am immature]]. [[User:Porchcorpter|Porchcorpter]] 07:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::But because you implied "sexism", I'm very happy not to re-add those sections again. Cheers very much. [[User:Porchcorpter|Porchcorpter]] 07:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::Not to butt in, but I guess I'm butting in. |
|||
::::The relevant policy here would be [[WP:NPA]]. It says that "some types of comments are never acceptable", including sexist. Your comments said that "female editors" are "supposed" to act certain ways and that many "female editors" are inappropriate. Comments on Wikipedia are OK or not OK based what was said, not who said them. The sex, gender, ethnicity, race, religion, age, etc. of the person does not matter. - [[User:SummerPhD|<span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span>]] ([[User talk:SummerPhD|talk]]) 13:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
::::The policy I was thinking about was [[WP:POLEMIC]], but generally the [[WP:CIVILITY]] policy is where to look. I'm sure you'd like to dismiss SummerPhD's comments on NPA as "not-personal", but comments against groups of contributors do count, as it explains in the policy. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<font color='#060'>talk</font>]]) 08:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Worm, I think that you need to start being a bit more constructive with your criticisms. You have, for a while, been giving negative criticisms, and I think you need to start being more constructive with your criticisms in the future. (The recent section of my user page ''explains'' the difference between constructive feedback ''and'' negative feedback.) Also, to be honest, this section wasn't brought up assertively, it was ''more'' brought up aggressively. |
|||
:::::Just to actually note, [[WP:POLEMIC]] is one of the parts-of-a-policy that the community has been using ''many'' times to excuse themselves, and for what they do. As for [[WP:CIV]], it seems apparently that ''only'' inexperienced and irregular editors ''must'' be civil, while, on the other hand, experienced editors and regulars ''can'' be uncivil. Same thing with [[WP:AGF]] -- experienced editors and regulars ''can'' assume bad faith, but inexperienced and irregular editors ''must'' assume good faith at ''all'' times. This, ''apparently'', is ''really'' the way it has been happening. '''Policy is policy, and applies to everybody'''. |
|||
:::::Worm, in regards to you saying "dismiss NPA as not-personal". Well, when [[WP:NPA]] is said as "personal", it means to both: "person" and "people". Because it is called "personal", it means "''to any human''", hence why it is called "'''no personal attacks'''". If it were just called "'''no attacks'''", it would mean "''no attacks to both people and objects''". This is why [[WP:NPA]] ''applies'' to ''attacking'' ''both'': individuals ''and'' collectives. |
|||
:::::Note that in regards to the section that was removed from my userpage; the real truth is that the section had mentioned '''''about the community''''', and no, it did NOT mention ''just'' about ''only'' "female editors", the main thing was for it to mention ''more'' about 'this community' than ''actually'' "female editors", or ''anything else''. In regards to ''what'' the section mentioned '''''about''''' female editors, well, there are a different types of female editors -- two types: ancient and modern. Ancient female attitude and modern female attitude are two different types: ancient females are the more stereotypic type, and basically are the more snobbish, unkind, etc. types. While modern females, on the other hand, are the exact opposite: kind, unsnobbish, etc. (And when I say "ancient", I mean like a decade ago, NOT a century ago, and ''also'' not really a decade ago, but ''even'' later and earlier.) (Also, to note that age of the person ''does not'' matter, ''anyone'' can be ancient ''or'' modern.) But, the whole point about the section is that, it's ''not'' the female editors I'm actually worried about, it's ''actually'' more ''the community'' that I am more concerned with and about. Even more so, I don't care so much of this community, because of this community's ignorance of a lot of things. By the way, just a question, does Wikipedia actually use the ''ancient'' female attitude? Umm, well, actually you don't have to really answer that. (As I've said it's ''not'' the female editors here that I'm worried about.) But, as I've ''already'' stated, I will NOT restore the section, due to "sexism". |
|||
:::::Please also note that, whenever someone removes ''anything'' from my userpage, or brings something up on my talk page, it is '''not my problem''' that it was removed, or brought up on my talk page. It ''is the problem'' of ''those'' that ''did the action'', or brought it up. So, the ''only'' reason this is being discussed on my talk page is because the user that removed had opened it up here on my talk page for discussion. Else it probably wouldn't have been discussed. |
|||
:::::As in regards to policies here. [[WP:NPA]] is ''really'' the best policy here. I don't think [[WP:POLEMIC]] and [[WP:CIV]] even applies here, and I've even already said how the community uses [[WP:POLEMIC]] to defend themselves in various ways, and basically ''not'' seen well enough ''anymore''. In [[WP:NPA]], it states "''Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.''". While, on the other hand, [[WP:CIV]] states "''personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities''". |
|||
:::::By the way, with all this due respect, in Wikipedia '''right''' now, the community ''can'' act however they'd like (and do whatever they want). But, so to speak, ''if'' Wikipedia get's a successor, '''many''' things will be ''very'' different. Such as, while on the current Wikipedia the "sexist" things are not allowed. In Wikipedia's successor, on the other hand, they ''will'' be allowed. (And, as well, in fact, the successor will ''also'' elaborate on behavioral policies currently on the (current) Wikipedia, such as mentioning about ''these'' four behavioral responses, aggressive, passive, indirect, and assertive, ''and'' as well as mentioning constructive feedback '''''and''''' negative feedback (as explained in the new section of my user page).) Because, as I've already said in the recent section of my user page, there is a ''big'' difference with the English Wikipedia and the other wikis on the internet, including Wikimedia wikis. |
|||
:::::By the way, since ''many'' times this community has shown that they ''hardly'' know about many things, I probably should not be continuing this discussion ''any'' further. As the only problem here is that some see the section on my user page as an "attack" as being "sexist", and this ''probably'' amounts to [[WP:NPA]]. |
|||
:::::Also, Worm, this is what your comment should really have been like (''more'' assertive, and ''more'' constructive feedback, than negative feedback): |
|||
:::::<blockquote>Hi Porchcorpter. I'm just letting you know that I have removed a section from your user page, and also from your talk page edit notice. These things are not appropriate on Wikipedia. If you disagree or feel there has been a problematic incident, you can contact me by email. But do not restore the sections again, or I will have to block you.</blockquote> |
|||
:::::This should have been your comment -- more assertive -- clear, concise and targeted, and also ''very'' detailed. |
|||
:::::One more thing, Worm: you did ''not'' even state or specify ''which'' section you removed, and what it was about, etc. ''That'' is ''what'' you ''should'' have done. You also said "''against the policies''", again, without stating or linking to which policy/ies. |
|||
:::::Also, since I just noticed this comment is long, do not bother responding to this comment unless you read the '''''whole''''' comment. Anymore responses before I end this? Because I '''''am''''' going discontinue this section ''very'' soon. [[User:Porchcorpter|Porchcorpter]] 14:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 16:14, 17 July 2022
NOTICE: Are you really sure you want to post here? Well, if you do, the following policies, guidelines or essays apply to this talk page. Please make sure you comply with all of these policies, guidelines and essays. If you do not follow any one of these pages, your post will be labelled as such to one of these pages:
- WP:CIVIL
- WP:NPA
- WP:AGF
- WP:EQ
- WP:BOLD
- WP:WOLF#Legitimate criticism (must be followed, NOT WP:WOLF#Harassment)
- WP:ANC
- WP:BEAR
- WP:TNC
- WP:Mistakes
- WP:Punishing productivity
- WP:Questions allowed
- WP:How you edit
- WP:Peak usage
- WP:Saying something doesn't make it so
- And for some people (not all), WP:DBI
Please note that there are no archives for this talk page -- I got rid of them. So it is unlikely there will ever be an archive.
You are welcome not to sign your posts on this talk page. However, you must give a clear indication that it was you who wrote the comment.
Speedy criterion G7
[edit]Hi Porchcorpter, I contested your speedy deletion nominations because that criterion is for pages you created for which you are the only substantial contributor. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Seperated section (not related to this topic)
[edit]| Not related to this topic. We were talking about my G7 nominations. Porchcorpter 11:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Suggestion
[edit]Hi Porchcorpter. Can I suggest that editing your userpage to complain, regularly over the course of months, is not a productive use of your time? You've not made any Wikipedia edits in a long time - there are places where you can be of help, either through working on articles or helping to make Wikipedia a better place. Sitting here and brooding is no good for you and if that's all you want to do, I suggest you might want to quit. WormTT(talk) 10:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Helping to make Wikipedia a better place"? You might want to answer how others made Wikipedia a better place for me. Porchcorpter 11:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Btw I am using Meta for all this instead here. Porchcorpter 11:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
June 2016
[edit]
I'm truly sorry, Porchcorpter, but you are clearly not here to help us build the English language Wikipedia any more - your block expired four years ago, yet you are still doing nothing but complaining about what's bad about Wikipedia and how badly you believe you were treated. I think I am one of the most lenient admins on the project (though not as lenient as Worm), but even I cannot avoid the clear conclusion that enough is enough. This block is really aimed at helping you to put the past aside and move on with your life. You are clearly not suited to working in the Wikipedia environment, and I strongly urge you to forget about it and get on with your life in other directions - and I wish you well in your future endeavours. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just to note, this is where my mind was heading and the reason for my suggestion. I expect I would have blocked myself had any more grumbling appeared on your userpage. WormTT(talk) 18:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Porchcorpter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #16042 was submitted on Jun 27, 2016 03:01:11. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- To any reviewing admin who looks here, please see this Meta page in which Porchcorpter reiterates his inactivity policy on English Wikipedia. Remaining inactive and doing nothing to contribute to the project, but just using his user page to carry on a years-long stream of complaints, is not doing us or him any good at all. For his own good and for ours, he seriously needs to drop the stick and just go away. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Porchcorpter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #16070 was submitted on Jul 02, 2016 08:16:29. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Porchcorpter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #16073 was submitted on Jul 02, 2016 23:45:56. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Porchcorpter. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Not looking to be adopted any longer
[edit]Thanks for the assistance. Kartano (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nomination for deletion of Template:Newsubpagename
[edit]
Template:Newsubpagename has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q𝟤𝟪 16:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)