User talk:Prunesqualer

Archives (Index)

2021/May 2021/September 2021/November 2022/December 2023/November

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

/Archive 1

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 21 days for violating your article ban on Gaza War. Moreover, under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, I am hereby extending and expanding your topic ban to cover every article reasonably related to Israeli-Palestianian conflict, such ban is of indefinite duration.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Courcelles 19:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Welcome to the fascinating world of Wikipedia Editing

My beginners guide to surviving – Wiki Editing

At first, as an inexperienced editor, you may feel a little intimidated by the sheer mass of information involved in contributing to Wiki eg

• Policy statements, rules, regulations, and good conduct guides etc
• Editing technicalities (Wiki procedures for formatting text or adding citations etc)
• Abbreviations and jargon eg "WP:WORDS", "MoS" "NPOV" etc

That said, generally speaking, Wikipedia dose it's best to present a welcoming, helpful, and non threatening environment for the beginner. By reading a few help pages, and with a little perseverance, most new editors should be able to pick up the skills and understanding, necessary to make valid contributions, within only a short time. Most will find their Wiki experience to be enlightening and rewarding.

However Wikipedia does have a less cuddly side.

If you choose to edit articles which engage controversial, or contentious issues, you are likely to face a series of obstacles and bruising encounters. Most or my editing experiences have been in the field of "the Middle East conflict" (I happen to find that area fascinating). Articles concerning this issue, most certainly do come under the heading of "controversial, or contentious" (it is surly a contender for, the most fought over issue, on the whole of Wiki). My experience in contributing to these articles leads me to give the following advise about editing controversial articles - unless you are exceptionally thick skinned, have the mind of a lawyer, and the patience of a saint then - DON'T DO IT

Here are some of the reasons why you should steer clear of controversial articles;

The root of the problem is that; some editors working on these articles have strong opinions and agendas. In extreme cases these editors will have no regard for normal standards of fairness or balance in the article, and will feel no compunction about pushing an article, well to one side of what most informed neutrals would consider balanced. Their guiding principle is not "what is fair and balanced" but rather "what can I get away with". They use a verity of tactics in order to further their cause. Some may be used by determined editors working alone, but the most effective strategies require a significant number of editors working in concert. This, I suspect, has been achieved, in the case of the pro-Israel cause, by large scale recruitment and training programs (see the "Wikipedia subverted?" section on this page for more info on this). The basic objective of agenda driven editors is to maximise control over relevant article content.. This is achieved by;

• Persistent and maximal insertion of edits favourable to the cause (this may be seen as legitimate but in cases where cabals of enlisted and trained editors are involved this behaviour, is likely to, seriously unbalance an article).
• Persistent and maximal deletion/reversion of edits unfavourable to "the cause". Even when a contribution has been- scrupulously researched: properly cited: carefully worded: thoughtfully considered in terms of it's relevance, and overall effect on the balance of the article- there is still a very good chance that these people will revert it (an excuse can always be invented).
• Encouragement, facilitation and co-ordination with "on side" editors, whilst deterring "off message" contributors. Examples include: The insistence on consensus prior to contributing for "off message" editors, but not for "on side" ones. Where consensus is sought, on the relevant talk page then "off message" editors are often met with interminable, obtuse and irrelevant argument, or Wiki lawyering. Prominent complaints and threats of sanction are directed at "off message" editors for even minor infringements, but mild remonstrance and advice is given to "on message" transgressors.
• Where possible neutralising (eg getting blocked) editors who persist in making "off message" edits. Whether external pressure groups have succeeded in recruiting so-called 'stealth admins'" is a moot point, but even without help from "high up" it is certainly true that determined, experienced and potentially trained editors (see the "Wikipedia subverted?") will know how to play the system, far more effectively than inexperienced ones.

In short, if you edit on controversial articles for long enough you can expect to be reverted, run around the houses, bullied, sneered at and, if you aren’t extremely careful eventually sanctioned. No mercy will be shown. If you want to feel like the protagonist from a Franz Kafka novel then go ahead. Otherwise I repeat DON'T DO IT.

Please Note: these are personal observations and in no way representative of official Wikipedia policy.

Julian Assange

“What SPECIFICO said” is not very satisfactory.

Not my problem. Yours, perhaps, but not mine. --Calton | Talk 16:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Space between text and opening ref tag

Prunesqualer, I hesitate to raise what is admittedly a tiny matter of style, but I have noticed both in your edits of Julian Assange and your comments at Talk:Julian Assange a consistent extraneous space between text and opening <ref tags. Per MOS:REFSPACE, All ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space. Please consider this guideline in making future edits. Thank you. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Questionable edit at Julian Assange

Your edit today, in which you removed a word from a reliably sourced direct quotation, is unacceptable. Please do not continue to sabotage the Assange BLP in this way. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022I wonder did you see my talk page comment explaining the edit? as I said:

“As I mentioned earlier I now not happy with my edits which include Assange’s “crazed radical feminist ideology” quote followed by: “a view that he repeated in later interviews”. I now realise this is somewhat misleading as the other two known similar comments did have some differences - notably they did not say “crazed” (see above). So I’m removing the crazed part of the quote as the remaining “radical feminist ideology” is reflected in the other cited quotes. If someone prefers to take out the “a view that he repeated in later interviews” thus resolving the issue I’m fine - but we can’t say both and be true to the sources...”

As explained: you can either have the “crazed” word included or the “a view that he repeated in later interviews” you can’t have both and stay true to the source. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It is your edit PS that was untrue to the source. Please acknowledge Basketcase's point and find a way to correct your edit that will make it compliant with WP policies and practices for such content. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This [[1]] is an unacceptable attack on fellow users. Please remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Please remove it or I will report you, per wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't make personal remarks on article talk pages

On Assange, you continue to make personal remarks about other editors instead of discussing any issues you may wish to raise concerning their edits. Please read WP:TPG. If you continue this behaviour, you may be blocked from editing. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read what you refer to as my “personal remarks about other editors”. You accuse me of making “personal remarks about other editors instead of discussing any issues you may wish to raise concerning their edits” It seems plain that you are referring to my comments about your own edits. I would invite you to reread my comments wherein you will find I DO time and time again “discuss [... the]issues {I] wish to raise concerning [your] edits” (I invite other editors to review the editing record on this). Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Assange

You need to let talk page discussion proceed to give time and space for you to build consenus, if possible, for your preferred article text. There is never a valid reason to reinstate unsourced article text. Moreover, in talk page discussions, in order to reach a constructive consensus, you would need to respond to other editors' stated concerns. Mere repetition of your complaints is not responsive discussion of the issue of DUE WEIGHT. Please give a careful read to our page WP:NPOV and to WP:ONUS, which cover this. @Slatersteven: and I have commented on the article talk page. You have not made any substantive argument or gained any editors who argue that your edits were not UNDUE and failing VERIFICATION. I will ask you one time to undo your precipitous reinstatement of your edit and allow time for you to gain consensus on talk. I will also warn you that your behaviour over the past month or two is heading you for an enforcement action and a block or ban if you are not willing or able to slow down, stop personalizing your comments and attitudes, stop accusing and disparaging other editors and their work, and to work patiently and collaboratively. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO I appreciate you polite and measured tone here. I need to explain - you appear to be under a misapprehension regarding what you are calling my edit. If you check the version of the Assange page that was in place before my edit two days ago you will find it already contains the sentence: ” Assange commented that financial institutions ordinarily "”operate outside the rule of law,"” and received extensive legal support from free-speech and civil rights groups” In fact the edit is not as old as I first thought (not sure why I thought it a year+ old) however it dates from the 14th of April this year (it was made by Darouet | here ) - perhaps the fact that I slotted my new sentences in before it and moved one of the citations to behind my sentences made made you think it was in with my new material? Anyway as longer standing material it should probably stay till we get agreement and as stated on the talk page the information is properly sourced and citated Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

No, not when its clearly defective. There is no such "rule" and it shuts down article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Assange talk

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

SPECIFICO talk 09:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Unwelcome thanks

In the past two weeks, you have "thanked" me six times for my edits on ‪Julian Assange‬. Please stop doing so. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 I was tempted to click "thank" next to your edit here but not sure my sence of humour would be welcome. Have a nice day Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)