Welcome!Edit

Hello, Bacondrum, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism?Edit

Be careful what you call "vandalism". This edit does not appear to be vandalism at all, and may indeed be accurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Appologies, I got it mixed up with the previous two edits. I'll be more careful in the future. Bacondrum (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Australia FirstEdit

No objection there. Though the (NSW) on the party registration suggests that it's something to do with whatever that infighting is, so if something about that can be sourced it could be useful to have the explanation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I'll have a look, see if I can find some references. I'll give it a little tidy up in that regard. Cheers.Bacondrum (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

See also sectionsEdit

Hey there. I know it wasn't intended, but you need to be a little careful with these sections. Australians Against Further Immigration may have been a far-right party, but that doesn't mean it's OK to list them as a "see also" under the Australian Nazi parties when there is no demonstrable direct connection between them. That implies that we are saying that AAFI is some kind of Nazi party, which is WP:POV and not verifiable. Some of the others are OK-ish (I have left AFP because of Saleam, and the Australia First Movement because it's the kind of thing someone might conceivable think of as an Australian Nazi party, although it wasn't). Frickeg (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, fair enough. I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Miguel Ángel Félix GallardoEdit

Hi, thanks for expanding the Family section. Would you be able to add reliable sources for each of the members listed? Regards MX () 19:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@MX: No worries, all sorted. Bacondrum (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I know we have clashed in the past (and may clash again in the future) but I have been so impressed with your recent posts at Talk:Fraser Anning. Your willingness to admit your mistakes and your hard work in seeking a compromise are certainly barnstar worthy! StAnselm (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Why thank you very much, I aim to do a lot more compromising and be a lot less combative. Thanks for your patience. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Lads Society Logo.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lads Society Logo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I find it all very confusing. I think I've filled it out properly now. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals)Edit

You moved the article 1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals) to Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 Act with the edit summary "The actual name of the act". I have reverted this move because every referendum in Australia has a consistent name: "YEAR Australian referendum (SUBJECT)". Find bruce (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Satan and Adam and Sterling MageeEdit

If he's notable enough for an article and you want to write it then go ahead and write it. But until you or someone else does so, the redirect to the duo group's article should remain. Please don't delete the redirect again, and don't add his link to the group's article until there is an article. And please don't remove the sources required maintenance template for the group's article. The article is almost entirely unsourced. It may not technically be a BLP. but it still needs a template., whether ti is a BLP or not. Just change it to a more appropriate template.. Meters (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I'll work on the article. I'll pop a more appropriate template on the article. CheersBacondrum (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, you've already done the template...I'll work on a Sterling Magee page.
Thanks. I look forward to reading it. Whether someone has an article is often more dependent on whether someone has taken an interest in writing one than in their relative notability. Meters (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I read that as meaning you were going to write article on Sterling Magee rather than improve the group's article. Either way, thanks. Meters (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries, I am working on the Sterling Magee page. Cheers mate. Bacondrum (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Any tips?Edit

This message is also dedicated to frequent political contributors Aquillion and Nblund.

I have been encountering a rising number of Wiki editors who are in the recent alt-right bandwagon of reactionaries. Anyways to deal with them? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey ImmortalWizard, obviously we should assume good faith, if people are gaming wikipedia or turning it into a partisan battleground you can report that behavior here, as it is disruptive editing - certainly, biased alt-right and reactionary edits need to be removed, as with all POV edits. You are welcome to ping me in on the talk page of any article that is being tendentiously edited by any side of politics and I'll have a look, but I would need to see specific edits before commenting. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
So, there's a lot of things to go over here. Obviously it's not against the rules for someone to be an alt-right reactionary! But if you suspect that an article is likely to be targeted by people trying to systematically push a POV on it, you can add it to your watchlist to keep an eye on it; you can also use WP:RFCs to attract outside opinions or places like WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN, WP:BLPN and so on. In extreme cases - when edit warring and the like has plainly disrupted a page - you might go to WP:AN3 or WP:RFPP. And of course it's always important to acquaint yourself with core content policies like WP:V and WP:RS, as well as policies that often come up in these sort of conflicts, like WP:DUE, WP:BLP and WP:FALSEBALANCE. (Edit conflict: Bacondrum recommended WP:ANI. I would suggest that only as a last resort or in extreme cases. It's not generally there to resolve simple content disputes, but for serious conduct issues. You'll have better luck identifying what you find objectionable about a contested edit and going to the appropriate noticeboard for that policy. For conduct issues you might also consider WP:AE if the conflict is in a topic area that has an arbcom remedy on it - which includes all post-1932 American Politics articles - and the other person has received an appropriate AE warning in the past. But note that in both WP:ANI and WP:AE, there is often blowback if you lack clean hands yourself, especially if the administrators there feel you're trying to game the system by resolving a content dispute via getting the other party removed for conduct reasons. Most of the time you're better off focusing on the relevant content policies.)
Assuming you know all of that and are asking for deeper advice about how to navigate that situation... the same issue applies in that it's not necessarily useful or healthy to see yourself as specifically dealing with editors pushing a particular POV, and I don't just mean because of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:AGF, or other policy-based reasons, although all of those are important. What you have to realize is that regardless of the views or politics driving them here, a lot of the users who cause the most problems (especially, perhaps, in the way you're thinking of) come here spoiling for a fight. Part of dealing with this - while also retaining your own mental health, energy, and sanity - is to avoid giving it to them. Avoid fireworks and dramatic back-and-forth on talk pages. Focus on policy and content, not users. If they refuse to engage on policy and content, use WP:RFCs and the boards outlined above to call in people who will care about policy. (Another advantage to relying on those systems is that it avoids turning yourself into a target and helps ensure that you haven't let your own view of the situation bias you by bringing in second opinions.) If they're willing to engage on policy and content grounds, grit your teeth and use the policy to work out an acceptable compromise. Don't get pulled too deeply into disputes over minor details - this is one reason to focus on policy and not editors, since it becomes easy to get drawn into a pointless dispute over minutiae when you prime yourself to view everything an editor does as questionable. This doesn't mean you have to ignore signs that an editor is WP:NOTHERE - WP:AGF isn't a suicide pact - but even then, it's helpful to keep the policy in mind rather than the editor. And, of course... sometimes, at the end of the day, you'll find the sources and the policy supports them. Don't dig in in situations like that; it's pointless (although if you have a nagging sense that something is wrong regardless, sometimes it can be useful to step back and look at the situation from another angle; sometimes the real problem isn't what you initially thought it was. And sometimes you'll find the person you were in a dispute with doesn't even object to approaching it from another angle - another reason why it's important to avoid pigeonholing editors.) Generally, remember that if you're worried about Wikipedia being flooded by people with a particular POV, the best thing you can do isn't to burn yourself out aggressively trying to fight them, but to just keep editing normally, as yourself. Just having editors who are willing to edit constructively in controversial areas with a cool head, enforcing policy without burning out, is enough to prevent the problems you're worried about. --Aquillion (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey @ImmortalWizard: I'm on a Wikibreak while I finish a dissertation, so I'll just briefly second everything Aquillion said above. I would especially highlight the advise to seek outside input from noticeboards and RFCs when you're facing a difficult situation. Getting more people paying attention to a page really makes sustained POV pushing difficult, and new eyeballs may catch additional issues and make further improvements. Nblund talk 15:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Quick explanationEdit

I've included a more explanatory edit summary here regarding removing the redundant phrasing added by Kingerikthesecond. I can also include it on the article talk page, but it seems a minor thing.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for explaining the reversion. Bacondrum (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:NACADEMICEdit

Re this, WP:NACADEMIC has absolutely nothing to do with source reliability. VQuakr (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It relates to notability, which in turn relates to reliability - Please read the guidelines. Bacondrum (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Reading about the author of relevant citation, I got the impression that this may be an honors thesis or some such, they've published nothing else that I can find. I don't know where you are from, but here in Australia more than 56% of the population would potentially qualify as a reliable academic source if the bar was set so low. Bacondrum (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
That is a concern about reliability, not notability. Again, notability has nothing to do with reliability and your handwave to "read the guideline" is unhelpful. VQuakr (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be helpful, you came to me with this issue. Notability informs reliability and you'd know that if you bothered to read the guidelines. As in this case, the author is not notable,, they are an unknown quantity, they are therefor not a reliable source. We know absolutely nothing about the author, they may be a habitual liar or a certified loon for all we know. Simply being published or completing post-grad studies does not make one an authority or a reliable source, that's why academic sources need to be authored by notable academics not just ya mate who got a doctorate from Universidad Virtual Latinoamericano or the Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective...plus the "journal" that published this seems to be a wordpress blog. This is a stupid debate, I'm done discussing it. You want to challenge the edit, then go for it. Bacondrum (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Media Bias/Fact CheckEdit

Hi Bacondrum, I noticed your comment in the Taki's Magazine RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard (Special:Diff/906440757) that referred to Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry). Since most editors consider Media Bias/Fact Check generally unreliable, your argument would probably be stronger if you didn't mention this site or if you referred to a more reliable source instead. Cheers! — Newslinger talk 04:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

You shouldn't rush things to WP:ANI so much.Edit

I noticed this and thought I should shoot you a line. Unless you're dealing with very clear-cut cases, WP:ANI is sort of a last resort; by posting something like that there, you're basically asking them to sanction or remove a user, which requires a lot of discussion and difficulty for long-standing users. Disputes over content are better taken to appropriate boards - in this case WP:AN3 if you think it's a 3RR / 1RR violation (although he self-reverted quickly, so they wouldn't do anything), WP:BLPN for BLP issues, WP:RSN for source issues, WP:NPOVN for NPOV issues, etc. Even if you feel an editor's conduct is a problem (which usually requires proof of problems over an extended period of time for established users), you're usually better off taking it to WP:AE - it's still difficult and has a risk of WP:BOOMERANG, and you'll have to identify which discretionary sanction you think is being violated (there's one for post-1932 American Politics in general), but it's more specific than WP:ANI. Although more generally in this particular case it's also worth knowing when to just let things go... just a quick nose count on the talk page shows a four-to-one consensus against you. Often it's better to just drop the issue at that point, especially if you don't think it's a huge deal. If you do want to continue in that sort of situation, the next thing to do would probably be to open an WP:RFC or to raise the issue at one of the content boards I mentioned, but I don't think you'd be likely to prevail; sometimes it's better to just drop it and move on. --Aquillion (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I realised I was letting my frustration get the better of me and it was a silly thing to do. Thanks again. Bacondrum (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, generally speaking, on longstanding, high-traffic controversial articles like Alt-Right... people tend to react badly if you make massive changes with no discussion first. WP:BOLD is policy, sure, but you should also consider WP:BRD - restoring a bold change after someone has objected is only going to make it harder to convince people. More generally, you should probably try and focus more narrowly on what you feel are the most important things that need to be changed, and argue for those; it's hard to convince people to accept massive sweeping changes to an article all at once, since you're basically stepping on everyone's toes at the same time. --Aquillion (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2019

(UTC)

I hear you, and I take your comments seriously. I guess it's just frustrating to see such a dodgy article and not be able to make good faith edits, maybe I should just leave Wikipedia alone. As for old mate, I'd gladly discuss the edits, but old mate refuses to discuss them. Bacondrum (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that more generally you need to be willing to walk away from disputes that clearly aren't going your way, haha. At least for a little while (sometimes the other people involved cool down or lose interest and you can come back later to try an alternative approach then.) Definitely trying to open a subsection about BMK on the ANI report was a mistake - yeah, sure, they're being a bit too aggressive too, but from ANI's perspective you hardly have clean hands in that respect yourself at this point, so the most likely outcome if they do anything is to topic-ban both of you - or just you, because you're the newer user and don't have a reputation for anything there except showing up in ANI reports again and again, which isn't going to endear you to anyone. Basically the last thing you want to do is escalate things - you're better off trying to let things cool down, maybe proposing a few compromises on talk with regards to the parts you feel are most important or swinging back once other people have cooled down, too, to try again from a more conciliatory start. If you look at eg. the talk section on Causal Factors it didn't take much to get a rough discussion on a possible compromise going. Also, you should go over WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF - yeah, other people are getting a bit snippy with you, but it's important to keep a stable head and avoid getting too accusatory against people unless you're absolutely sure you can back up any conduct allegations you make (and if you can, you're better off taking them to WP:AE and laying them out in blandly formal language.) Remember that the users you're arguing with are also some of the ones you're generally going to have to cooperate with and convince of stuff if you want to get major changes through controversial pages without having it be a huge struggle every step of the way, so even if they're annoying you it's best to stay polite and avoid burning bridges if at all possible. --Aquillion (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thanks again, and thanks for being patient with me...and of course, you are correct, I think I’ll just stay away from US politics completely in the future and I’ll avoid ANI reports. Cheers mate Bacondrum (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Please note these special rules for American politicsEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Bishonen | talk 11:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC).

A "retaliatory edit"...Edit

...is one made by an editor in retaliation for an edit or edits made elsewhere. Nashhinton made some very bad contributions on other articles, which I reverted or edited, and in retaliation, he scrolled through my contribution list and arbitrarily reverted some of my edits, without regard for their value, and without particularly caring whether the edit improved the article or not, i.e. pure retaliation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you are making personal attacks and edit warring to me. Bacondrum (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Then you are wrong. Nishhinton has just been warned by an admin for retaliatory editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I don't know you, so maybe I am wrong, but all I have to go on is what you have written on wikipedia. Maybe you shouldn't go around nit picking about indentation, accusing others of being right-wing (an insult that I consider to be at the extreme end of egregious), whitewashing, being POV editors, asking that they be blocked, accuse others of POV pushing, being a sock puppet etc...and those you've defamed, attacked and besmirched might be more inclined to believe you. Bacondrum (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

RSNEdit

It was a problem with Template:Collapse bottom, not your edits. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh thank goodness. Cheers

Call-out culture disputeEdit

Regarding User:Bacondrum call-out culture Revision
Topic: Edit War/NOR/PS Claim
Edit Disputed: [22:15, 12 August 2019] vs [22:09, 12 August 2019‎]
Edit Summary: "Not a reliable source/primary source/original research/edit warring. Please stop, I don't want to report you. Take it to talk and work towards consensus."


Disputed Edits and References:
1. "...usually by means of amassing large, aggressive followings on social media.[1]"
2. "Due to the swift and frantic nature in which such movements typically rise, call-out culture and its variants are often attributed to mob mentality.[2]"

Dispute: Revisions and associated references provided are no less WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS than following references featured in article: [3][4][5][6]

Conclusion: Given time between revisions, User:Bacondrum did not review source material in its entirety before undoing edits, and is failing to follow WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:EW guidelines.

Suggestion: Provide justifiable reasoning for dispute by WP guidelines and display good faith in attempting to reach consensus. Otherwise, a report will be submitted.

ASKWik Hi, you're going about this the wrong way. I agree the primary sources that you have listed and related assertions should be removed. However, the consensus was to keep them, if you want to start a discussion about their removal on the relevant talk page, I'd most likely support that proposal.
Regarding your suggestion about submitting an ANI, you are free to do so, but take some friendly advice from an editor that has had to learn the hard way...you will most likely end up being sanctioned, you've repeatedly reverted to your preffered content after your edit was challenged and not made any attempt at reaching consensus. I have assumed good faith, however you have not, accusing me of bias - I'm not upset about it, but it will work against you in any ANI report, believe me I've been there.
I personally think the article could use more pruning rather than expansion at this point, it relies too much on primary sources/opinions pieces like the ones you pointed out and the one you added to support your original research. serious academics just haven't really weighed in, it's a throwaway neologism that may end up being deleted due to a lack of notability.
I've contested your edit, you need to take it to talk, if you keep re-adding the same material you'll almost certainly receive a block. And I'd strongly urge you to reconsider making a report yourself, it will most likely boomerang.
Best regards
Bacondrum (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

____

References

  1. ^ Wayne, Rachel (12 January 2019). "The Problem with Call-out Culture". Medium. Retrieved 12 August 2019.
  2. ^ Ashman, Sairah (22 July 2019). "'Wokeness' In The Age Of The Twitter Mob: How Brands Can Navigate Cancel Culture". Medium. Retrieved 12 August 2019.
  3. ^ Bromwich, Jonah Engel (28 June 2018). "Everyone Is Canceled". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 March 2019.
  4. ^ Glaser, Eliane. "With "cancel culture" political correctness has indeed gone mad".
  5. ^ "Pavlik Morozov Is the Patron Saint of Cancel Culture". 2 July 2019.
  6. ^ "Cancel Culture Comes for Counterculture Comics". 29 April 2019.

MELEdit

I'm not saying it's a great source, but it has editorial oversight and passes what appears to be the basic requirements. It seems on par with Jezebel. I'm not saying I like it, just that you can claim it to be flatly non-RS and remove it. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to squabble over it...it's just so trashy, I wouldn't trust anything published in it. We'll see what other editors have to say. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Jim Saleam source inclusionEdit

I doubt we will reach consensus. I will post my reply later; if indeed we cannot, I will be forced to escalate the dispute to a third party. AwakenedWorld (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC) I've spoken too soon! Glad we were able to make something work. AwakenedWorld (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Me too, Cheers mate! Bacondrum (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

ANIEdit

Taken to ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

BLP discretionary sanctions alertEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned on ANI, you are hereby warned that further BLP violations will almost certainly result in sanctions (whether discretionary or otherwise). Thanks. El_C 23:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Noted, thanks, it won't happen again. Bacondrum (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

My postsEdit

Regarding this, do not touch my posts again! Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 You are accusing me of bias, it's a personal attack. The RFC is about the lede, not me. You should be focused on content. I'm not going to be subject to personal attacks. If you really feel that kind of attack is acceptable then take it to an admin. I'm going to remove every time you reinstate it. I'm not a biased editor and I'm beyond sick of you calling me one. Bacondrum (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
This is why I am arguing to remove that content: "Much of the last paragraph is undue detail, who cancelled contract, details of his attempts explain his child abuse comments can be found in the body, the lede is supposed to summerise." your claims I have other motives are a personal attack. I know what my motives are better than anyone, this is a ridiculous argument. Bacondrum (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussionEdit

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bacondrum reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

BlockEdit

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violating the 3 revert rule, yet again. That was not a personal attack, maintaining that there was bias in your argument. You really ought to have gotten clarifications about that before violating 3RR for the third time. Now, I am also about the to use discretionary sanctions to article ban you from anything to do with Milo Yiannopoulos, unless you have some pretty convincing arguments to the contrary. Today's developments, also in regards to that subject and BLP again (yes, I realize you ended up redacting that, but still), simply do not inspire confidence. Frankly, I'd hoped you would voluntarily take a break from that subject. That would have been the prudent thing to do. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 23:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

El_C Alright, so rules about focusing on content rather than other editors and rules about calling other editors biased are not enforced. Editors are allowed to insult and gang up on others? Wikipedia is a joke. I won't be back. Bacondrum (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. But someone is allowed to say that one's argument is driven by emotion rather than logic. That is not a personal attack, or even much of a personal comment (because personality isn't being addressed — rather, the soundness of an argument is). El_C 00:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
For example: your argument suffers from bias — not a personal attack. You are a biased person — personal attack. El_C 00:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban from Milo YiannopoulosEdit

Hi. Because of this comment (brought to my attention on my talk page here), you are now topic banned from Milo Yiannopoulos, broadly construed, for six months. If you wish to appeal this restriction, please review the relevant procedure at WP:AE. Thank you in advance for your close attention. El_C 21:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging?Edit

I thought only `{{ping|...` actually pinged the users. In the Talk page I used `{{u|...`. Does that also ping them? SridYO 22:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Yep, they both do the same thing. Bacondrum (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I guess I have to stick to `[[User:...`. SridYO 01:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
There's no need to link to users unless you intend to ping them. Bacondrum (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Indentation changesEdit

Why are you making these indentation changes to my comment? I put them at the same level as yours for reason--as my comment was not specifically a response to yours. SridYO 01:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Legibility. Bacondrum (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Removing text from article without stating why in diff messageEdit

Be careful of removing nearby text (by accident or not) from an article when making an edit to something else. I had to revert your (possibly accidental) removal here.[1]. —Srid🍁 21:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Be careful using tendentious claims and phrases. We are not here to make the left or the right look as unreasonable as possible or bang on endlessly about women and feminists. Bacondrum (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I was not (otherwise, I'd fix it myself). It is direct quote from the source. Discuss it in the talk page. —Srid🍁 21:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
You added the tendentious language, you need to justify it. You need to take it to talk. Bacondrum (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019Edit

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You are right, sorry...I'll stop immediately and take it to talk. Bacondrum (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

FeminaziEdit

You are advised to take a break from substantially editing Feminazi while the DRN process is in effect. —Srid🍁 23:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

By you?!? Hahahaha! Bacondrum (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussionEdit

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding Dispute resolution initiation. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Feminazi".The discussion is about the topic Feminazi. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! —Srid🍁 02:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

...for your kind words. I guess I have to act respectable now ;-) —Sangdeboeuf (talk)

Haha, don't be too respectable! You're welcome. Bacondrum (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019Edit

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Feminazi. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

DS Reminder - Gender Related TopicsEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is listed on the article talk page of Feminazi, but I want to ensure you get a direct notice to ensure it's seen. Please let me know if you have any questions. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry for edit warring, again. Bacondrum (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos topic ban violation — only warningEdit

El_C 00:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines -- other editors' commentsEdit

Hello, Bacondrum. About this and this: I would request that you not remove other editors' comments from article talk pages. It's a violation of talk page guidelines to do so. It's true that sometimes other editors might not be as civil, and focused on content, as they should be. But removing their posts is not a good approach. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Mudwater (Talk) 00:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Mudwater Uncivil comments like that are to be removed. They are a violation of policy. Read up WP:PERSONALATTACKS If the editor wants to readd comment without snide remarks or personal insult they are free to do so. Bacondrum (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I can see why you didn't like the other editor's comments that you removed. They could have been phrased more respectfully. But they were not personal attacks, as described in WP:PERSONALATTACKS. I would therefore ask that in the future you not remove those types of comments. Mudwater (Talk) 12:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

On Talk:Bruce PascoeEdit

Likewise, on Talk:Bruce Pascoe. I do not approve of some of the language either, but, per WP:TPO, I do not think it appropriate to edit the posts. If you honestly believe that some of their material is sufficiently WP:NPA to warrant deleting (and I personally do not think it is) then replace it with something explicitly indicating that it has been edited. E.g. "Lorem ipsum [personal attack redacted by Mitch Ames (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)] anim id est laborum."

Relevant links:

  • Bacondrum editing other people's posts: [2][3][4]
  • Reversion by HiLo48: [5]
  • Reversion by me: [6]

Mitch Ames (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging HiLo48, who was mentioned but not linked above. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Mitch Ames Removing uncivil content is a must, swearing and calling other editors a "bunch of leftists" is a clear, serious blatant violation of WP:CIVILITY and is a WP:PERSONALATTACK and must be removed immediately, I'm going to remove the offending statments as per guidlines, I will use (Personal attack removed) as you recommend. If the offending content is again reinstated I will take it to ANI and the users will most likely receive a block. Bacondrum (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I have not looked at everything, but certainly some of what you have removed are  not a personal attacks, as user:Mitch Ames has already pointed out to you. User:El_C has also made a similar the point to you about what is and is not a personal attack. Have you asked the other editor to address what you consider the uncivil comments? Per WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL "It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment." If you continue to remove comments that are not personal attacks you may end up in trouble yourself. Your claim that "removing incivility uncivil comments is a must" is wrong, as is your claim that swearing is a personal attack. Meters (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Meters"You're the one linking the debate about his heritage to the credibility of the book, not me." The fucking article YOU told us to read did the fucking linking! Not"....You think that is civil? I certainly don't, nor is calling other editors a bunch of leftists Shall we take the editors to ANI? Or shall we just redact the personal attacks? Redaction would be my preference. Bacondrum (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Where did I say it was civil? What I said was that some of the things you are removing are not personal attacks,, and that you are wrong when you say that removing uncivil comments is a must. Meters (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
At least three editors have made comments to you that you are incorrectly labeling uncivil comments as personal attacks. You might want to listen. Meters (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay revert to the "fuck" this and "fuck" that version with the "bunch of leftists", and I'll report those editors. I thought civility mattered, but apparently not. Bacondrum (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
It's time I said my piece here. (Thank you for the ping Mitch Ames.) Yes, I swore. It was for effect, because the IP editor I was addressing has become the rudest, most irritating, most repetitive, most unthankful, most incompetent, most illogical and most insulting person in that discussion, and I genuinely was trying to get some attention on his behaviour. When he first appeared, I actually gave him a formal welcome on his Talk page. I also gave him a more personal welcome, explaining how indenting works and how important it was for him to do better on that front. I explained how important it was for him to register, and suggest he broaden his wings by working on some other articles. This all done in good faith on my part. All I got in return was insults. He now sometimes seems to try to indent, but almost invariably gets it wrong. He comments in the wrong place. He routinely insults other editors, including me, despite the help I gave him at the beginnings of that discussion. Nothing is being down about this editor's behaviour. I know some people don't like swearing, but don't kid yourselves that view is universal. I was once in job where colleagues asked why I didn't swear as much as everybody else in that workplace. As for my comment being a personal attack, that's male cow manure. Bacondrum removed it, with an aggressive threat. I have restored it, but removed the naughty words, and a little bit of emphasis by punctuation. No other words have been changed. What I have written there is truthful and honest, and a logical continuation of the conversation. I challenge anyone to look at that sentence now and declare that it is a personal attack. If someone can, I will edit the sentence some more. But Bacondrum, don't pretend you care about civility. That IP editor shows none! HiLo48 (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
And this is why I removed the comments, the discussion is being sidetracked by uncivil behavior. Bacondrum (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I repeat, I have removed the naughty words, and nothing more, which is what you could have done, rather than much more dramatically changing my wording and stuffing up the flow of conversation. You also did nothing about the appallingly overwhelming, overall uncivil behaviour of that IP editor. I challenge anyone to look at my sentence now and declare that it is a personal attack. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: while I agree that civility is important, we do need to clearly distinguish between incivility and personal attacks. WP:TPO allows removal of personal attacks, but it "generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil". It also states that "you should stop if there is any objection". Given the objections listed above, it would probably be prudent not to make any further edits to others' comments. A discussion on the editors' talk pages might be more productive. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Not when the actual problem is the behaviour of that IP editor. HiLo48 (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: Hey, yes I see your point and won't remove uncivil comments unilaterally in the future. I have tried both users talk page, but it's beenn to no avail, as you can see from mthe above comment. I'm just going to leave it as HiLo has voluntarily redacted the "fuck" this and "fuck" that parts. I hope you can see my intent was good, the two of them have been disruptive with this overly heated exchange. HiLo is generally a very agreeeable editor, so I tend to agree that the IP editor is most likely the issue here - though HiLo could temper their responses. Bacondrum (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You really do seem overly sensitive to the use of a couple of naughty words said in response to t=some of the worst behaviour I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time. Your comments suggest that you regard naughty words as worse than everything our IP editor has done. That won't help build a better encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Come on, you're usually much more reasonable than this. I agree with everything you've said on the talk page, I just want to take the heat out of the discussion. As for swearing? I love swearing, in the real world I'd win the swearing Olympics, I truly love swearing - I punctuate every sentence with swearing. But it's not appropriate in this context and your only adding to the disruption of civil debate by swearing at the IP, yes they are disruptive and as I've said, I've always found you to be an agreeable editor, but we are meant to discuss the content not each other. I've no issue with you at all, the IP's behavior is egregious, but we can hardly tell them off for being uncivil and just let "fuck" this and "fuck" that pass can we? I was going to report the IP but I didn't out of not wanting to put you in it too, because an admin looking at that dispute would probably sanction you over the swearing. We've always gotten along, no need to turn on each other over a lunatic fringe IP whom consensus is firmly against anyway. Bacondrum (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Please don't elevate your opinions to the top of an RfC, out of time orderEdit

It is inappropriate to insert a "Note" with your opinion at the top of an RFC when other people have previously given their opinions above where you would like yours to be. I have moved your comment on Talk:Murder of Laquan McDonald down to where it would appear naturally. Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

DIYeditor They're relevant guidelines, not my opinion. Other editors should be informed of relevant guidelines. Bacondrum (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
No it is totally out of line to think your opinion is so important you need to plaster it ahead of everyone in the RFC. Most people replying to RFCs reference guidelines, policies, precedents. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I wont do it again. Bacondrum (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Aggressive edit summaries at Bruce PascoeEdit

I appreciate your edits but not your edit summaries here and here. The infobox should only reflect what's in the article and it wasn't there at the time, so I cleaned it up. I was in the middle of several other re-organizing edits to improve the article and had not gotten around to checking those individual awards yet.

There's really no need for aggressive wording like don't butcher it because you can't be bothered checking. Thanks for your edits and have a nice day. — MarkH21talk 08:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the harsh words, but this page has been subject to a lot of tendentious edits, and you did cut easily verifiable facts that other editors had taken the time to add in good faith. Nothing personal, sorry again for the harsh tone. Bacondrum (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited No Safe Spaces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

My thinkingEdit

Bacondrum, I know we haven't agreed on much but I thought I would try to explain my thinking on topics like Quillette via an example. Take a topic like the NRA. That article is a mess in part because many editors want to pile on controversy after controversy. Well to some extent that makes sense. Most discussion relating to the NRA in the press is talking about the NRA obstructing some "common sense" gun law or opposing some politician they don't like or how much influence they have on elections etc. The current NRA article totally fails to help a reader understand why the NRA does these things. It's easy to assume the NRA opposes say an assault weapons ban because "the gun lobby paid them off". Logically it makes sense: new law -> fall in gun sales -> gun makers give less money to NRA -> NRA opposes law. But what about other laws (expanded background checks, red flag laws, gun registries, etc). The article doesn't say a thing about why the NRA would oppose those laws. Given the large amounts of money and political capital spent by the NRA one has to assume there is some logic behind what they do even if we don't agree with it. The readers of the NRA article are better served if they come away understanding why the NRA opposes things, not just that they do. Going back to the Quillette article, I think what is most important is that the controversies come from the publication's willingness to allow people to publish, within reason, unpopular ideas. Once we understand that, its easier to see some of the results. Since the editors aren't experts in every field, sometimes they will let a really controversial idea through, sometimes others will want to target them for wrong speak (the DDoS attack after the Google memo, the hoax that targeted the publication). Anyway, I didn't mean this to be so long so I'll wrap up. What I would hate to see (anywhere on Wikipedia) is an article that is a laundry list of sins as if we editors just want to say how bad someone or something is. What I would much rather see is an article that explains the warts but focuses on how/why the warts got there. I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from... in 2000 words or less :D Springee (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee Hey mate, thanks for the detailed explanation of your reasoning. And thanks for keeping civil despite seriouslydiffering opinions. I agree with most of what you're saying, and I agree tendentious editing on many contemporary "culture war" articles leaves many looking like a dogs breakfast (one of my pet hates also). I don't want this article to be a list of sins, but it can't obfuscate the fact that this outlet has a shocking reputation among many readers and professionals in the field. We have very different views of Quillette. For me the publication does not allow people to "publish, within reason, unpopular ideas" - it publishes yellow journalism, from a intensely partisan perspective. The only reason I've heard of it is quite frankly the poor quality of the journalism it puts out, the fact that it's published an inordinate amount of falsehoods and pseudoscience for such a recent publication - I don't expect the article to reflect my personal view of it, but the way I read the sources there are many commentators and critics who see it as a disreputable and unreliable outlet, even Wikipedia lists it as unreliable. Several members of my immediate family are journalists, I've worked for newspapers myself for many years, I can tell you that it's not normal for a reputable masthead to publish falsehoods and pseudoscience, editors take this stuff very, very seriously, their careers depend on it. Publishing falsehoods and pseudoscience is not "wrong speak" it's reputation destroying incompetence, at best. As far as I'm concerned leaving out the falsehoods and pseudoscience would be obfuscation of the highest order. I obviously see it very differently to you, but I respect your views and your efforts to improve the page, it's clear you are aware of your bias and try to mitigate it, as do I. Hopefully we can strike a balance. Bacondrum (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I know we have been arguing like cats and dogs. I didn't come here for that. I wanted to offer what I hope are a few helpful suggestions that are just Wikipedia things I've picked up over the years. The first, is to try to avoid using the same headings/subheadings on a talk page. This happens a lot on things like noticeboards where people have RfCs. It's very comment to have a Survey and Discussion section. The Wiki hot links aren't very smart so if there is more than one Survey section it always goes to the first. That's why I changed the name of your RfC. I won't take any offense if you want to change the name to something else. The other thing is when starting a RfC we can't just ask for "outside" editors. All editors are welcome to comment. There is actually some merit to getting a few involved editors to comment first as well. As involved editors you and I both have opinions and reasons why we support our positions. It helps new people to the discussion to see both of those positions up front as a primer for things they might overlook. It means we get better feed back. To that end, when formulating a RfC, it's typically a good idea to have your !vote and rational ready since you want to set the state for the rest of the discussion. The RfC question needs to be neutral and, depending on the case, closed ended. However, we will ultimately get a better answer if "the locals" also weigh in. Also, if all the locals didn't weigh in and only say 6-7 editors offered opinions, well it wouldn't be clear if a new consensus actually was established. I hope you don't mind this feedback. Springee (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thankks for the feedback. And yes we have been arguing like cats and dogs, but I feel like we've been generally respectful despite our frustrations, so thanks for keeping it civil despite serious disagreements. Sorry for reverting your comment, you have every right to have your say, obviously. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Springee, that's a fine statement there. Our best articles have always been forged through respectful disagreement, IMO. I am beginning to think that this article would be improved by removal of a couple of gadflies and letting you guys get on with it. Guy (help!) 09:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)