User talk:Butlerblog/Archives/2022/November

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Butlerblog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

• From the team: A new goose on the roost

• News and notes: Wikipedians question Wikimedia fundraising ethics after "somewhat-viral" tweet

• News from the WMF: Governance updates from, and for, the Wikimedia Endowment

• In the media: Scribing, searching, soliciting, spying, and systemic bias

• Disinformation report: From Russia with WikiLove

• Recent research: Disinformatsiya: Much research, but what will actually help Wikipedia editors?

• Interview: Isabelle Belato on their Request for Adminship

• Featured content: Topics, lists, submarines and Gurl.com

• Serendipity: We all make mistakes – don’t we?

• Traffic report: Mama, they're in love with a criminal

• From the archives: Paid advocacy, a lawsuit over spelling mistakes, deleting Jimbo's article, and the death of Toolserver

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:ALLINCLUDED

I'll be reverting your edits to the status quo ante. Please don;t make any more of these edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:ALLINCLUDED is for non-diffusing subcategories, which none of these are. This is not "an interpretation" of the guideline - the guideline on categorization is pretty clear. And this is not intended to "whitewash" anything - the article content is pretty clear as to who is a Nazi and who is not. Specific categorization does not change this. Again - categories are not "meta tags" - they are a hierarchy, and the article should be categorized to the most specific non-diffusing subcategory in the tree - not every category in the tree. ButlerBlog (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

WT revert

Your revert appears disruptive. The Internet Archive links prove current production dates in the episode countdown timer. Period. 2021, 2017. And you removed the edit linking the Wikipedia Garner Ted Armstrong article in the info box. Inexcusable. The links you object to in the article adds have nothing to do with the secondary sourced Internet Archive citations you also reverted. Inexcusable. Those are good citation sources under Wikipedia Rules. Correct your mistake, add the material back, or I will appeal your disruptive en masse edit and revert to this freshly updated content for admin review of your disruption. 24.227.67.36 (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

and your comments to take it to consensus at the talk page are not relevant as the talk page at this article is not accessible. your revert is disruptive edit warring. Period. Internet Archive is an acceptable Wikipedia source.

@24.227.67.36: Your tone is WP:BATTLEGROUND and could easily be interpreted as a personal attack. As I noted on your talk page, you are editing against consensus, and are essentially edit warring. I would recommend that you stop trying to force your edits and instead engage in some consensus building on the article's talk page first. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@@24.227.67.36: I do see that the article talk page is under partial protection, which is why you cannot edit there. I had not noticed that. If you have something constructive to discuss regarding the article AND if you can do so without being belligerent, you may do so here. I would be happy to explain to you why the sources you have provided did not meet criteria and what you can do about it. But if you don't back off with the attitude (i.e. "inexcusable" et al.), I will report you to WP:ANI and push to have the block restored. Keep it civil as that is a requirement here (see WP:CIVIL). ButlerBlog (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Buffs support

Coulda just left it. Too many people are insistent upon enforcing "hate speech" rules...and then they define "hate" as "anything I don't like". We need to push back against this. I'm not against blocking people for viable infractions (such as actual racist remarks, etc). As it stands now, with no pushback, it will morph into more restrictions. Without people to have the courage to say "I disagree with the 'punishment', but I don't agree with him", we will never get these things prevented. Buffs (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Buffs: FWIW, I think you're absolutely right. It's frustrating when the reason given for sanctions is a non-policy essay that doesn't actually even support how it is being used. ButlerBlog (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The World Tomorrow (radio and television)

In an edit summary, you suggested that the IPs currently trying to insert the "new" series take it to the talk page. I just thought I should note that they cannot, as the talk page is currently semi-protected, in order to avoid the ongoing efforts to delete some links from the discussion.

Having said that.. the IP edits seem similar to those of blocked sockmaster User:Garnerted. I just don't have the energy to put them up for investigation at the moment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Thanks - I hadn't noticed that, but now that makes sense in light of their comments. They did seem sockish to me. It's in my watchlist. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and now the article is also semi-protected: [1]. That should help for now. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)