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.
And here you are again [1]. First time edit of an obscure article I've edited numerous times. As I pointed out earlier this month [2], you weirdly show up at articles I have edited and watch listed, articles you have never edited previously. Is it that you miss interacting with me and are looking for a response? Letting me know you're still watching what I edit? Poking the bear? What's the purpose? I don't believe you showing up at obscure articles out of your usual editing pattern and interests is by happenstance, coincidence. Please don't try gaslighting again by telling me I'm overthinking. Honesty is in your favor. It even creates an atmosphere where "letting it go" is much easier to do. Otherwise, as I pointed out in my previous comments to you on this subject [3], Occam is not your friend. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm too good a card player to do that when my hand is so good. But, if you wish, a stalemate is fine with me. Still, my eyes remain peeled. [5] Good day, A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
That comes across as a threat. Let me reiterate to you that unsupported accusations and threats such as you've made here are a form of personal attack per our civility policy. I've pointed that out to you before, and I've given you the benefit of the doubt for quite some time. At this point, I'll say move on, and I strongly suggest that you take that advice. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
It absolutely wasn't a threat. Think about it: if it was a threat, would I have linked my comment to a 1960s song by Little Peggy March? If it were this one [6], then you could have probably seen it as more in the threat category as well as creepy. "Don't overthink", BB. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Then stop trying to be cute with your comments - say what you mean, and mean what you say. Regardless, the "move on" applies. This is my TP, not yours, and I'll have the last word. No further comment on this is necessary (nor welcome). As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
You crack me up, dude. [7]. How you just happen to show up at articles you've never edited before, not too long after I do, reminds me of [8]. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Please don't
Based on the following [9], please don't utilize personal attacks in edit summaries, as you did here: [10]. Being mindful of such behavior in the future will be greatly appreciated as well as help minimize any feelings on my end about intent on your end to perpetuate animosity.[11] Thank you in advance. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
@Alaska4Me2: That's not a personal attack. Please re-read WP:NPA to understand the definition of a personal attack. If you don't understand what does or does not constitute a personal attack, ask for clarification. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
It does. I don't need to read the article, I know what it says, hence, the reason why I was able to link you to it. If I need clarification, I can read and re-read it myself as the article on the infraction is perfectly clear. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) It's obvious that you don't know what a personal attack is. If you are unable to take constructive criticism such as this, then maybe Wikipedia is not the right place for you. - ZLEAT\C19:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
ZLEA, it wasn't the "constructive criticism", it was the use of what has now become his trademark condescending tone when he communicates with me. A theme that has been kept running by Butlerblog for about nine months. Even so, since you seem to be going the same misdirected direction, I'll take this moment to remind you of the following: "On Wikipedia, all editors have fair and equal rights to editing all articles, project pages, and all other parts of the system. While some may have more knowledge or familiarity with a topic than others, this does not mean those with less Wikipedia jargon are at a lower level, or not entitled to their point of view." (quoted from WP:WikiBullying). And with that, I have nothing else to say on the subject. My point has been made here and there's no need to continue. Especially to wait for someone else to continue with a message like yours. A message that essentially says, "If you don't like it, leave". Civility remains as "part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars", doesn't it? Never forget that diversity is cool and there's room here for everyone. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Civility remains as "part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars", doesn't it? Yes, and part of civility is assuming good faith, which you have consistently not done for those nine months. When you have multiple editors telling you that you're wrong, maybe you should stop and consider the possibility that you actually are wrong. Never forget that diversity is cool and there's room here for everyone. This seems to have come out of the blue, but maybe there's something I missed. Do you believe Butlerblog has attacked you based on your race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc.? Or maybe I should be broad with my question. Has Butlerblog attacked you ad hominem, or have all these perceived attacks been in regard to your actions on Wikipedia? - ZLEAT\C19:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
This is a rather concerning response to a WP:CTOPICS notice. Given the long-running WP:AGF/AAGF issues and the apparent inability to distinguish between constructive criticism and personal attacks, it might be time to take this to WP:AN/I. - ZLEAT\C01:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes - thanks for catching that! Seems there was a change in the script yesterday that introduced a bug. I can clean it up based on the entries that are in the log. ButlerBlog (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I rolled back edits on the articles that were affected by the bug, debugged the AWB regex, and reran on the affected articles to reapply the {{Bare URL inline}} tag (this time, the URL is included). Things should be OK now going forward. ButlerBlog (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Your removal of Wikiproject Discrimination from pages
@Raladic: This was a case where there was a particular user mass adding articles to the project (and other projects). They were neither a participant in the project, nor did they have a good handle on article assessment (among other issues). If you're a participant (and or interested in the project) and you think that a particular article is of interest to the project, by all means, add it back in. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Let me add to that - I didn't include that in the edit summary as I did not see it as necessary to draw negative attention to the editor involved. So the edit summary I limited to identifying the non-contentious reason. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah ok, thanks for that extra context, makes sense. I'll see if there a particular article I care about that I feel like could keep it. Happy editing :) Raladic (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Serpent seed, Cain's descendants
I cited the book of Genesis as a source for the fact that Cain has no descendants living amongst humanity today, which is the entire theory the article is about. The reason the book of Genesis is a valid source for this is because the entire story of Cain's life is based purely on the book of Genesis, therefore since the same book less than 2 chapters later is clear about the fact that all of Cain's descendants were wiped out in the great flood its a valid source for the fact the entire theory is contradicted by the very book of Genesis Cain's life and existence is based on. The actual theory that humanity is divided into real humans and those who are descended from a half human half snake is itself a crackpot idea. But the entire purpose of this theory that there is a race of half human half snakes living among us is so that ignorant idiots can declare that Jews or Blacks or whoever else they hate is not actually human. So the lead is the proper place for readers to understand from the start that the theory is contradicted by the very book it is based on and is therefore factually false. The only additional citation that may be in order would be to provide the verse and chapter citation for the book of Genesis, however one can assume that the average reader is aware of the biblical story of the great flood. L69 (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@L69: Please keep things in one place - if you reply on your talk page, then keep it there. If you reply on my talk page, that's fine, too. But only do one or the other. I responded to this and your own talk page reply at your talk page. Thanks. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
