Older warnings and/or other comments on this page have been removed, but are still viewable in the page history.
What is expected of Wikipedia editors
While the community does not expect many things of Wikipedia editors, there are still a few expectations here. Among these expectations is that an editor will listen to and work with others, gain an understanding of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and always assume good faith of their peers. Civility and etiquette are the bedrock of discussions and cooperation on Wikipedia, and the policies and guidelines provide a common framework of good editorial judgement for editors to refer to in disagreements.
Your behavior on Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson indicates a willful ignorance of the expectations of the community. It is creating disruption, using up time, and preventing work to improve the article from being done. I am telling you to please reconsider your actions. If you continue to be confrontational, you may be sanctioned. You have a lot of passion and energy, and I know you can be a great editor if you focused it into improving articles. Work with others, not against them. Bowler the Carmine | talk00:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I've been looking through Cortador's logs and they have a clear history of troublesome behaviour and sanctions. That user repeatedly and wilfully misconstrued my comments in what I perceive to be clear but failed attempts at mockery. The way they repeatedly conflated my comments is ridiculous (in the literal sense).
Secondly, Kingturtle made a mistake. They essentially told me "tut tut, go and read it again and try to understand" when it is an objective fact that they made the mistake. Have they acknowledged that yet? Not the last time I checked.
Then you weigh in. Is there a WP:PILE_ON? I said already: incivility and annoyance/anger are not the same thing.
I read the WP:ETCs that were being quoted months ago at the time of this 2024 Southport stabbing. And I found the standards utterly ridiculous. That is of no importance here. Tonight I said I refused to read them and asked KingTurtle to tell me if they really stated that an article cannot state that person X has been charged by judiciary Y of crime Z. They actually don't of course. But the policy is interpreted as 'yes, that cannot be stated'. In my opinion - and I have no doubt I am not alone - the idea that Wikipedia feels it is inappropriate to state that a sovereign state has charged an individual with a crime is ridiculous. It is objectively ridiculous.
I wasn't proposing, or advocating for, any edits, changes or inclusions to the article. I was indirectly expressing disapproval of the WP:POLICY. It's acceptable for editors to disapprove of policies, yes? Breaching policies is not acceptable - finding policies to be ridiculous doesn't breach any policies. Yes?
I said it already and I will reiterate it now - I did not, have not, and have no intention, desire or interest in editing the article with regard to accusations or charges against Luigi Mangione. I'm not sure I've even edited the article: if I have they were trivial corrections of grammar or syntax. Oh, wait, in fact I did correct the detail about the colour of his hooded top. Trivia.
My only purpose in adding to the comments in Talk tonight was to draw out what I perceive to be ridiculous WP:POLICIES on not stating something so constitutionally basic as the fact that USA judiciary has charged a person with a crime.
You accuse me of "using up time". Rubbish. Nobody had to engage or reply. The only time I might have wasted is my own. You could very simply have ignored me - something you in particular had trouble in doing given you persistently felt the need to weigh in.
There was never any editorial disagreement. I said already I wasn't making or advocating for any changes.
How about you show me where I was confrontational or rude, instead of persistently telling me that you think this was the case? If you want to quote back to me any barbed remarks I might have made, please do so in the context of what preceded them. Do that please, instead of issuing threat after threat and being patronising and condescending to me. If I see problems with how I've expressed myself I'll happily apologise. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I wasn't proposing, or advocating for, any edits, changes or inclusions to the article. I was indirectly expressing disapproval of the WP:POLICY. It's acceptable for editors to disapprove of policies, yes? Breaching policies is not acceptable - finding policies to be ridiculous doesn't breach any policies. Yes?"
Yes. But proposing, or advocating for, edits, changes or inclusions to the article is what an article talkpage is for, and the only thing it's for. Please see WP:TALK: "The purpose of a page's associated talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss editing that page." Or just look at the top template on the page, with the bolded headline "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killing of Brian Thompson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." You're misusing Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson. Please take your criticism of policies to where they're appropriate: the talkpages of the policies in question.
Since you're misusing that page, and acknowledging it several times above (where you also state My only purpose in adding to the comments in Talk tonight was to draw out what I perceive to be ridiculous WP:POLICIES on not stating something so constitutionally basic as the fact that USA judiciary has charged a person with a crime), I was tempted to block you from editing it (block from that talkpage only, nothing else). But I'll give you this warning first, to make sure you're aware of what article talkpages are for. Please stop using the page for "indirectly expressing disapproval of the WP:POLICY" and start using it for its intended purpose. Bishonen | tålk15:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Could you pause your advice-giving to other editors and instead reply to the allegations in the ANI that is about you and your editing? Thank you. LizRead!Talk!06:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
