User talk:Dawnleelynn/Archive 6
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
A New Year With Women in Red!
 
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
February 2021 at Women in Red
|
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
March 2021 at Women in Red
|
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
April editathons from Women in Red
|
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
May 2021 at Women in Red
|
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
June 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
July 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Three years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
August Editathons at Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
September 2021 at Women in Red
|
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello Dawnleelynn,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
October 2021 at Women in Red
Special event:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Deaths in August 2021
You have now made more then three reverts on this page in less than 24 hours. This is a clear violation of WP:3RR. If you persist in this warring, you are likely to be blocked. Thanks. WWGB (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- WWGB I have only made two reverts total. Someone can't count. dawnleelynn(talk) 04:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- WWGB Sorry, I made a mistake. You were "undoing revision" not reverting. I take that back. No wonder you got upset. I should have done that too. dawnleelynn(talk) 04:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
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. Thank you. WWGB (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
October 2021
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)- Comment if you look at the timestamps, this warning went up very close to midnight last night in the user’s local time zone, and you have blocked her at about 7 AM the next morning. She put up an explanation for her actions, and as you can see here, she even apologized above, which apparently was unnoticed by the blocking admin. I’d rather wish you could’ve put up a warning, as most of the discussion occurred in the middle of the night in her time zone. I would not post here, except for the comments that dawn did not engage in discussion. Kind of tough to do when you’re asleep. This whole thing was over two lousy commas. Whether they were grammatically correct or not, this is got to be one of the lamest blocks I’ve seen in years. Yes, even acknowledging that 3RR is a hard line. Montanabw(talk) 19:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Dawnleelynn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am requesting to be unblocked because: On this talk page prior to the 3RR and block, I had already admitted I had done it and apologized to the editor in question. A warning would have sufficed. I have been here six years, and never broken a rule or been blocked before. I was confused about the 3RR rules and I rarely do any reverting except for vandals and editors who submit content without sources. I am quite clear about everything now, and it will absolutely not happen again. In the future, I will only make positive contributions to Wikipedia as always. dawnleelynn(talk) 01:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- What you say is simply not true. You "apologized" at 4:44 and then reverted again at 5:03. You weren't apologizing for edit-warring but for confusing reverts and undo's, which, btw, was completely irrelevant from an edit-warring perspective. I might not have blocked had you not battled so aggressively at ANEW that you were right and the other editors were wrong, when, only now, you claim you were confused about 3RR itself. It's a short block. I suggest you take the time to study the policy itself so you don't repeat your errors. I also suggest you treat other editors with more respect when you disagree with them.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Bbb23:, I have to stand up for Dawn on this one, as respect is a two-way street. You can decline to review the block, but a formal warning template from you as an admin would have had just as useful a result—People get a little heated when treated with disrespect, and the article gatekeepers’ “it’s the way we do it” attitude, particularly when it differs from the MOS, is a problem. Dawn really was trying to fix the entry, though it is clear that discussion via edit summary isn’t a good way to communicate. I will acknowledge this is a good example of the rationale for taking the discussion to the talkpage. But If you take a peek at the talkpage of the article in question, where I’ve also raised the issue of fixing the entry, that’s quite a little walled garden with their own rules, which appears to be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that they bludgeon everyone with. Yes, it’s a short block, but block logs are forever. Two commas and a piped link aren’t a hill to die on, but those folks were rude, then they canvassed and tag-teamed, then flew off to ANI. The least you could’ve done was issued a formal warning. Montanabw(talk) 04:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- further source: [ further source: talk page dawnleelynn(talk) 05:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC) talk page] dawnleelynn(talk) 05:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- I feel I must reply here in my personal defence; firstly I was matter-of-fact in my dealings with the blocked editor and not rude (I cannot help it if other editors are over-sensitive), and secondly there was no tag-teaming in the sense that a collusion was arranged. Myself and one other editor merely and coincidentally saw the error of the edit in both style and grammatical punctuation, and tried to rectify it on up to three occasions each. That is all. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 11:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Actions are suspicious: The editor who created this notice archived the canvassing section on Carol Harris here: Carol Harris talk page canvass archive diff. dawnleelynn(talk) 14:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Refsworldlee: if you don’t think your “good luck” remark (in one of the edit summaries I linked) nor a remark like your statement “ I cannot help it if other editors are over-sensitive” isn’t rude and belittling, you need a remedial course in civility 101. But here, my understanding was that Dawn merely requested her block be reviewed. We have not reported you or anyone else to ANI so you may wish to stop digging a hole. Montanabw(talk) 15:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Actions are suspicious: The editor who created this notice archived the canvassing section on Carol Harris here: Carol Harris talk page canvass archive diff. dawnleelynn(talk) 14:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Bbb23:, I have to stand up for Dawn on this one, as respect is a two-way street. You can decline to review the block, but a formal warning template from you as an admin would have had just as useful a result—People get a little heated when treated with disrespect, and the article gatekeepers’ “it’s the way we do it” attitude, particularly when it differs from the MOS, is a problem. Dawn really was trying to fix the entry, though it is clear that discussion via edit summary isn’t a good way to communicate. I will acknowledge this is a good example of the rationale for taking the discussion to the talkpage. But If you take a peek at the talkpage of the article in question, where I’ve also raised the issue of fixing the entry, that’s quite a little walled garden with their own rules, which appears to be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that they bludgeon everyone with. Yes, it’s a short block, but block logs are forever. Two commas and a piped link aren’t a hill to die on, but those folks were rude, then they canvassed and tag-teamed, then flew off to ANI. The least you could’ve done was issued a formal warning. Montanabw(talk) 04:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
WWGB What are you doing reverting content aka a link on my talkpage? You, are not welcome here anymore. And see what montanabw just said, we haven't reported you. No more comments please from either of you! dawnleelynn(talk) 15:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- The 3RR rule refers to more than 3 reverts. The 3RR is a bright line not a point at which a block is automatic as might be the case with 4RR. In the case where an editor has an excellent record a block seems excessive. It's easy enough to block someone but the damage that can do to an editor who has clearly maintained an excellent record for such a long time can be devastating. I have grave concerns with Wikipedia these days in how justice is meted out. Our first prerogative must be to hold on to our good faith editors, to provide an environment that supports those here to create the encyclopedia as this editor most clearly is. The block may have expired but the weight of the block may not for conscientious editors.
- “I cannot help it if other editors are over-sensitive”, assuming that is the case. Oh yes we can! We can help our behavior towards those more sensitive than others. There is no Wikipedia rule that says we have to all be the same. Some are less thick skinned than others. Working in a collaborative community means we respect all kinds. I would wish in a more perfect Wikipedia that the admin here might review the action and if possible remove the block from the editor's record telling me that there are those on Wikipedia who understand that this is both an encyclopedia and a collaborative community where good editors are not thick on the ground and in this case an editor who got a little carried away for a first time is warned and so valued for her the work she has done here for years with out trespassing on our policies. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@Littleolive oil: Hi, thank you for your time and consideration for an editor you don't even know. It goes above and beyond. You are quite elegant in your expression. It means a lot to me, more than I can express. I did get carried away as you say, and it was for the first time. As I mentioned in my appeal, was not my six years of good behavior counted for something...I didn't understand the reply. Never mind, thank you again wholeheartedly... I'm sure I will feel better about it as time goes on. I still have content projects I want to complete. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Dawn. We all lose it sometime, a little or a lot. I have seen a loss of editors because of an inability to understand each other as can happen on a two dimensional platform, and so then to apply the worst instead of the best for the encyclopedia, so I really want to support people who find themselves questioning actions that seem and are unfair. I don't know this admin but sadly I wonder if the impetus is to punish in a community where we are not supposed to be punitive. We live and grow up, most if us in a punitive society, so the first go-to here is understandably, punitive. I'm sorry this happened, but you're right in time the sting will probably fade whether the block was fair or not. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Littleolive oil I was just out in real world running an errand. It's the first time it has been 40 degrees here this fall. Weird Indian Summer. I was just saying to montanabw about the loss of editors yesterday. You are very wise, that's for sure. When I read the Appealing a Block policy, it did come across as though blocks were not to be a punishment. They were to keep the editor from continuing their bad behavior, well mostly. Yes, I do try let things go after a dispute usually. There really haven't been any others lately. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 |
- seeing your name on my watchlist: enjoy cooling water and reflection --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt Thank you, that is such a lovely and tranquil picture. How nice! dawnleelynn(talk) 20:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- lovely! ... if you like such things, click on songs for more --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt Thank you, that is such a lovely and tranquil picture. How nice! dawnleelynn(talk) 20:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm late to the discussion, but I want to comment that proper procedure was not followed here. In the case of the three revert rule, the partial block functionality should be preferred, instead of locking dawnleelynn out from the entire encyclopedia. The scenario described here is exactly why the partial block functionality exists. Unless there was evidence that this user was disrupting multiple articles, or engaging in harassment / sock puppetry / something more serious (and I don't believe that's the case), a full block should not be used, and the admin in question needs to refresh themselves on policy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Like. I dislike seeing sitewide blocks applied to edit warring needlessly. Myself, I've largely supplanted the usual 24-hour sitewide block with a one week partial. It feels like the former is a bit heavy on its sheer deterrence, whereas the latter is more of a take a week to discuss. Granted, that general metric is just my own preference, but in my experience, it has had noticeably better outcomes. For a time, both me and Ritchie333 dutifully spammed AN3 about partial blocks' utility. Perhaps another spam campaign is called for...? El_C 13:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: I've moved discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Best practices for blocking; that should be a more worthwhile exercise than dragging anyone off to the dramaboards. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Perhaps you'd like to strike your suggestion that Bbb23 "needs to refresh themselves on policy" as you now admit over at VP that "the blocking policy doesn't make it clear one way or the other." Bbb23 said that dawnleelynn should use the time they were blocked to read up on the 3RR rules that they admitted they were confused about, something they would be less likely to do if they still able to access every other Wikipedia page.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Less likely to why? Why such a heavy emphasis on deterrence? I, for one, assume in good faith that a user who has been here since 2015 and who otherwise has had a clean block log, would give a 3RR partial block due attention. No indication that this dispute would have spilled over beyond Deaths in August 2021. Personally, I see partially-blocked users ask for clarifications about 3RR just the same as sitewide ones. Erring on the side of severity by default — I don't like that. El_C 19:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Perhaps you'd like to strike your suggestion that Bbb23 "needs to refresh themselves on policy" as you now admit over at VP that "the blocking policy doesn't make it clear one way or the other." Bbb23 said that dawnleelynn should use the time they were blocked to read up on the 3RR rules that they admitted they were confused about, something they would be less likely to do if they still able to access every other Wikipedia page.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: I've moved discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Best practices for blocking; that should be a more worthwhile exercise than dragging anyone off to the dramaboards. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
November 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
November 2021 backlog drive
| New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
December 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Survey about History on Wikipedia (If you reside in the United States)
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.
If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Io, Saturnalia!
.jpg)
|
Io, Saturnalia! | |
| Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas!
.jpg)
.jpg)
Hello Dawnleelynn: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
,_cropped.jpg)
Merry Christmas!
|
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Happy Holidays!
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022! |
|
Hello Dawnleelynn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |