User talk:Xerton/archive1
My pre-account edits:
February 2018 edit
Your recent editing history at Sally Yates shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Note edit
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.--NeilN talk to me 18:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
February 2018 edit
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Acroterion (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Xerton,
Thank you for disclosing your previous edits from an IP address. I saw your edit at 20:48 June 3, 2017 to Talk: Kathy Griffin. That was a blatant violation of our policy on biographies of living people. Consider this a warning that any such policy violating edits may result in a block. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yikes - from where I sit, it sure seems like you might be stalking my edit history - are you?. Also, that comment was made on a talk page, not an article. And frankly, by most standards of beauty, Ms. Griffin is rather plain; see this: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/kathy-griffin-without-makeup-photos_n_1901161.html But even so, perhaps I could have phrased things better. Thanks for the advice. Xerton (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Stalking? Absolutely not. I never heard of you until I saw a discussion at Talk: Sally Yates and offered my opinion. That article has been on my watch list for many months. As an administrator, I glance at userpages quite frequently to familiarize myself with active editors. I took a look at your talk page where you provide a link to your IP edits, and I looked at that list. I looked at your edit to Kathy Griffin, a topic I'm familiar with, and saw a blatant BLP violation. This type of personal attack on the living subject of a Wikipedia article is not allowed on Wikipedia. Not in an article or its talk page, nor on your talk page, and not anywhere else on Wikipedia. This is well-established policy. So, I gave you a warning. In conclusion, I was doing exactly what the community expects of its administrators. Please do not continue with this type of editing. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Which type of editing, intimating that perhaps you paid inordinate attention to my edit history - or tactlessly drawing attention to an obvious truth? In the world of celebrities, many of them are described often as being "beautiful"; it's a frequent hallmark of celebrity status. Thus, when discussing the representative accuracy (or lack thereof) of a photo of a celebrity, it's fair game to assess whether or not that photo presents an accurate depiction of the actual level of that celebrity's beauty (or lack thereof). And in my research, it's become apparent to me that this particular celebrity doesn't tend to appear in any photos as being possessed of 'celebrity levels' of beauty. Thus, isn't it reasonable to draw attention to that fact - the fact that the photo we are using is POV in that it's skewing the visual presentation in a non-factual way? It would be one thing if I had said that KG is a bad person because she lacks beauty (which I did not say), but it's another thing altogether to draw attention to the fact that the photo we used is not a typical representation of KG's visage, isn't it? Think about it: What if in fact a celebrity is specifically known for a non-attractive attribute - are we not allowed to discuss it? I wonder; If the facts support such a discussion, is it not reasonable to discuss it? Bearing in mind (of course) that the end result of the article should have a professional level of courtesy. Your thoughts? Xerton (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- This edit [1] is indefensible. Wikipedia isn't a forum for you to vent about people you don't like or find unattractive. As Cullen says, please do not continue in this style.The fact that you're trying to defend it is troubling, so I think we'd better place a DS notice for BLP as well. Acroterion (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback. Not what I was expecting, but dialog is always good. Xerton (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- You asked for my thoughts. I think that you are skating on exceptionally thin ice, so I can only advise great caution. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback. Not what I was expecting, but dialog is always good. Xerton (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- This edit [1] is indefensible. Wikipedia isn't a forum for you to vent about people you don't like or find unattractive. As Cullen says, please do not continue in this style.The fact that you're trying to defend it is troubling, so I think we'd better place a DS notice for BLP as well. Acroterion (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Which type of editing, intimating that perhaps you paid inordinate attention to my edit history - or tactlessly drawing attention to an obvious truth? In the world of celebrities, many of them are described often as being "beautiful"; it's a frequent hallmark of celebrity status. Thus, when discussing the representative accuracy (or lack thereof) of a photo of a celebrity, it's fair game to assess whether or not that photo presents an accurate depiction of the actual level of that celebrity's beauty (or lack thereof). And in my research, it's become apparent to me that this particular celebrity doesn't tend to appear in any photos as being possessed of 'celebrity levels' of beauty. Thus, isn't it reasonable to draw attention to that fact - the fact that the photo we are using is POV in that it's skewing the visual presentation in a non-factual way? It would be one thing if I had said that KG is a bad person because she lacks beauty (which I did not say), but it's another thing altogether to draw attention to the fact that the photo we used is not a typical representation of KG's visage, isn't it? Think about it: What if in fact a celebrity is specifically known for a non-attractive attribute - are we not allowed to discuss it? I wonder; If the facts support such a discussion, is it not reasonable to discuss it? Bearing in mind (of course) that the end result of the article should have a professional level of courtesy. Your thoughts? Xerton (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Stalking? Absolutely not. I never heard of you until I saw a discussion at Talk: Sally Yates and offered my opinion. That article has been on my watch list for many months. As an administrator, I glance at userpages quite frequently to familiarize myself with active editors. I took a look at your talk page where you provide a link to your IP edits, and I looked at that list. I looked at your edit to Kathy Griffin, a topic I'm familiar with, and saw a blatant BLP violation. This type of personal attack on the living subject of a Wikipedia article is not allowed on Wikipedia. Not in an article or its talk page, nor on your talk page, and not anywhere else on Wikipedia. This is well-established policy. So, I gave you a warning. In conclusion, I was doing exactly what the community expects of its administrators. Please do not continue with this type of editing. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)