User talk:Vivil

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Vivil, good luck, and have fun. – Aboutmovies (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Brianna Wu. (Redacted) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: I can easily source it (Redacted). _{Please use {{reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 01:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that. Unless the claim appears in a rock solid source (not the local rag, an Internet rumour mill, an archived copy of something that may or may not relate to this person, but a mainstream source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy), it has no place on Wikipedia. I've already explained to you on my talk page why the claim is extremely problematic, but adding unsourced claims about living people is problematic in and of itself. I have redacted your comment above and will be suppressing the edit. If you restore it, or make that claim anywhere on Wikipedia ever again without a rock-solid source, you will be indefinitely blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: According to WP:RELIABLE it's reliable source: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources."

I agree that this information doesn't belong to the article but I don't agree with censoring the information on talk pages.

1st: There is no basis to remove it according to Wikipedia policies.

2nd: Censoring it removes the possibility for other editors to learn why such information doesn't belong to similar articles.

Can you restore my reply to original or cite policies why you won't.

I would also ask you to refrain for making threats (WP:HARASS) such as banning me for no obvious reasons. According to Banning policy you are not allowed to ban editors just because you disagree with them. _{Please use {{reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 15:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is every basis—as I've explained, the claim is potentially extremely damaging. An archive made by go-knows-who of something that purports to show that somebody by a certain name existed at a certain point is not even close to a reliable source; come back when you can cite a newspaper or a book or a magazine or some other "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Finally, I'm not threatening, I'm warning; warnings by administrators are not harassment. I could have blocked you already; frankly, it would have been less effort, and there are three different ways (off the top of my head) I could have done so: as an oversight block, because the edits relating to the block have been oversighted, which would be reviewable only by oversighters and the Arbitration Committee; as an arbitration enforcement action under WP:NEWBLPBAN; or as an ordinary administrator action for violations of the biographies of living persons policy. I strongly suggest you find something to do that doesn't involve speculating about people's private lives. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Seems like you're missing my point. I've stated numerous time that said information doesn't belong on the article-space. But I disagree with censoring it on this talk page for example. On my user page I can claim that you're alien from Mars. Will this be as damaging as putting this on article about your person (if such article existed)?

I would like you to point me to a policy which doesn't allow such information on discussion page. Otherwise censoring my talk-page was without basis.

I'm assuming trying to assume WP:GOODFAITH but your "strong" suggestions are making this really hard. _{Please use {{reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 17:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPTALK is the policy you're looking for. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Thank you.

I see that talk pages should be treated similar to article pages in this regard. In case of this page it doesn't seem to be based on anything rational but I can see the reasoning behind it if I imagine few popular talk pages.

Source I provided was very reliable if you took the time to examine it. Just as reliable as this book is for checking french spelling in IXX century.

Original messages that were removed currently doesn't seem to be relevant to any content changes to the article so it's fair for it to be removed according to WP:BLPTALK.

Your goal was fair but your arguments were abysmal in this case. I hope both of us will learn something from this. I think we can call it a day. _{Please use {{reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 18:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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 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.

Gamaliel (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Your edits at Brianna Wu concern a subject who's been the target of significant online harassment and criticism. As such it's important their wikipedia page remain as positive as possible. Thank you. 107.107.62.196 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@107.107.62.196: I can assure you I would love to remove any clearly false information from that page.

I disagree that said article should "remain as positive as possible"; instead it should be as close to the truth as possible. WP:TRUTH _{Please use {{reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 16:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of either positivity or truth. The article should comply with Wikipedia policy -- especially in adhering closely and relying exclusively on reliable sources, and also ensuring a neutral point of view by taking care to avoid assigning WP:UNDUE weight to fringe beliefs. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: You're reiterating my answer which means that we mostly agree. At least it sounds like it.

Sadly this create a false view on some topics/people but in most cases it doesn't. No system is perfect. _{Please use {{reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 20:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Beattie

Hi, you might want to nominate the above article for deletion if you believe it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability? Regards JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 16:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JackintheBox: Will do. _{Please use {{Reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 16:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously: stop reinserting that content. I'm in the middle of telling that other editor I don't mind blocking them if they continue edit warring, but that goes for you too. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And, the article wasn't blanked: unsuitable content, possibly BLP-violating content, was removed, and not just by me. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: This article should be just deleted according to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Beattie.

You should stop threatening me with blocking me for no good reason. It's just sad abuse of power. Check Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. _{Please use {{Reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 17:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm threatening you with a block for a very good reason, two actually: edit warring and BLP violations. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're not following Wikipedia guidelines. According to them your threats don't have basis.

You're deleting most of that sad excuse of article so it's blanking for me. Not edit warring.

I didn't know what you meant by your acronym. I'm not power tripping wikipedia editor/admin so it should be expected from me according to guidelines.

With every passing moment editing Wikipedia is bigger and bigger waste of time and effort. _{Please use {{Reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 17:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to living or recently deceased people

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 18:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:CIR - as you have had WP:BLP, WP:PA, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS explained clearly and calmly to you by several administrators, and each time you have insisted your incorrect interpretations of those policies are inherently correct, and that you are being unduly persecuted. You appear unable to edit collaboratively, a requirement of Wikipedia. I agree with the statement on your talkpage that your continued efforts here are a "bigger and bigger waste of time" - for all involved..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vivil (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason for my ban is bogus. You're stating that I've insisted on anything related to those guidelines when in reality only non-resolved issues were personal attacks on me. If you just want me banned then just state that reason for my ban is not agreeing with admins on their personal opinions. If defending myself from personal attacks is worthy of ban then just state it and we're over. If it's not then remove this ban because I can prove this is the only reason I was banned. _{Please use {{Reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 21:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are really doubling down on the reason given for your block. I strongly advise not doing that. WP:GAB will help you understand how to craft an unblock request with a chance of success. Yamla (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Yamla: There is no proof in my ban reason. If there is argument or proof then please show it to me and I can reply. I cannot disprove the evidence or argument where there is none. I'll not lie just to get unbanned. There is no place where in the end I didn't reach an agreement with other users except for personal attacks on myself. But it's not what's written as reason for my ban. _{Please use {{Reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 22:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have revoked talk page access. Your behaviour here has been completely inappropriate and we've wasted enough time with you. You are welcome to use WP:UTRS to request an unblock after you've read and understood WP:GAB but I warn you, if you continue there like you have here, you'll lose that final avenue for unblock. --Yamla (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]