User talk:Hackerman67

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zxcvbnm was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:GNG hard in English at least, most sources used in the Reception section are unreliable per WP:VG/S. That said, Chinese sources are allowed so if some reliable ones there can be found it is fine to use them.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Amazing Cultivation Simulator and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Amazing Cultivation Simulator, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Swatjester Participating on the talk page of a controversial wikipedia article over strictly wikipedia editing related matters--not pertaining to controversy itself--is hardly befitting of such a patronising, irrelevant and uncalled for addition to my user talk page. I appreciate you no doubt having my best interest at heart, but I strongly recommend changing your bot/personal logic in sending this copy pasted introductory guide, and ask that you refrain from bloating my page in the future with seemingly zero consideration. Hackerman67 (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This template is neither irrelevant nor uncalled for, nor patronising; it is a required notification under the contentious topics system which specifically covers the talk page in question. If you'd like to cease receiving these notifications, you can choose not to edit articles (or their talk pages) covered under the contentious topic policy. If you choose to do so, you will receive them. That decision is entirely on you. And I'll caution you to assume better faith in the reception of a standard alert template in the future. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template is entirely irrelevant to the talk page edit it was sent based on, in context or out of it, and is clearly written with "main page", i.e., "topic", editing in mind. Sending an introductory guide to an established editor who has given no indication of going counter to or for whichever other reason needing an introductory guide of the basics of Wikipedia editing is indeed patronising, as per definition.

I understand bureaucracy and its blanket rules, but since you insist, I insist that you specify which part of the template do you claim as relevant to my case, so as to gain something constructive out of this as you must have intended.

What is definitely uncalled for is attempting to bully another editor off of Wikipedia. A seasoned editor such as yourself should know at the very least know and abide by WP:5P4. I do hope that you reflect on your behavior and the mechanisms leading to it.

I clearly indicated having assumed good faith, but unfortunately even edits assumed to have been made in such can miss their mark. I suggest not taking it personally. To paraphrase you, the only surefire way to avoid getting constructive criticism on Wikipedia edits is unfortunately to choose not to make edits (in general). Ironically, perhaps, your passive aggressive suggestion doesn't hold true in my case; as it was not editing the actual article which brought forth our very discussion.

I'll caution you to assume a more respectful approach to your peers—on their personal talk pages nonetheless—as is clearly expected and demanded on Wikipedia. Hackerman67 (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple -- both the article AND the talk page for Sweet Baby Inc., are covered under the contentious topics procedure. The contentious topics procedure explicitly states that "Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic." followed by a footnote "b" that states "This procedure applies to edits and pages in all namespaces." You have made edits to that talk page, and are thus being alerted to the existence of the contentious topic procedure, as authorized by the Arbitration Committee. The use of the specific template Template:Contentious topics/alert/first to alert an editor to the CT system which is "mandatory for the first time an editor is alerted to contentious topics (except if they've previously been alerted to discretionary sanctions in any topic area)". Therefore, you are receiving that specific template. It's really that simple. It is neither "entirely irrelevant" nor "definitely uncalled for" nor "attempting to bully another editor off of Wikipedia" (the template specifically states This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.) I'll be blunt -- your behavior here indicates that you are not here to constructively build an encyclopedia and your extreme overreaction to receiving a standard, mandatory template, is not helping sway that opinion. In any event, you've been duly warned that edits to pages covered by the contentious topics procedure are subject to heightened scrutiny and that "Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project." I strongly suggest you take this opportunity to review the requirements as stated in the alert. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll level with you, SWATJester. I understand the bureaucratic nature of the template and its governing Arbitration Committee; I have stated as much. If your duty demands that you recursively scour a contentious topic's subpages and indiscriminately plaster templates across users' talk pages, whether they bare any relevancy to the user or their edits, that's life. I do note how, again, the boldened commanding quotation itself, the supposed coup-de-grâce, specifically invokes "topic", which I'm sure I don't have to explain the nomenclature of within Wikipedia's context to you. It is precisely the terminology employed and the very content of the template that scream irrelevancy to my actual use case. You may not bare responsibility for the overarching system, and it is in that that I recommend you take comfort in instead of taking it personally when any flaws in said system are pointed out. Emotionally lashing out and acting in an uncivil manner is entirely yours to shoulder.

Your threat of misusing administrative powers are duly noted. Hackerman67 (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you don't have to explain the nomenclature to me, because the nomenclature is quite clear -- as I bolded, the term applies to all namespaces, including talk pages, broadly construed. Your "use case" was editing a page that the Arbitration Committee has already explicitly stated is covered under the policy. And I'll level with you as well -- your behavior here is unacceptable. You've been duly warned about it. You are continuing to behave uncivilly, and demonstrating that your intent is not to work constructively with other editors in an area that is contentious. If you continue to cast aspersions against the administrators trying to help you, you're going to be blocked for violating the no personal attacks policy. You've been warned twice about this now. There will not be a third warning. I strongly suggest you re-read Acroterion's warning to you below about treating other editors as opponents, and re-consider following your own promise to I reiterate my being resolved in enacting Wikipedia's rules on civil behavior. Of course I will continue to discuss in a calm and fact-based manner rather than assuming intentions of others and/or attacking their character and integrity, because the path you're pursuing is not going to end well for you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this conversation is clearly going nowhere. You seem to assume hostility on my part and exhibit it in return. We can't even agree over what either has said., e.g., my original statement: "topic", which I'm sure I don't have to explain the nomenclature of within Wikipedia, which you replied to with the nomenclature is quite clear -- as I bolded, the term applies to all namespaces, yet what appears on my end as you having bolded is: "mandatory for the first time an editor is alerted to contentious topics (except if they've previously been alerted to discretionary sanctions in any topic area)", with the actual quote about applying to all namespace being neither bolded nor about "the term" ("topic"): "This procedure applies to edits and pages in all namespaces.".

None of the discussed has a constructive end game. Even if we found a way to agree on such simple things as the most used Wikipedia terminology, there would be little to nothing to gain from it. We both understand that there's a bureaucratic system in place for blanket alerts, which I made my thoughts about known. Any assumption on there having been ill will was just that. I stand by my claims on the process having too wide a net, resulting in misplaced alerts. That is not a personal attack on you, it is a criticism of the overarching system, the proper channels of which I'll be sure to voice my future grievances with in hopes of improving it.

Do you realise the irony in an alert made to promote civil discussion being the only instance of, quite frankly, the opposite of that that that I've witnessed in any of my Wikipedia edit history, including the actual talk page for the contentious article that the alert was for? You may be more used to it, and it shows. It causes genuine whiplash to have someone succumb to the same toxicity they preach rules against. I believe in civil discussion. I believe in assuming good faith. I don't believe in snarky toxic remarks. What do you believe in? Hackerman67 (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the original intent of this was posting a notification, of which you're now aware; and the subsequent derailment stemmed from the portion of your reaction directed at me, though as you've just noted you're aware that there are proper channels for criticisms of the actual system; and I believe that you believe in civil discussion, which you've had multiple admins caution you about. So, I disagree with your prior conclusion, I believe that this discussion has actually reached a constructive endgame. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this virtue, you sharing it onto my page less; it paints the image that I would indeed have commited such a tragic fallacy.

Do you mind specifying or retracting? Thank you Hackerman67 (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior here and at Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. is inappropriately personalized and confrontational. You are receiving standard warnings, which other editors have also received. Please stop treating other editors as opponents. Acroterion (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Inappropriately personalized and confrontational" is quite a generalised and vague statement; a stark contrast from your initial claim of "personal attack"--both of which I protest.

"Standard" being the keyword of the warning. I appreciate that as an administrator one would be on heightened alert on such a high traffic controversial article' talk page, but I resent and object to the accusations of my supposed wrongdoing. Correcting statements made by another editor is a core feature and necessity of wiki editing and the exchange of ideas about it on talk pages. Any exchange of opposing claims or ideas can be characterised as "confrontational", but I strongly deny it having been "personalized", let alone inappropriately so.

I fully agree with and continue to espouse Wikipedia's rules for interacting in a civil manner. If there is a tangible part in my behaving that you wish to help me grow out of in order to improve Wikipedia and its editing culture, I am listening. I do not appreciate or gain anything from wildly inaccurate claims such as Please stop treating other editors as opponents based entirely on assumptions, going counter to WP:FAITH2. Hackerman67 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about "please try not to give the impression that you are treating other editors as opponents?", Because that's how you're coming across in this text-based medium. As noted above, you're giving an impression of overreaction to mild admonishment. We want to lower the temperature of the discussion, not raise it. Please help with that. Acroterion (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my being resolved in enacting Wikipedia's rules on civil behavior. Of course I will continue to discuss in a calm and fact-based manner rather than assuming intentions of others and/or attacking their character and integrity--just as I expect to be treated in return. Hackerman67 (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]