User talk:WeatherWriter

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

To start with, please do not attack the other two editors, as you did in your edits at the talk page. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

For the next part, I don't see where it is canvasing to ping users to the talk page who made similar edits. All three users had reverted you, so it is an understandable ping. Not only that, but you ask users to check the talk page when they revert: If you revert this user, please monitor that articles talk page in case this user opens a discussion. There is also the SUBSCRIBE function. Point being, there are multiple legitimate ways for a user to participate in a talk page. Including pinging a user who edited the article to the talk page, which I don't see is listed as a form of canvasing.

Finally from my perspective, it wasn't clear to the three of us that you were trying to source a different sentence. (Assuming in one case.) The whole time until your last comment, I thought you were trying to source President Joe Biden ordered an independent review of security at the rally. That was why I linked you to the most recent press releases instead of a specific one as I couldn't comprehend your edit. If I had known that you were citing the wrong sentence, I would have spoken up, but it wasn't clear enough.

If you really think it is canvassing, you should consider ANI, but you might want to ask a third-party about their perspective of the discussion before you go down that route. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super Goku V — I was planning to entirely ignore this discussion since I already left the discussion on the talk page, given the issue was solved. However, I just found out you removed two of my statement as direct “personal attacks”. I want to really understand how “take a chill pill” is a personal attack. Like, I really want to see what exact personal attack that phrase is a violation of. I am 99.99% sure it isn’t, given WP:CHILLPILL exists. That was my last message, where I already had stated the discussion issue was solved & that I had made an error. For real, I need to see your explanation of what PA I did with saying “take a chill pill”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out you removed two of my statement as direct "personal attacks". I apologize if there was confusion, but I thought that it was clear from the first paragraph that I did take action. If not, then let me know that I wasn't clear enough.

Chill pill is a comment on a contributor, not on the content. While you seem to believe you said it in good faith, you said it to someone whose tone was not angry or upset. I judged it under Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done as a result. If you disagree that much with me, then feel free to restore it and I won't revert it. But I will make it clear that I am convinced you crossed the line:

"Excuse me??? LOL! [...] This honestly deserves a nice big “What the fuck are you on?” reaction. Yeah, you got canvassed here and have absolutely no idea what the reasoning for this discussion being opened was [...] please drop out (WP:DTS) and let the non-canvassed editors reply…please and thank you! Like please, you were canvassed (acknowledged it even), so just don’t reply." "[...] since they accused me of bad-faith editing + got canvassed here." "You should probably use some WP:COMMONSSENSE, [...] If you noticed what this discussion was about, you would have probably figured out it was meant for the sentence directly before that sentence: [...] Yeah, you probably should have figured that out. You also accused me of bad faith editing. [...] The discussion is already over. [...] For real, you should have figured that out from this discussion, [...]"

I would consider this to be mocking another user, accusing another user of being on a substance, falsely accusing another user of being canvassed, falsely making claims about that user, etc. If you disagree, you might want to ask a third-party about their perspective of the discussion.

That was my last message, where I already had stated the discussion issue was solved I wasn't convinced that the discussion had ended as you had said. Prior, you clearly stated that you were going to ignore Adolphus79 and then didn't. I was not convinced that you would not reply again. Thankfully, I was wrong about that. (Additionally, I have re-subscribed to this in case you reply again.) --Super Goku V (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did cross the line on the main text block. We will have to 100% agree to disagree though on: (1) users being canvassed, given they got pinged specifically to the discussion on unrelated issues regarding me and happen to reply about 30 minutes later and (2) "take a chill pill" being a PA. Those two things we have opposing views. I agree with you on every other point you made. The chill pill comment, to me, seemed warranted, given they also did accuse me minutes beforehand of bad faith editing. The canvassing comment I 100% will standby. As an editor who was directly involved in an ArbCom canvassing case (warned for it myself actually over pinging editors mid-discussion), I cannot say it was not canvassing. I'm not even carring about that issue anymore nor that article (I even unwatchlisted it last night). Those pings were entirely unwarranted and I will standby that, given how involved I was in that ArbCom canvassing case. You can disagree with me, but I was warned at ArbCom for doing exactly what happened yesterday, so I will call it what it is: canvassing. Well, I'll let this get archived on my TP archives now. Discussion in my book is closed and solved. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what ArbCom case you are referring to, but agreeing to disagree is fine. Again, [i]f you really think it is canvassing, you should consider ANI. You are more experienced than I am and I will say that I can be wrong on multiple aspects of this. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made an article about the Yazoo City tornado im wondering if you could help out to see if i made any mistakes or something like that 2010 Yazoo City tornado Hoguert (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I will take a look at it this afternoon! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Hoguert (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]