User talk:Rupples/Archive 1

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biggleswade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sutton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biggleswade, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Turnpike and Shefford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eyeworth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dunton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oldbury, West Midlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army Reserve (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"Ad hominen" [sic] attacks

Thanks for alerting me to your blatantly misogynistic comments on User talk:Bmcln1. I recommend you either strike them through or delete them. Deb (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

My pleasure. --Rupples (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Deb. Thanks for pointing out the original spelling error in Ad Hominem, which I've now corrected.

I've struck through the offending comment and apologise to you here and on User talk:Bmcln1# Just Dropping By!.

Sincerely, --Rupples (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Deb (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Further to the above, calling me a bastard, even tangentially, is uncivil. Claims of condescension and degeneracy on my part are unconvincing when they are made by a condescending accuser using foul language. DrKay (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi DrKay. Thanks for your comments above. I saw fit to apologise to Deb because after consideration, I realised I'd overstepped the mark and made a personal attack on her, which might be deemed derogatory. I have not attacked you personally. Rather, I have merely criticised your remarks to Bmcln1.

At the time you made you entry "November2020" Bmcln1 had written in excess of 100 articles on Wikipedia over 10 years. Yet you start your comments to him Welcome to Wikipedia and include Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I see that as an insult. My claim that your remarks are condescending refers to this.

I'm not just speaking up for Bmcln1 here. I suggest that in future you check the experience of a contributor before issuing what I assume is standard blurb and tailor your criticism to the person you're addressing.

Secondly, unlike Deb who criticised my remarks, you have personally attacked me as a "condescending accuser". Not that I give a fig. There, I've moderated my language so not to upset you.

The "degeneracy" I referred to is the falling off in the politeness of your comments to Bmcln1. Namely, Do not continue with disputed edits after you've been asked to desist - you didn't even say "please" - yet you lecture me on being uncivil! Rupples (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Please strike out the offending comments. DrKay (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

DrKay Please clarify as I'm not sure exactly what you're asking me to strike out. Thanks. Rupples (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Timestamp 04:44 30 November, User talk:Bmcln1, "DrKay ... carborundum". DrKay (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

DrKay. Ah - thanks for clarifying. I wasn't sure if it was the original comment or something on this page. Would you please grant me the indulgence of allowing me a little time to consider your request? I didn't strike out my comments about Deb until I'd checked out that I had in fact done something wrong by finding and diligently reading through the Wikipedia policy page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. Are you claiming I've broken that rule or is there something else? It may save time, if you are able, to kindly point me in the right direction.Rupples (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Civility, "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment." "The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment: ... (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental ... talk-page posts."

What you and User:Bmcln1 don't know is that in the last 24 hours alone I've received abuse from Wikimedia Foundation servers that includes "nasty skank bitch" and "fugly slut". That account has been blocked, but I know from experience that the editor behind it will create a new account and start all over again. You and Bmcln1 appear to think that by finding subtle ways to call me a bastard and a bugger, you can still make your little micro-aggressions and get away with it. That's what sticks in my craw: the blocked editor won't retract even though he knows it upsets me. He enjoys it and doubles down on the insult by sending another one. You and Bmcln1 are the same. You won't retract even when I tell you that I'm upset and you enjoy doubling down on the insult by refusing to retract. DrKay (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

DrKay - no, no, no I really think you've got Bmcln1 and me wrong. (I don't know Brian personally). I will seriously check out and consider the comments I wrote and if on reflection if I believe I've done something wrong I'll strike-through and apologise. On the other hand if I don't believe I've done anything wrong I'll likely take no action and try to defend my comments and myself.

I'm truly sorry to hear that you're receiving abuse. There's no excuse for the vitriolic you've told me about. Yesterday, I read parts of Deb talk page in which she mentioned she receives abuse as well.

I wasn't aware when making the original comments on Brian's talk page that you and Deb would see them. My comments were meant to be light hearted and jocular and between Brian and myself.

I note you haven't agreed/disagreed or even mentioned the issues I raised on how your additions to Brian's user page come across. That's fine. But please, please consider how you, yourself interact with other editors. I was astounded by the tone used in some "reprimand" type comments (I'm not singling you out here). You accuse Brian and I of belittling a fellow editor but isn't that what you did by placing the "Welcome to Wikipedia" template on Brian's page? That's how I see it.

I'll leave it for now and go and check the Wikipedia:Civility article. Thanks for the pointer.

Terry Rupples (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello DrKay

I’ve now read and digested the Wikipedia:civility rules and evaluated my comments on Bmcln1 in the light of that policy. I’m not inclined to strike-through the comments you find offensive. I appreciate you’ll likely find this disappointing so please allow me to explain why.

The phrase “don’t let the bastards grind you down” is generic. It doesn’t refer to you or anyone in particular. Further, I don’t believe it to be in any way offensive. It was addressed to Brian and I understand it to mean don’t let the people who are getting at you, make you feel worthless and run down, rise above them! What I believe you have done is taken the word “bastard” as foul language and mistakenly linked it to my criticism of you, even though it’s in a separate paragraph. I’d wager not too many people would interpret the phrase the way you have.

This leaves “DrKay must be obeyed”. Yes, I grant it’s sarcastic, but again I don’t see any offensiveness.

What I'm prepared to do is be gracious and apologise even though I believe you’ve misunderstood my comments and attributed a different meaning. No offence was intended.

You say you’re upset. Again, I’m sorry if you feel that way but surely you can’t expect me to presuppose how every single person will react to criticism. I try and frame comments to what I perceive to be social norms.

I’ve taken a fair amount of time and care over this reply because I respect you and your feelings.

Terry

Rupples (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I accept your explanation entirely and thank you for sharing it. I also agree that there is absolutely no reason for you to take further action in relation to these comments. In likewise fashion, I will explain why my comments may come across as dismissive. Imagine a woman who decides to go to a shop. She leaves her house where she gets on a bus and on the journey a man on the back seat leers at her and jerks off. She gets off the bus without saying anything and walks the rest of the way past a building site where workmen wolf-whistle and shout obscenities. She walks on without saying anything and into the shop, where a man approaches her and makes what he considers to be a playful remark. She tells him to fuck off. He's offended and thinks she's over-reacted. To him, it's jocular and inoffensive, but to her it's the final straw. That's kind of what's happened here: I am faced with a barrage of abuse and sometimes it blinds me when someone else, like you or User:Bmcln1, does or says something that would otherwise be inoffensive. DrKay (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Rupples Just one more thing on this. You say "you can’t expect me to presuppose how every single person will react to criticism". We don't, but you are fairly inexperienced here, and you could find that another admin won't look on this kind of comment in the same way. DrKay and I are used to it and we wouldn't normally take any action against someone who levels personal attacks directly at us. However, a third party, i.e. another admin, who happens along and sees you making a comment about someone that you think is harmless but could be construed as a personal attack, might decide to impose a temporary block on your editing. There are plenty of recent examples. So do take care. Deb (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks DrKay I appreciate where you're coming from. I didn't realise an admin's job could be so stressful. Thank you for engaging with me. Please read my comments below to Deb.

Deb. Just when I seem to have resolved matters amicably with DrKay you come back and 'kick me in the nuts'. Thanks for the warning or is it a threat? Don't worry, I'll do the job for you and block/ban myself. I may return sometime (if I'm allowed) but in the light of your remark I won't be making further contributions to Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. Satisfied?

Logging off.

Rupples (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

That'll teach me not to try and help new users. Deb (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Deb Well, my self-imposed exile from Wikipedia hasn’t lasted long! Must admit I got into a bit of a huff after reading your post. Note to self: do not respond when in a state of high agitation. Seriously, I do take on board the point you made.

This “altercation” with you and DrKay has come as quite a shock. Other than User:Bmcln1 I’ve had little or no contact with other Wikipedians. I’m trying to take some positives. It’s opened my eyes to Wikipedia policies/rules etc I was unaware of. Think I’ll spend time reading up in this area and educate myself. Also I now know about the abuse suffered by administrators. Deb I feel our interaction ended on a sour note. I regret this so wanted to reach out to you.

Rupples (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

DrKay I've struck out the sarcastic reference to you on User talk:Bmcln1# Just Dropping By!. Sorry. Rupples (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Deb I've just seen the light! I think I'm misinterpreting your writing style. When I first read your post starting "Just one more thing on this" it came across as hostile, and so I reacted accordingly. Re-reading now, it's fine and helpful. Apologies for my confusion and thanks for the advice. Rupples (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me. I don't want to drive potential good editors away from Wikipedia. I wondered if you had noticed a brief message I wrote on another editor's talk page about "getting rid of" someone. That referred to a long-standing vandal we have here who keeps turning up under different names - I didn't include the name because I didn't want to alert him to the fact that someone had reported him. I'm saying this just in case you saw it and thought it was about you. Incidentally, if you don't want someone to see things you post about them, the way to do it is not to include their name in wiki markup as you did above with me and DrKay - though of course it's usually better to let them know what you are saying about them, or you may get a bad reaction when they find out. Deb (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Rupples! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Long standing citation requests, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hay Mills, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yardley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Corrected. --Rupples (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)