User talk:Gworley3
A belated welcome![edit]
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Gworley3! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Discretionary Sanctions Notification - AP2[edit]
Welcome back! Some things may have changed since you were last active. Given you renewed editing involves American politics, you should be aware of the of the following:
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 shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.
EvergreenFir (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
July 2024[edit]
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Talk:Cryonics can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I undid your revert. I don't understand why linking to something like that is harassment, it's just literally what some folks are saying about David and have presented ample evidence to back it up. Gworley3 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's harassment policy, you may be blocked from editing. That link is absolutely off-site harassment of an editor. Do not post it again. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I still fail to see what makes the link harassment. The standard is incredibly vague from what I can tell in a way that makes literally anything anyone doesn't like about themselves count as "harassment". And if that's the case then how can I tell what is harassment and isn't? Gworley3 (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you are having difficulty determining what is harassment and what isn't, just don't link to external sites that talk about individual Wikipedia editors at all. The Wikipedia community really does not have a lot of patience for this kind of thing, it is not worth testing the boundaries. MrOllie (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The lack of patients on Wikipedia is why I've basically given up trying to edit it and encourage everyone I can not to donate to it. I used to love Wikipedia, but every time I try to come back to it I find it's somehow worse in some way I didn't expect, and it's always little reasonable sounding things that have been rules lawyered in ways that make the simple act of like trying to talk about problems with an editor on a Wikipedia page a problem. Ugh, anyway, I'm sure you don't care, but I'm extremely frustrated with how Wikipedia has gotten shittier every year and there's nothing I can do about it. Gworley3 (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- 'Don't link to harrassment' is a pretty good rule. If you disagree with it, I don't think the rule is the problem. MrOllie (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree in theory that it's a good rule. What is disagree with is that the rule is defined in a way that allows anyone to claim that almost anything is harassment if they don't like it, which makes it a shield for all criticism. Gworley3 (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Simply put, you don't throw random links "criticizing" Wikipedia editors into discussions just because they happen to be involved. It's the equivalent of walking up to someone on the street and waving around an article which smears them & saying everyone should read that before talking to the person. Just... don't.
- Also, we don't care if you donated or not. That's not relevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Seems quite relevant when it's in response to a thread that's about a particular editor's behavior. Like if I was talking to someone on the street and they were accused of punching people in the face, I'd like to know before I continue to stand too close to them. Similarly, I'd like to know if an editor has been accused of bad behavior before engaging on an article where they are involved. Gworley3 (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not relevant, that's what makes it harassment. If you have an issue with an editor, file a report at WP:ANI, don't just go around posting random website articles about Wikipedia editors every time someone complains about them. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Look it's fine. I just lose a little more faith in Wikipedia and the people who edit it every day. Gworley3 (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not relevant, that's what makes it harassment. If you have an issue with an editor, file a report at WP:ANI, don't just go around posting random website articles about Wikipedia editors every time someone complains about them. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Seems quite relevant when it's in response to a thread that's about a particular editor's behavior. Like if I was talking to someone on the street and they were accused of punching people in the face, I'd like to know before I continue to stand too close to them. Similarly, I'd like to know if an editor has been accused of bad behavior before engaging on an article where they are involved. Gworley3 (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree in theory that it's a good rule. What is disagree with is that the rule is defined in a way that allows anyone to claim that almost anything is harassment if they don't like it, which makes it a shield for all criticism. Gworley3 (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- 'Don't link to harrassment' is a pretty good rule. If you disagree with it, I don't think the rule is the problem. MrOllie (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The lack of patients on Wikipedia is why I've basically given up trying to edit it and encourage everyone I can not to donate to it. I used to love Wikipedia, but every time I try to come back to it I find it's somehow worse in some way I didn't expect, and it's always little reasonable sounding things that have been rules lawyered in ways that make the simple act of like trying to talk about problems with an editor on a Wikipedia page a problem. Ugh, anyway, I'm sure you don't care, but I'm extremely frustrated with how Wikipedia has gotten shittier every year and there's nothing I can do about it. Gworley3 (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you are having difficulty determining what is harassment and what isn't, just don't link to external sites that talk about individual Wikipedia editors at all. The Wikipedia community really does not have a lot of patience for this kind of thing, it is not worth testing the boundaries. MrOllie (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)