User talk:Bluethricecreamman

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

First Message Ever, Let it be archived i guess

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. An edit that you recently made to Sherlock (software) seemed to be a test and it has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Hello, in this revert, you restored content that, according to both Wikipedia policy (WP:NOCONSENSUS) and admin feedback following a failed RFC, should be removed from the article. Additionally, you did so without providing an edit summary. This is not the first time you have made a controversial revert without providing an edit summary, as you did previously here. 916crdshn (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the first revert, should have provided an edit summary.

Second revert, by WP:BRD, a bold deletion of long-standing fact by editor was reverted.

In the future, if you have an issue with an edit, put the information in the talk space. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Philly Palestine Coalition

Hello, Sawerchessread. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Philly Palestine Coalition".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NP. I think i abandoned it. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your hard work at TESCREAL. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Bluethricecreamman. Thank you for your work on Environmental impacts of artificial intelligence. Another editor, Broc, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice article!!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Broc}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Broc (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

@User:Sawerchessread, for looking in at the Pamela Paul article, and I hope you continue to do so. [I recognised your name there as a longstanding WP participant—perhaps through our watching the Rowling Talk page (?).]

I appreciate in all contexts your effort to keep us editting NPOV, and otherwise compliant with WP policy and guideline articles supporting accuracy and balance. (In this description I would include WP:VERIFY and WP:OR, significantly.)

I would note—with no sense of offense, rather, an eye for irony—that recent action at that article, perhaps resulting from my drumbeating that others keep watch there, led to protection of Pamela Paul, with consequence that the former POV/OR editor (red letter and one-time, but registered) is allowed still to edit, but I (retired and no longer registered) am disallowed.

That is, the direct but simplistic administrative solution to that brewing but nevertheless still only potential for edit warring had as its impact removal of one trying to safeguard the article with regard to WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:OR, etc.!

I can certainly redeem time otherwise, but I still favour not being sidelined, and so being part of a dyamic, editorial, non-administrative solution. (Unfortunately, for reasons of organisational security, our working via registration is no longer an option.)

Cheers, and thank you again. 98.206.30.195 (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your work. I'm somewhat new at this and have only started editting the past 6-7 months.

I think this page is regularly the target of IP editors, some of whom had less noble intentions than you.

I have my eye on it though, as do others. Apologies for interrupting your work. If you want, use the WP:EDITREQUEST and I'll try to handle it for you. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Queer advocacy in the Israel–Hamas War has been accepted

Queer advocacy in the Israel–Hamas War, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Existential risk studies

Hello, how are you?

Given your interest in TESCREAL, I suppose you might also be interested in this topic of existential risk studies, which I have decided to make. If you do have an interest to take a look, it is in my [drafts]. I have also submitted the article to review, a process which I have zero experience with. Feel free to give any advice or proposition of change.

Bye. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey. ill take a look.

idk the exact details but WP:CANVASSING

may discourage asking for folks who happen to agree with you often from approving work.

ill still take a look but im not the most knowledgeable about most existential risk philosophies, just happened to have noticed TESCREAL had been deleted and thought that it seemed egregious that it had been removed like that. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didnt know this rule. The article was still in my drafts that moment, so it would more about suggestions. But it was quite a fast process of approval anyway, just a few minutes. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion for "Ashkenazi genius" or whatever it's called

Do you want to start an (open-ended?) move discussion for Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence, now that the deletion discussion is over? IIRC you mentioned an interest in changing the article title during the AfD.

I have some experience with move discussions under my belt now ;)

— Jruderman (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. started a section. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1RR at Genocide of indigenous peoples

Hi; at topics related to the Israel-Arab conflict, editors are restricted to one revert every 24 hours: An editor must not perform more than one reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

You have made two reverts within a 24 hour period:

Please self-revert 13:21, 6 August 2024 to bring yourself back into compliance with this restriction. BilledMammal (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:44, 7 August 2024 seems like another 1RR violation, coming less than 24 hours after your 13:21, 6 August 2024 revert - please self-revert again. BilledMammal (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to have to take you to AE over this, but if your only response is "no" I don't have much choice - can you at least explain why you feel a revert is not required? BilledMammal (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They don't count a revert then self-revert as a revert in editwarring. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The self-revert (13:51, 6 August 2024) doesn't count, but the initial revert (13:21, 6 August 2024) can, particularly when it is on the same content.

You've reinstated this content four times now, three of them in less than 48 hours; I think it would be in your best interests to self revert. BilledMammal (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you want to intimidate, you're failing. If you want to report, get it over with already. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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.

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Bluethricecreamman. Thank you.

1R

Fyi, the 1R rule only applies to the AI/IP material. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Environmental impacts of artificial intelligence

On 13 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Environmental impacts of artificial intelligence, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that researchers estimated that training the model for ChatGPT used the equivalent energy footprint of "driving 123 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles for a year"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Environmental impacts of artificial intelligence. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Environmental impacts of artificial intelligence), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of BL dramas

Hello, I'm the creator of Draft:List of BL dramas that you recently declined. Thank you for your comment, but I still find myself wondering why the article falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY when directory lists like List of teen dramas exist. BL/Boys' love is a genre that falls under the category of LGBT works whose related lists can be found plenty in Wikipedia, and the existence of BL is covered by reliable sources which can be seen in its main article Yaoi. I'm hoping to receive input on whether if I can improve the article for future resubmission. Thank you. — ‎‎‎hhypeboyh 💬 • ✏️ 00:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HypeBoy ah.. Ok, maybe declining was a mistake.

I didn't fully read the WP:NLIST and WP:NOTADIRECTORY. If you submit again, ill accept.

Im still a probationary AFC reviewer and got review powers last month, apologies! Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman: I see, no worries! I just resubmitted the draft article, I'm hoping you can accept the submission, please. Thank you. — ‎‎‎hhypeboyh 💬 • ✏️ 00:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics alert for all page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them.

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Referral from the Artibration Enforcement noticeboard regarding behavior in Palestine-Israel articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Context"?

Yes, I was blocked from the Imane Khelif article for a WP:MEDRS and WP:BLP violation. When I appealed, the reviewing admin suggested opening a thread at WT:MEDRS to clarify the underlying policy issue - perhaps they felt the issue wasn't straightforward and required community discussion? Anyway, I followed their advice and started a thread at WP:MEDRS. By adding unnecessary "context" (the issue is of general interest, not specific to me), I'm concerned you're hindering the discussion and making it seem like "there's no policy issue here, just an angry user complaining about their block". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Armand Duplantis on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]