User talk:Butlerblog

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following: Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please specify a descriptive "Subject/headline" for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives (Index)

2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July 2023/August 2023/September 2023/October 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July 2024/August

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Based on the following [1], please don't utilize personal attacks in edit summaries, as you did here: [2]. Being mindful of such behavior in the future will be greatly appreciated as well as help minimize any feelings on my end about intent on your end to perpetuate animosity.[3] Thank you in advance. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaska4Me2: That's not a personal attack. Please re-read WP:NPA to understand the definition of a personal attack. If you don't understand what does or does not constitute a personal attack, ask for clarification. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does. I don't need to read the article, I know what it says, hence, the reason why I was able to link you to it. If I need clarification, I can read and re-read it myself as the article on the infraction is perfectly clear. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) It's obvious that you don't know what a personal attack is. If you are unable to take constructive criticism such as this, then maybe Wikipedia is not the right place for you. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ZLEA, it wasn't the "constructive criticism", it was the use of what has now become his trademark condescending tone when he communicates with me. A theme that has been kept running by Butlerblog for about nine months. Even so, since you seem to be going the same misdirected direction, I'll take this moment to remind you of the following: "On Wikipedia, all editors have fair and equal rights to editing all articles, project pages, and all other parts of the system. While some may have more knowledge or familiarity with a topic than others, this does not mean those with less Wikipedia jargon are at a lower level, or not entitled to their point of view." (quoted from WP:WikiBullying). And with that, I have nothing else to say on the subject. My point has been made here and there's no need to continue. Especially to wait for someone else to continue with a message like yours. A message that essentially says, "If you don't like it, leave". Civility remains as "part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars", doesn't it? Never forget that diversity is cool and there's room here for everyone. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civility remains as "part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars", doesn't it? Yes, and part of civility is assuming good faith, which you have consistently not done for those nine months. When you have multiple editors telling you that you're wrong, maybe you should stop and consider the possibility that you actually are wrong. Never forget that diversity is cool and there's room here for everyone. This seems to have come out of the blue, but maybe there's something I missed. Do you believe Butlerblog has attacked you based on your race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc.? Or maybe I should be broad with my question. Has Butlerblog attacked you ad hominem, or have all these perceived attacks been in regard to your actions on Wikipedia? - ZLEA _T\^C 19:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather concerning response to a WP:CTOPICS notice. Given the long-running WP:AGF/AAGF issues and the apparent inability to distinguish between constructive criticism and personal attacks, it might be time to take this to WP:AN/I. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that is problematic - as is the self close of the notice. ButlerBlog (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're unintentionally replacing URLs with the {{Bare URL inline}} template, e.g. special:diff/1241468498 2001:999:404:F24E:AC74:39F1:9D4A:1986 (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - thanks for catching that! Seems there was a change in the script yesterday that introduced a bug. I can clean it up based on the entries that are in the log. ButlerBlog (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back edits on the articles that were affected by the bug, debugged the AWB regex, and reran on the affected articles to reapply the {{Bare URL inline}} tag (this time, the URL is included). Things should be OK now going forward. ButlerBlog (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd classify the Wikiproject as semi-active not completely inactive. It was only shifted from "active" all the way to "inactive" in July, but there still is some activity on the talk page, even since then, so I re-marked it as "semi-active" instead (after seeing your removal of the template from one of the articles I have starred. Could you undo your removal of the Wikiprojects from the article talk pages you removed it from? Raladic (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic: This was a case where there was a particular user mass adding articles to the project (and other projects). They were neither a participant in the project, nor did they have a good handle on article assessment (among other issues). If you're a participant (and or interested in the project) and you think that a particular article is of interest to the project, by all means, add it back in. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add to that - I didn't include that in the edit summary as I did not see it as necessary to draw negative attention to the editor involved. So the edit summary I limited to identifying the non-contentious reason. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, thanks for that extra context, makes sense. I'll see if there a particular article I care about that I feel like could keep it. Happy editing :) Raladic (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the book of Genesis as a source for the fact that Cain has no descendants living amongst humanity today, which is the entire theory the article is about. The reason the book of Genesis is a valid source for this is because the entire story of Cain's life is based purely on the book of Genesis, therefore since the same book less than 2 chapters later is clear about the fact that all of Cain's descendants were wiped out in the great flood its a valid source for the fact the entire theory is contradicted by the very book of Genesis Cain's life and existence is based on. The actual theory that humanity is divided into real humans and those who are descended from a half human half snake is itself a crackpot idea. But the entire purpose of this theory that there is a race of half human half snakes living among us is so that ignorant idiots can declare that Jews or Blacks or whoever else they hate is not actually human. So the lead is the proper place for readers to understand from the start that the theory is contradicted by the very book it is based on and is therefore factually false. The only additional citation that may be in order would be to provide the verse and chapter citation for the book of Genesis, however one can assume that the average reader is aware of the biblical story of the great flood. L69 (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@L69: Please keep things in one place - if you reply on your talk page, then keep it there. If you reply on my talk page, that's fine, too. But only do one or the other. I responded to this and your own talk page reply at your talk page. Thanks. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]