User talk:Kolya Butternut/Archive 4

Trump

Regarding this edit, I chose "event" because it's specifically what's used to describe the deaths on 2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol the article about the riot: Five people died or were fatally injured during the event. I realize consensus/correctness doesn't transfer between articles, but I think that "event" makes clear that they didn't all die inside the Capitol Building, and some of those who died of medical emergencies weren't necessarily part of the "riot" part of the event. I won't revert you regardless, just something to consider. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, thanks for the note. I changed my edit[1] now that I realize we were both wrong. I'm a little confused now about whether my edits were "reverts" or were permitted by the sanction, so I'll have to figure that out now. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe yours are acceptable, if not because they were a continual "work in progress" or improvement, but because I do not consider what you did to my edit a "revert" at all. If someone complains, I'll step in and say that I talked to you hear about it - WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR should apply since there is nothing wrong with working on it :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm out of practice with 1RR, etc., and I didn't even notice the hidden note. It can be scary to edit these sanctioned articles! Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Please do not attack other editors, as you did in your edit at Talk:Woman/sandbox. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Please don't make false accusations. Anyone can see what happened at User talk:Netoholic#Disruption at Woman lead image discussion. No response needed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

They are not false accusations, however your situation is best described as early stage WP:BOOMERANG if you persist in making personal attacks against an editor who disagrees with you. Stop now. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, could you help to stop this? I see that Locke Cole previously attempted to enable Netoholic's blockable behavior in 2018.[2] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean you're welcome to move on to personal attacks on me, this'll just make it more interesting if it winds up at AN/I. Like I said, WP:BOOMERANG... or you could just stop and actually discuss the concerns Netoholic had. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggested formatting

Hi Kolya, When you transfer the discussion to the talk page you could make use of <gallery> tags, and as the discussion progresses you could strike through any images as having been excluded, like this:

• 
  1. preview
• 
  2. preview
• 
  3. preview
• 
  4. preview
• 
  5. preview
• 6.
  6.
• 
  7.

Sorry, my phone's about to die! You get the idea. nagualdesign

Thanks! Did you mean to cross out preview 1? My concern with the formatting is about how to eliminate photos. I could repeat the galleries with headings which say "Proposed images with support as of [date]"... Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Or I could just have large photos all in a gallery at the top, and then have mini photos showing which ones still have support in galleries below that as they get eliminated. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

My phone just died before I could correct the markup. Yes, I struck through image 1 just as an example (plus, it didn't seem to receive any support IIRC). You could put a note that says, "Images with crossed-out captions have been excluded, per discussion", or WTTE. Removing the images entirely will render any discussion somewhat opaque, while reiterating the options repeatedly will lead to unnecessary bloat. Keeping the images at the top of the discussion then striking them out, or adding new options (as I have just done), keeps everything in one place. As I say, it's only a suggestion. <gallery> tags don't work particularly well on mobile either, but it does work very well on desktop. ..My laptop's on the blink too now, so I'm going to have to call it a night. I'll try again tomorrow. nagualdesign 01:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Managed to reboot my laptop. I may have to log off at any moment but I just wanted to add that including previews for each image isn't entirely necessary. nagualdesign 01:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

nagualdesign, check out my sandbox. What do you think of a gallery like that, where people sign the images they would like to see in the rfc? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm just heading out to visit my mother, so I won't be able to reply for a couple of hours, but I'll check back in later. nagualdesign 17:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

nagualdesign, how do you think the images should be chosen? Do you think everyone should sign every photo they'd like to see in the RfC, should each photo require a nomination and second, should each person only get to sign two photos? I'll repeat these questions at the sandbox before moving to Talk:Woman. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Having thought about it some more, it's probably best just to present the images, avoid crossing any of them out, and simply ask people to comment in the normal fashion. Introducing new ways of doing things might just add to people's confusion. Removing images from consideration before the discussion has ended may upset latecomers. And arbitrarily imposing a 2 vote limit is probably unnecessary. The previous selection process, which ran for several rounds, is probably the best way to do it. And as long as the final RfC includes the current image and the option to use no image everyone should be happy (not necessarily pleased with the final outcome, but satisfied that the process of establishing consensus was fair). Just my two cents, of course. nagualdesign 00:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Userbox

Hi! I love your "tomato is a vegetable" userbox. May I use it on my userpage?

Thanks! I didn't create it, but I'd say go ahead. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Suicide Comment

Thank you for your edit on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to Watch. I saw that your edit was reverted and so it is fine as it stands. As was mentioned, we make those decisions by consensus and discuss them on the Talk page before they are put in as policy. But a note to you on your edit. It’s not relevant whether we agree to include the phrase “died by suicide“ or “committed suicide“ because we are not authoring the information. We are only paraphrasing a third-party published work. So, it is best to use the phrasing that was used in the source. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. Exactly because we are paraphrasing, we choose our own wording, and if (I say if) we think one or another wording is preferable for some reason, we go with that regardless of the source's choice -- as long as it conveys the same meaning, as in this case. EEng 21:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I was also puzzled by your comment, Mary. Anyway, all I did was add the consensus from an RfC to WP:Words to watch. I think "committed suicide" is by definition non-neutral, but I thought the result of the RfC for this contentious wording should be easy to find. Others disagreed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear Kolya Butternut,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Millennial Date Range

Thank you for paying attention to the Millennial wikipedia article, there is constant abuse of the "date range" on it. The idea is that we should pay attention to it and revert it back to the current article it is at, then report the users who constantly abuse it. Thank you.

Zillennial (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you too. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Debatable revert at Amhara people page

You said it was a photomontage, i say that's questionable and it's a collage. Looks more like editors have their own defintions/opinions of what a photomontage is and are expanding to all images in general. In that case the guideline is not clearly defined inWP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. Not sure what you mean by. Please mind WP:3RR updated since the last time i visited not sure if you are alleging something or just being uncivil. Anyways i joined the discussion here about collages in lead images, and no consensus has been reached, which i hope will be reached. So how about reverting what you removed on the Amhara people page? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, that collage is a photomontage;[3] there's nothing questionable about it. I've read every one of the RfCs and discussions about this. We may discuss other options at Talk:Amhara people. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

And i say that's debatable whether it's a photomontage, i recently read a few, and it looks like you expanded photomontage to collages in general and imposed your view with your revert. So it is questionable, and has not yet achieved consensus, nor is it clearly worded as such in WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#MOS guidelines for a collage as the lead image / infobox image is more appropriate avenue to discuss the subject, instead of relegating to a talk page on a single article. So i urge you join the discussion there instead. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Human FAQ

It has been a while since I even looked at the FAQ on the Human Article's Talk Page. Some general points, however:

A. We humans ARE animals albeit special and superior animals. This is why we have a Taxobox like any other animal's Wikipedia Article.

B. Different ethnic groups are not as biologically distinct as the public likes to imagine. Nevertheless, the past consensus in pictures was to represent some combination of Africans and Asians. This is because, although humans (Genus Homo) evolved in Africa originally, the largest present-day populations (China and India) are both located in Asia. That said, not every picture necessarily has to be of those two groups. An occasional picture of a "White person," or a Native American, or a Pacific Islander is fine, too.

C. No, we are not "biological herbivores" because the vast majority of the world's population isn't vegan. Moreover, vegans have never been a majority at any point in human evolution. Our closest relatives, chimpanzees (Genus Pan) and gorillas (Genus Gorilla) are both known to feed on insects, and thus are not true herbivores, either.

Hope this helps. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

ANI

This thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#FYI is to get eyes om your report ASAP. MarnetteD|Talk 00:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Deleted SPI

I wrote a comment on the SPI before it was deleted, reading as follows:

Comment by Newimpartial - I don't want to be "involved" in this; I had nothing to do with the filing or ArbCom "evidence" and don't have a theory of the case, nor have I even heard of most of the accounts and IPs listed here. Nor do I know how interested anyone might be in behavioural evidence. But when I saw this Nowearskirts edit last week, I was involuntarily taken back to this Flyer22 edit from 2019, right down to details of presentation and formatting (and ensuing IDONTHEARTHAT). A surprising coincidence in a month-old account, if coincidence it is...

I went to the trouble of typing it, so I'd rather this observation not disappear into the ether. Newimpartial (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I check in on my talk page every day without signing in and I saw the culling of your post from my talk page. I had only ever occasionally edited here before I registered. I truly never saw the name "Flyer22 Frozen" until I saw her mentioned at Talk:Intimate partner violence. I can't digest Newimpartial's comment saying "right down to details of presentation and formatting (and ensuing IDONTHEARTHAT)" because Flyer22 Frozen's presentation of sources is different than mine. I learned mine from watching other people who used indenting and bullet points. Flyer22 Frozen included the year, publishing company, page, bold and a thing to collapse it all in hers. This looks like it was her typical way of listing sources.[4][5] And, gosh, that's just too much work for me. If talking about sex vs. gender is supposed to mean I'm guilty of a great wrong, then I guess it means Tewdar is also a frontrunner with their lists and arguments. Crossroads seems to disagree that I violated WP:IDONTHEARTHAT since he agreed with me and used two of my sources. It doesn't look like Flyer22 Frozen violated that policy either. Have a nice day. Nowearskirts (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, am I suspected of being a deceased Wikipedian? If so, can I have an SPI, to clear my good name? Tewdar (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Wait, because of colons, bullets, and indentation? Oh, the irony! Tewdar (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, I agree with the editor here, but doesn't this look awfully familiar? Newimpartial (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

"Familiar" compared to what, exactly? Are you an author profiling specialist? Tewdar (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have the motivation to dig up previous Talk page text on the same issue, but my (middling) memory tells me it is there. Newimpartial (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Warning

I'm sure you will see my warning but I am posting here to be sure. Any further speculation or other pot-stirring will result in an indefinite block. If you have any additional evidence, email it to Arbcom. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Meaning of your username

What does Kolya Butternut mean? Yleventa2 (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)