User talk:NunyaBeeness

September 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Girth Summit _(blether) 09:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Since your response to a warning about harassment seemed to indicate that you thought you had done nothing wrong, I have temporarily blocked this account. To be clear: you are not permitted to harass anyone, regardless of what they have done. If you really think that someone is harassing you, you can ask for assistance at WP:ANI, explaining the problems you are experiencing. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 09:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited USA Wrestling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Green. 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) 06:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

United States results in women's freestyle wrestling moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, United States results in women's freestyle wrestling, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 13:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It is more sourced - or just as sourced - as the existing United States results in Greco-Roman wrestling and United States results in men's freestyle wrestling. I'm reverting your move to draftspace unless you are moving everything to draftspace. You'd also need to have a reasonable explanation for such a move since everything is sourced from FILA's database, a credible source. NunyaBeeness (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep I obviously can't undo your change since you and it so that I can't. I'm going to safely assume misogyny on your part since you chose to remove the women's page even though the source is the same as the men's freestyle page and greco page, both of which have been there for years. Not sure what you have against women getting their own page. NunyaBeeness (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@NunyaBeeness: That article was reviewed as part of WP:NPP page review. It has no references. Once it has been referenced, it can go back to mainspace. Lastly, cut out the crass comments. Stating such a thing without direct evidence can get you sanctioned and even blocked. Personnel attacks don't go down well with the Admin corps. If the men's freestyle page and greco page don't have references, then it needs to be addressed. If you cant reference the article you creating, don't create articles. This is 2022, not 2006. It is entirely unacceptable and against consensus to create articles without refencing each sentence. scope_creep^Talk 16:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I see you were blocked last year for harrassment. I guess your comments are getting you excluded. I'm will need to have a chay with Girth Summit about your WP:PA. scope_creep^Talk 16:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Girth Summit: This editor is calling me a misogynist and that I have something against women. That is a form of WP:PA. It doesn't really bother me, as you have to have thick skin to work in page review, but it is really beyond the pale, since I never asked for and it completely untrue. The editor is taking a swipe at reviewing the unsourced article he/she created. It has been a long day. scope_creep^Talk 16:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

NunyaBeeness: first things first, I'm going to ask you to withdraw your accusation of misogyny against Scope creep. Such a charge is indeed a personal attack, and deeply offensive: you simply can't accuse people of things like that here (or rather, if you are going to accuse people of that, you need to back it up with some serious evidence, not just assumptions based on a single action). To jump to the conclusion that a person draftified an article because they are a misogynist is an extreme assumption of bad faith. I'll be happy to give you some advice on the ins and outs of draftification, sourcing, notability requirements, and the problems with the other stuff exists argument, but only if you will be willing to step back from that accusation. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit I'm not withdrawing anything. I'm doubling down on it. @Scope creep is a misogynist since he keeps removing only the women's article. No action was taken on his side to remove or address the men and greco article. All articles have the same source, which is very thorough, credible, and historically accurate, the FILA database. That should be enough for every single article. Yet the user keeps doubling down only on the women's article. No explanation on his side was given why he hasn't draftified the men's freestyle or greco articles. There's more than enough evidence there alone of misogyny, but if you want to turn a blind eye then by all means. Guilty by association, I guess. I'm more than okay to be permabanned over this since I don't deal well with misogynists. NunyaBeeness (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

See this list User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting/Culture/Biography/Women. The article was on that list. So withdraw your comment and apologize, since now looks like your going to get blocked. scope_creep^Talk 17:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't apologize to misogynists. Not that I have anything to apologize for in the first place. NunyaBeeness (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

United States results in women's freestyle wrestling moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, United States results in women's freestyle wrestling, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I have moved this back to drafts because it is insufficiently referenced; nothing to do with being women's team vs. men's. And just because you can find another article among the c. 6.5m out there that is equally insufficiently referenced, doesn't mean that we should be creating more of those. New articles have to comply with rules of verifiability and notability, no matter what. Please do not move this back into the main article space until the referencing has been improved. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Both articles source the same historically accurate info, yet you keep the men and remove the women's. That's a simple common factor here and it's not hard to see what it is. Either draftify them all or accept them all otherwise your bias and misogyny stands out like a sore thumb. NunyaBeeness (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks such as accusing me of "bias and misogyny" aren't going to get this article published (and, I might add, are offensive, but I'll let that slide for now); play the ball, not the player. And abide by the rules. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Let slide or don't let it slide. I don't care. Publish or don't publish the article. I don't care. I don't care to deal with bigoted individuals. Zeroing out on the female article is textbook misogyny. The fact is you are a misogynist and no mental gymnastic will change that. NunyaBeeness (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Girth Summit _(blether) 19:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a temporary block, because I want to get through to you - I believe you can be a productive member of this community, but you must understand that this type of confrontational, insulting rhetoric is not tolerated. You know nothing about the two people you are in conflict with, and you don't understand our review processes; rather than assuming good faith and seeking an explanation, you have chosen to insist that the only reasonable explanation for their actions is misogyny. Your approach has to change. If this is repeated when the block expires, the next one is likely to be indefinite. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 19:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Dude, block me, ban me. I don't care. People zeroing out on a female article with the same sources as the male articles is pretty bigoted. I don't care what you have to say about it. I would be hard pressed to be convinced otherwise when all things are equal and yet the female article is the one being targeted. How is that not misogyny? Drafitify all of them or don't drafitify any of them. I can't assume good faith when the only article being targeted is the female one, nope. The source is the same for all of them and yet the male articles were never touched. Explain to me how that's not misogyny? NunyaBeeness (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, let me explain to you how this works. When a new article is created, it gets put into a queue for an experienced reviewer to look over - we call this New Page Patrol. If the reviewer feels that it doesn't pass muster for whatever reason, there are several options available - it may be tagged for improvements but otherwise left alone, or it may be nominated for deletion if the reviewer thinks it isn't worth salvaging, but if it has potential but isn't quite ready for mainspace, it may be moved into draft space so that people can continue to work on it. However, that process hasn't always been in place in its current form, and our notability guidelines have also evolved over time. What that means is that there are many thousands of articles that don't meet today's standards, and every day many of them get nominated for deletion. Either people improve them to meet the standards, or they get ditched.

The two articles about the men's sport are old - they predate the current review process, and it's entirely possible that they don't meet the current standards, and ought to be deleted or merged into other articles. The existence of an old article about a subject is not seen as a valid argument for the creation of a new article about a related subject - that is known as the 'other stuff exists' argument, and is discussed at 'WP:OSE'. New Page Patrollers are not encouraged to compare new articles with existing ones; they are explicitly directed to judge them on their own merits against the current guidelines. On the substantive issue of whether or not the article ought to exist, I fundamentally agree with you that if we have an article listing a country's men's team's results for a sport, we should have a corresponding article about the women's team. I do not have a view on whether either article should exist however - I would need to look into sourcing and refresh my understanding of the current state of any relevant specific notability guidelines to come to an opinion on that.

This is all somewhat tangential to your block, but I'm explaining it to give you some background on why I am perfectly happy to believe that the reviewers who have draftified that article did so in good faith, not because they are bigoted in any way, but because they genuinely believed that the article didn't meet the current standards. They may be mistaken in that view - mechanisms exists which allow for the article to be discussed, and a consensus to form on whether or not it should be retained - but that has to be done in a civil manner, with both sides assuming good faith of the other. If you find yourself unable to assume good faith of people you disagree with, you will not be a good fit with this project.

Now, if you would be willing to acknowledge that your comments were out of line and undertake not to repeat them, I'd be willing to lift this block immediately and give you some advice on how to move forward with the getting the article into mainspace. If you are not willing to do that, you may allow the temporary block to time out, and resume editing afterwards. I warn however you that any further instances of you levelling accusations of that sort at your fellow editors will likely be met with an indefinite block, with access to this talk page revoked. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 13:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about being blocked or permabanned. Not sure how many times I gotta tell you this. I will acknowledge that those people are misogynists. Let me try to explain it to you one more time.

There are more than 3 articles using the same source, the FILA database - or rather the UWW database now. There's only one or two articles that highlight female athletes. All the rest highlight male athletes. No action is even talked about there.

You can have your mental gymnastics and explanation to feel better about it, but there's no world where the women being negatively targeted and denied their representation is not misogyny. NunyaBeeness (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I will just add that I feel very strongly about bigoted behavior and bigots and that's the reason I'm not bucking on this at all. You seem like a nice guy and have good intentions, but I am not gonna change my tone. I would if there was consistency and the females weren't being targeted here, but that's not the case is it? NunyaBeeness (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Post-script - I'll just add that DoubleGrazing, whom you accuse of bigotry and misogyny, is an active contributor to our Women in Red project, and has authored over fifty articles about female artists and designers. You need to recognise that jumping to conclusions about people on the basis of a single action is not a good idea. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds to me that you excuse a misogynistic action because of other things. A case of "my best friend is black, so I can't be racist" thinking. Bigoted behavior should never be excused. NunyaBeeness (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I said earlier I'll let your offensive remarks slide, but I take that back now. You have no right to go around accusing people the way you are doing; you don't know the first thing about any of us. Whether or not you 'care' about being blocked or banned, I for one think you should be. I also think @Girth Summit is being incredibly generous to you at the moment, so if I were you, I would stop digging when already in a big hole, because you may find that the generosity has its limits. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Girth Summit _(blether) 17:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

You were warned what would happen if you repeated that stuff. You repeated it. You can no longer edit this talk page; if you want to edit here, you will have to explain the choices you made, and how you will do better in future, to the UTRS admins. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:United States results in women's freestyle wrestling

Hello, NunyaBeeness. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:United States results in women's freestyle wrestling, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:United States results in women's freestyle wrestling

Hello, NunyaBeeness. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "United States results in women's freestyle wrestling".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)