User talk:R Holden at gmail

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place for blogging or promotion. So please do not try to use Wikipedia to promote yourself or your family, band, product, or company. The subjects of our articles have to meet certain notability requirements and be written from a neutral point of view. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time, even if it's on your user page. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing here, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you.--VViking_TalkEdits 18:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --VViking_TalkEdits 18:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not disruptive editing. Why does no one care about Harassment and bullying anymore. I remember this used to be a hot topic, now when it happens, everyone just looks away. It is really very sad. R Holden at gmail (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. --VViking_TalkEdits 19:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how posting a company's lack of enforcement on their own harassment and bullying policy is vandalism? R Holden at gmail (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stackoverflow question as a source

Wikipedia does not use social media postings such as Stackoverflow questions as sources - kindly stop adding material based on such a citation. If you get a major media outlet (like a newspaper) to write about it, Wikipedia might take notice then. But not based on a user generated posting somewhere. MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stack overflow is NOT a social media site. please read it's Wiki article Stack Overflow- Wikipedia R Holden at gmail (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't write about any sort of user generated post on Wikipedia. You're simply on the wrong website to share that kind of material. MrOllie (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So Wikipedia doesn't actually care about the facts? Wow, you all put on a good show because all this time I have been coming here, I thought that Wikipedia was about all the facts it could get. Sad to learn how things run under the hood. R Holden at gmail (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We care about verifiability, not truth. See WP:NOTTRUTH. --Yamla (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability, I posted links for verification. So that isn't the real reason you don't want it on that page. Is meta so large they control Wikipedia now? R Holden at gmail (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You posted zero reliable links for verification. If you are unwilling to read WP:RS and WP:NOR, there's no point continuing this discussion. --Yamla (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the link you provided, the following is true.

Wikipedia's articles should be intelligent summaries and reflections of current published knowledge within the relevant fields, an overview of the relevant literature. The Verifiability policy is related to another core content policy, Neutral point of view, which holds that we include all significant views on a subject. Citing reliable sources, for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, gives readers the chance to check for themselves that the most appropriate sources have been used...

what I wrote had all of that. It provided reliable sources, two of them. It covered, both sides. I was acutally adding to how reporting harrassment and stuff worked to make it more neutral when you decided harassment and bullying wasn't good enough. R Holden at gmail (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IT DID NOT. You did not use a source that meets WP:RS. Multiple people have reverted your edits, blocked you, or explained why you are mistaken. As you simply refuse to listen, this is my last response to you. --Yamla (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you guys should all re-read your guidelines. Everything I said fits in your guidelines. Who is above you that I can talk to. R Holden at gmail (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that Stack Overflow is already listed as a "Generally unreliable" on the list of reliable sources. It should come as no surprise that other editors would be unhappy about you openly using an unreliable source. Synorem (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point still stands. Everything I posted fits, according to the guidelines that have been given to me by a number of people. I have posted from within those guidelines how it fits. Now I want to talk to your boss. R Holden at gmail (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't answer how I can talk to someone above you, I will create a new account and repost it. I am trying to understand why this is unacceptable, and so far all you have given me is WP sites, that when I read, seem to fit what I said. R Holden at gmail (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your new account would just be blocked as well, or we'd lock down the page no new editors cannot change it. MrOllie (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. And in ALL of this. you are the only one that has given me any kind of answer that made sense. When you said Wikipedia just doesn't write about user generated posts. I get that, and I have a suspicion as to why. But for clarification can you tell me why? Maybe that is what I was trying to get to the bottom of the whole time. R Holden at gmail (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we did, anyone could write anything, self publish it, and then try to use it as a source for Wikipedia. We need some minimum standards to maintain a fact-based encyclopedia that isn't full of trivial events that happened to one average person somewhere. MrOllie (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is what I thought, and that is the understanding I put in my appeal for unblock. It makes total sense; can we get that clarified maybe in WP:RS. If it would have said User posts are unreliable in all instances, I wouldn't have batted an eye and probably wouldn't have put you all through this stupid nightmare I created. R Holden at gmail (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a policy. Please see WP:USERGEN, which you can easily find by looking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well Crap. it is there, clear as day. Now I feel like even more of a jerk. Call me a knuckle head for not reading entire book. Not trying to be negative with that sentence, but you have to admit it is pretty long. With that said, all this mess could have been avoided if I had read the whole thing and not the first few sections. R Holden at gmail (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further more, Wp:RS says:

Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form

Stack Overflow is made available to the public, there fore it fits.

WP:nor talks about sources. I posted the sources on where my stuff came from. I was adding to it when I was talking about how to report and stuff to make it more neutral. R Holden at gmail (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are misreading the policies. If you get a major newspaper to publish about it, Wikipedia might cover it then. MrOllie (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding to it. Why is it that no one gives a damn about harassment and bullying? That is all I was trying to do. (also, sorry I didn't know I was getting these messages this is my first time actually doing something on Wikipedia other than reading)

And actually I was adding a great deal to that same snippet I was working on. I went to their site to see just how the reporting is done and where it was in the site. It is all buried pretty deep. They have nothing as far as directly reporting harassment and bullying. They redirect you to a "Contact Support" page.

I wasn't vandalizing, I wasn't spamming, I wasn't using items from social media (stack exchange is not a social media site) and I wasn't adding useless information. I really don't understand what big deal is. I am trying to state that they don't care about harassment and bullying, regardless of what their code of conduct says. I find that very relevant. Don't you? if not, why? R Holden at gmail (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

R Holden at gmail (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was adding to it. Why is it that no one gives a damn about harassment and bullying? That is all I was trying to do. (also, sorry I didn't know I was getting these messages this is my first time actually doing something on Wikipedia other than reading) :And actually I was adding a great deal to that same snippet I was working on. I went to their site to see just how the reporting is done and where it was in the site. It is all buried pretty deep. They have nothing as far as directly reporting harassment and bullying. They redirect you to a "Contact Support" page. :I wasn't vandalizing, I wasn't spamming, I wasn't using items from social media (stack exchange is not a social media site) and I wasn't adding useless information. I really don't understand what big deal is. I am trying to state that they don't care about harassment and bullying, regardless of what their code of conduct says. I find that very relevant.

Decline reason:

You don't understand reliable sources. You need to read WP:RS and WP:NOR and then explain why your edits were inappropriate. Yamla (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You are not permitted to remove declined unblock requests for your currently active block. Please do not do so again. --Yamla (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do that again and you lose talk page access. --Yamla (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I am removeing it because it is declined and I don't need it. it is now just clutter. *rolls eyes* R Holden at gmail (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not permitted to do so. You are also not permitted to edit it. You won't get another warning. --Yamla (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OH the edit was on accident. I put that in the wrong place, that is why I changed it back. Sorry about that. Truely I am not trying to be a jerk here, I am just not understanding why I can't post this when it fits everything that is being thrown at me as to why it doesn't fit. Forgive my ignorance. R Holden at gmail (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

R Holden at gmail (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think I finally figured out what I did that was so incorrect. It wasn't' that I was using Stack Exchange as a valid source. It was that I was using posts made by users, as the source. Looking at it this way, it makes more sense. It wasn't until I went back and read the comment by MrOllie that the words "user post" popped out at me. I believe I was seeing that but not really computing it as I viewed it as reliable. Of course, it doesn't matter that I think it is reliable, others would have to see it that way as well. With the source being a user post, it doesn't offer that to most people. Shoot, I even know that a lot of the "answers" that you find on stack overflow are not reliable. I found that in my research. So, I don't know why I didn't put this together sooner, before putting making all you guys miserable, but I am sorry I was so thick headed. I won't try to add that again now that I have a reason that makes sense to me.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I think I finally figured out what I did that was so incorrect. It wasn't' that I was using Stack Exchange as a valid source. It was that I was using posts made by users, as the source. Looking at it this way, it makes more sense. It wasn't until I went back and read the comment by MrOllie that the words "user post" popped out at me. I believe I was seeing that but not really computing it as I viewed it as reliable. Of course, it doesn't matter that I think it is reliable, others would have to see it that way as well. With the source being a user post, it doesn't offer that to most people. Shoot, I even know that a lot of the "answers" that you find on stack overflow are not reliable. I found that in my research. So, I don't know why I didn't put this together sooner, before putting making all you guys miserable, but I am sorry I was so thick headed. I won't try to add that again now that I have a reason that makes sense to me.  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I think I finally figured out what I did that was so incorrect. It wasn't' that I was using Stack Exchange as a valid source. It was that I was using posts made by users, as the source. Looking at it this way, it makes more sense. It wasn't until I went back and read the comment by MrOllie that the words "user post" popped out at me. I believe I was seeing that but not really computing it as I viewed it as reliable. Of course, it doesn't matter that I think it is reliable, others would have to see it that way as well. With the source being a user post, it doesn't offer that to most people. Shoot, I even know that a lot of the "answers" that you find on stack overflow are not reliable. I found that in my research. So, I don't know why I didn't put this together sooner, before putting making all you guys miserable, but I am sorry I was so thick headed. I won't try to add that again now that I have a reason that makes sense to me.  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I think I finally figured out what I did that was so incorrect. It wasn't' that I was using Stack Exchange as a valid source. It was that I was using posts made by users, as the source. Looking at it this way, it makes more sense. It wasn't until I went back and read the comment by MrOllie that the words "user post" popped out at me. I believe I was seeing that but not really computing it as I viewed it as reliable. Of course, it doesn't matter that I think it is reliable, others would have to see it that way as well. With the source being a user post, it doesn't offer that to most people. Shoot, I even know that a lot of the "answers" that you find on stack overflow are not reliable. I found that in my research. So, I don't know why I didn't put this together sooner, before putting making all you guys miserable, but I am sorry I was so thick headed. I won't try to add that again now that I have a reason that makes sense to me.  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Lordy. Okay, well, I'm glad you've got it now, but if you end up at "Yamla I want your manager" over being told to follow our reliable source guidelines, I can't say I have zero concerns about what happens if we let you loose in the encyclopedia again. Are you going to try to make those edits on Stack Overflow again? Have you found reliable, published sources that contain that information? Can you promise to ask questions when you don't understand things instead of telling extremely experienced Wikipedia editors that they don't know our policies? -- asilvering (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh I am not going to re-add those edits. I get that user posts are un-reliable and that is all I had to go on. So no worries there. I don't know why I had such a hard time wrapping my head around that concept to begin with. I know better. Maybe I am just getting old crotchety in my old age. Sorry again for putting you all through this. R Holden at gmail (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know. I suppose what I'm worried about is, what happens the next time you have a hard time wrapping your head around a concept? I'm sure you'll find another difficult one soon enough, not because you're some kind of idiot, but simply because this place has existed for more than two decades and has far more rules and guidelines than any one person could possibly be familiar with. Mostly good-natured arguments about interpreting various policies happen all the time here. I can warn you now that if you're unblocked and then act like you did earlier, you're pretty likely to be reblocked without much warning. -- asilvering (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one thing I am far more familiar with how this process works now. When first made this post, I didn't even know I was getting warnings or anything because I was in aware of how talk pages worked or what they even were. Second, I think it will be easier for me to take a step back as next time I will know the rules significantly better. R Holden at gmail (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Here are some other things you should read before you try to edit anything else: WP:DUE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:DR. Let me know if you've got any questions about those. -- asilvering (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well, it's been nine days since your last reply and my account is still blocked. I wish you would have simply told me you were not going to unblock it no matter what I did. It really would have saved us both some time. *Shrugges* R Holden at gmail (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been waiting for a confirmation that you'd read those, sorry. -- asilvering (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did read them but I am done with jumping through hoops. Either you believe my mistake won't happen again or you don't. Either you beleive I have a better understanding of procedure or you dont. I have seen court trials with less hoops to jump through. R Holden at gmail (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]