User talk:Pclem1
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Pclem1! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Please see WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Citation templates. I'll try to fix in. No one can read these reference and thus no one can evaluate the article. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Editing focus
[edit]I notice that your edits to date have been focused on a very narrow topic. I would like to direct your attention to the essay at Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, which explains why those edits may be subject to scrutiny by other editors. Donald Albury 22:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- My interests are varied but there are two figures I have recently focused on. One was an article I wrote from scratch which understandably would require substantial focus. The other is a person that was linked to that figure via the article. I've only been an editor for a short period and will expand into other topics as time allows. I finished writing the article in question two days ago. I don't think it's fair to judge an essentially two-day-old account as single purpose for focusing on one person other than the new-article subject. If it were six months or a year and 5 or 10 or 15 related topics, then yes.Pclem1 (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
April 2025
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. OsFish (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- You can't just call all my edits 'warring.' I'm allowed to make changes not in relation to the debate and controversy at hand. You're casting recent uncontroversial edits as warring. Pclem1 (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Pclem1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Sir or Madam, I'm requesting a short-term block or block removal on this account. I will not engage in further editing activity on the article in question, or behave similarly on other articles. I was unfamiliar with the 'bludgeoning' concept cited by one editor. As for personal attacks, I do not recall any other than accusing an editor of 'forcing me into a ban.' I felt trapped since that editor and other editors were threatening me with bans, while not explaining the reasons against the majority of recent edits I was making. I was upset because many of the edits were productive and objective improvements on the article, and did not relate to the debate at hand or to controversy, yet were being categorically reverted due to association with my username and a perceived POV not in accordance with the fringe-subject policies. That said, there were admittedly some points I should not have pushed further, or responded to as persistently/aggressively, and should have cooled off and walked away for a time, and let the conversation and consensus develop, rather than engaging immediately with every comment and trying to push my position. I am a new editor and have become more familiar with the talk/noticeboard norms here, and believe I can be a productive member into the future. Additionally, I'll be very careful not to junk up the editing history by making many 'mini edits,' and will consolidate edits before posting like most users do and as I can see is the norm here. While the editing history appears disruptive (on the actual article), the actual volume of edits was fairly modest, I just individually saved each change. I won't do that anymore. Thanks for your consideration.Pclem1 (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Nothing here convinces me it would be a good idea to lift the block. Frankly, I'd need to see a clear understanding of WP:BLUDGEON and WP:CONSENSUS from you and likely a broad WP:TOPICBAN. Perhaps on WP:FRINGE topics entirely, broadly construed. At this point, it looks like anyone who interacted with you felt that you essentially ignored anything they told you (WP:IDHT) and saw that you planned to win any disagreement by absolutely exhausting them (WP:BLUDGEON). You'll certainly have more luck if you edit another Wikimedia project for a while (say, 6 months with 500 constructive, problem-free, non-trivial edits). Otherwise, I think it's simply too soon to consider unblocking you, given the behaviour that lead to the block. Yamla (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
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 accused another editor being a liar. You accused an editor of being a bully. The rest of your attacks were indirect, telling editors they were trying to get you "banned".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- I used lie in the sense of saying a falsehood. The editor said that all my questions had already been answered. This was false, and only one of the dozen-odd categories of changes I was making had been addressed (the point about Henrik Clarke, which I immediately conceded on and edited it exactly in accordance with what the consensus editor wanted) (9 were listed but some had a couple small changes within them). The others in the list of edits on the talk page had never been addressed by any editor. It wasn't true, but I should have said 'that's untrue' rather than saying 'you're lying.' I'm sorry for doing that. I shouldn't have used the word bully either, but was very frustrated by full reverts, rather than selective removal of the problematic content. I spent a lot of time improving the article in non-controversial ways, and felt that time was being wasted by doing full reverts. The idea of posting the list in talk is so that I could edit within parameters acceptable to the consensus and avoid conflicts, and not waste my and their time. But as I said, I should have just cooled off and had a more measured discussion on talk, hoped for an eventual resolution/answer, and accepted that the consensus at that time was not in my favor.Pclem1 (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- We don't arbitrarily shorten blocks, as that does nothing in terms of the user demonstrating their understanding of what led to it; the block can be removed if you convince us to do so. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I'm unfamiliar with the process. I'm asking the block be removed then. I'm a new editor and this all went down in a 12-24-hour period. It got out of hand and I made some mistakes. I understand what went wrong and where I went wrong and won't repeat it. I will stay away from this article and do a better job of abiding by and accepting the consensus on any article. Pclem1 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- We don't arbitrarily shorten blocks, as that does nothing in terms of the user demonstrating their understanding of what led to it; the block can be removed if you convince us to do so. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- I used lie in the sense of saying a falsehood. The editor said that all my questions had already been answered. This was false, and only one of the dozen-odd categories of changes I was making had been addressed (the point about Henrik Clarke, which I immediately conceded on and edited it exactly in accordance with what the consensus editor wanted) (9 were listed but some had a couple small changes within them). The others in the list of edits on the talk page had never been addressed by any editor. It wasn't true, but I should have said 'that's untrue' rather than saying 'you're lying.' I'm sorry for doing that. I shouldn't have used the word bully either, but was very frustrated by full reverts, rather than selective removal of the problematic content. I spent a lot of time improving the article in non-controversial ways, and felt that time was being wasted by doing full reverts. The idea of posting the list in talk is so that I could edit within parameters acceptable to the consensus and avoid conflicts, and not waste my and their time. But as I said, I should have just cooled off and had a more measured discussion on talk, hoped for an eventual resolution/answer, and accepted that the consensus at that time was not in my favor.Pclem1 (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)