User talk:TechnophilicHippie

TechnophilicHippie, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TechnophilicHippie! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elon Musk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tesla. 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) 06:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

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, as you did at Elon Musk, you may be blocked from editing. Everything you need to know is in the edit history and on the talk page. Please use talk page. Simple as that. CNMall41 (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the edit history:

04:33, 11 May 2022 CNMall41 (not revert, but first blanking): →‎Views: This was already previously objected to but see that someone reinstated. Yes, ONUS would apply. Consensus will be needed. This is not lasting and we dont report everyt Tweet from this guy or we would need a page 10 times longer - CNMall41 (not revert, but first blanking)

05:30, 11 May 2022 TechnophilicHippie (not revert, updated with context): →‎COVID-19: Restore "Canada convoy protest" and add context on connection to far-right activists for more clarity on why it is still relevant

18:32, 11 May 2022 CNMall41 (Revert 1): →‎COVID-19: Please read WP:ONUS more closely and come back when you have consensus.

21:25, 11 May 2022 Aquillion (Revert 1): rv; not how WP:ONUS works - this has been stable for months. If you feel it is a BLP violation then raise that specifically on talk, but otherwise per WP:NOCON consensus is required to remove longstanding text, not to retain it.

02:58, 13 May 2022 CNMall41 (Revert 2): →‎Views: Remove BLP violation, again, per ONUS you will need consensus regardless if you agree with that policy or not. It is not my job to go to the BLP noticeboard but ANI would be appropriate if you want to keep edit warring and replacing editorialized content that is disputed without gaining consensus.

04:06, 13 May 2022 TechnophilicHippie (Revert 1): Undid revision 1087545337 by CNMall41 (talk). No dispute on WP:BLPN.

04:10, 13 May 2022 CNMall41 (Revert 3): Reverted 2 edits by TechnophilicHippie (talk): Speaking of edit warring, final warning. next stop will be ANI

You reverted 3 times and I reverted 1 time, and I'm the one who's edit warring? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ HAL333 01:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Count them. You're already past three, but as a gesture of good faith, I won't bring you to the board. Let's solve this on the talk page—I've opened a new discussion. ~ HAL333 01:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Canada convoy protest' section was already discussed on the Talk page, and I referred to the Talk page each time I reverted to restore this section, where generally editors disagreed with removing the section, with a rough consensus to include. See Talk:Elon_Musk#Canada_convoy_protest. Please comment on this Talk page section as well, because I am not the only editor who supported inclusion. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single purpose

You're treading a thin line. I know you've been here for two years, but I recommend you read single-purpose account. ~ HAL333 16:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That page says:

Examples of users whose edits should not be labeled as being those of an SPA include the following: :* Users with a diversified edit history that indicates that the user became inactive for an extended period and then later re-established themselves with single-subject edits. Note that a time gap in edit history may be evidence that the person may have been referred to Wikipedia by an outside source (see WP:MEATPUPPET), but this is not evidence that the account is an SPA.

TechnophilicHippie (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem like a decent person and I believe you're here on Wikipedia to be constructive. My main fustration is that you aren't always editing objectively (I'm not a huge fan of Musk either and understand) or considering the big picture. Another decent editor was recently banned from editing Musk for a period due to trumped up SPA accusations. Note that I haven't brought you to the Great Dismal Swamp or the like. Look, editing massive biographies like Elon Musk is a pain in the ass. Most of what is published we cannot include. I recommend you read:

I plan on bringing Musk up to FA sometime in the near future. Hopefully we can do so together. Best, ~ HAL333 16:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide one example of "you aren't always editing objectively"? I thought I have been editing neutrally all this time, and am accused of bias only for including published criticisms of Musk, but in a neutral voice. I have been accused of biased editing a few times, but every time I have asked for a specific example, nobody has been able to provide one yet. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about WP:SYNTH

You wrote "It is WP:SYNTH because you are implying that his reason for not getting the vaccine is his reason for being against lockdowns". However I never even talked about lockdowns. Where are you getting the idea that what he said was about lockdowns? He was talking about people being "at risk" in that section talking about mortality and then used the exact same "at risk" wording later on. Ergzay (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The quote "So in the grand scheme of things, I think this is— what we have is something with a very low mortality rate and high contagion. And something that is of low risk to a young person is of high risk to an older person." This would you agree is completely talking about at risk for mortality in this full block quote? Ergzay (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He further goes on with "Essentially, the right thing to do would be to not have done a lock down for the whole country. But to have, I think, anyone who is at risk should be quarantined until the storm passes." using the same "at risk" terminology as before. And then a bit later he says "I’m not at risk for COVID, nor are my kids.". At what point are you stating that he suddenly changes what he means by "at risk"? Ergzay (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He uses "risk" in different contexts in the same interview, some of it unrelated to COVID, so "risk" has different meanings depending on the context. He might be talking about the same thing or using "risk" in a new context. There is not enough information to say one way or another. When Musk actually got COVID, he was in denial and thought the results were BS, and he thought the coronavirus panic was dumb, and he thought no more than 0.1% of the US population would get COVID, and he thought there would be zero new cases by the end of April 2020, and he thought the COVID case numbers were inflated, so these things by themselves already indicate that he thinks getting COVID is unlikely.

Even quoted out of context, "not at risk for COVID" has some ambiguity, because he would not be the first person to say they won't get the vaccine because they are young and healthy. However, Musk can't blame others if they are interpreting his words literally. He had a chance to hear how it sounded after he said it and to correct himself, if that wasn't what he meant. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

> He uses "risk" in different contexts in the same interview, some of it unrelated to COVID, so "risk" has different meanings depending on the context.

All uses of risk in this case are all about COVID as the conversation is about COVID.... Why are you being so obtuse...

> There is not enough information to say one way or another.

This is the type of thing global warming deniers do. They create enough "noise" such that they can say "well we just can't be sure". It's a common tactic and is an extremely frustrating one. Please don't do that.

> When Musk actually got COVID, he was in denial and thought the results were BS

If you look at what he actually said. He commented on them being BS because he took several tests back to back and some were positive and some were negative. That is confusing to someone who is not used to the idea of tests not being consistent.

> and he thought no more than 0.1% of the US population would get COVID, and he thought there would be zero new cases by the end of April 2020, and he thought the COVID case numbers were inflated, so these things by themselves already indicate that he thinks getting COVID is unlikely.

He thought as many did then that it wouldn't blow up to the size it would. I for the record, was one of the people who thought it would end quickly. The events that followed were unprecedented in living memory. He did have a low chance of getting COVID, as very few people had it then. He didn't get it until many months later.

> However, Musk can't blame others if they are interpreting his words literally

He can, and should, and I do as well. If needed I'll find a secondary source saying exactly that if we're going to go there...

> He had a chance to hear how it sounded after he said it and to correct himself, if that wasn't what he meant.

If someone listening to him (myself) thought it sounded fine in context how would the speaker themselves know that they were going to be misquoted? Ergzay (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ HAL333 01:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's reach a compromise on the talk page. I have previously displayed good faith and not brought you to ANI, but if you continue this unconstructive edit war, I will have to. ~ HAL333 01:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what there is to discuss further on the Talk page, since you refuse to acknowledge the rough consensus at Talk:Elon_Musk#Canada_convoy_protest and started your own topic to reboot the results of the poll/rough consensus, forcing everyone to have to repeat what they already said. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? There was NO consensus to begin with. In that discussion, three editors supported it and three opposed it. The onus is on you... And you haven't proved it. ~ HAL333 03:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that discussion, it was said multiple times that we had a "rough consensus" and it was also admitted by an opponent that we were moving towards consensus to include. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are participating in the discussion of original Talk page section, so now I take back "I'm not sure what there is to discuss further on the Talk page". TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Keep it up, though do try to be a little less furious with the edit counts and be gentler in the Talk page comments.

Curious as to your thoughts about the SpaceX and SpaceX Starship articles. QRep2020 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by furious edit counts. Recently, I have been breaking up my changes into smaller edits to add a justification to each one, so that my changes don't get rolled back based on a misunderstanding that I am trying to undo another editor's copy edits. I have good reasons like trying to make things accurate or NPOV, but I feel like without narrating everything I'm doing, people are assuming bad faith or that I'm making things worse. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing, especially about your thoughts on SpaceX Starship because I am the main editor of the article. Though I tried to add criticisms about the rocket, the whole article still feels a bit too pro-Musk. What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm interested in continuing to edit articles related to Musk. I just thought some major controversies were not covered well in Elon Musk and tried to fix it, and happened to see that Criticism of Tesla, Inc. really did have some section titles that could be reworded to be more neutral. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi TechnophilicHippie! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Rules on reverting, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elon Musk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vox.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ HAL333 20:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that removing misinformation once counts as edit warring. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing things as "misinformation" does not allow you to usurp basic editing standards. Discuss and gain a consensus for your proposed changes on the talk page first. If you do not and continue the disruptive editing, I will have to bring you to ANI. ~ HAL333 22:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down

I suggest you to slow down in your edits toward Elon Musk-related topics. Even though your edits may be helpful, going against the consensus is generally considered disruptive. Discuss and make consensus, or else you would have a bad time here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ~ HAL333 01:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]