74:
attempts to build the project, you'll be welcome. The problem comes when users approach
Knowledge with other motives, Wikipedians are generally hostile towards them. If it seems like someone is editing Knowledge to promote something or make a point, they usually have a hard time with the community here. Of your 150 edits so far, about 90% of them seem to be devoted to changing gender-neutral language. While changing "humankind" to "mankind" isn't strictly forbidden, it isn't in-and-of-itself particularly helpful to the project. In general, going from page to page making the same argument about a minor issue is usually frowned upon here. You're welcome to have your own opinion of the matter, but that shouldn't be the only thing you do here. If you try to build the project in other ways instead of only working on the whole "mankind" thing, I think you'll find Wikipedians to be more receptive to you arguments. Let me know if you have any questions,
90:
editor disagreed, I made it humanity). I´d love it if that percentage was much lower, but as that talk page discussion shows, it increases because Dr.K is trying to fight me wherever possible. I don´t want such a small and what should be irrelevant aspect of my editing, changing humankind to the more common humanity, to balloon into long disputes that take up so much time and effort. It´s going to if Dr.K follows me. I read an essay or policy on wikihounding and would like a solution.
364:
606:
one humankind to humanity and one humankind to human race (human race was suggested by one of the editors to replaced humankind). Dr.K reverted me, pointing out that there was an objection to human race. I then changed them both to humanity. Apparently the blocking admin and
Johnuniq consider one editor objecting out of five to be too many to declare consensus. Although it´s depressing, I´ll try to keep in mind that that´s how Knowledge works.
484:
spells the word incorrectly, and put up with it. Then, good editors can focus on developing articles without pointless disputes over trivia. While it may seem over-the-top to block someone for a month because they want to use "humanity" rather than "humankind", such sanctions are essential to maintain a collaborative community—editorial style should not be dictated by those who are most persistent.
520:
450:. Worse, you falsely claim a consensus for your changes, even though there's been no further discussion on the issue in over a week on the article talk page. I see no indication that you have grasped the problems with your conduct, despite the earlier sanctions, which is the main reason for the one-month duration of this block.--
715:
I only saw that I had been blocked a few minutes before I made the request. There aren´t any other objectors, just Dr.K. That comment was in response to your concern that a change in this article would convince me to go around
Knowledge replacing the word. No, it´s not directed at that. There is John
777:* Quite true, I object to the use of the word "humankind" and would rather see "mankind" employed since "mankind" is more encyclopedic, "humankind" which specifically addresses perceived gender bias holds other connotations. (Makes me think of science fiction stories, not professional encyclopedias.)
483:
precisely to tell editors to stop fighting over whether "color" is superior to "colour"—in principle, a uniform style of spelling would be desirable, but given the world-wide nature of
Knowledge, enforcing such unifomity would be pointlessly disruptive. It is far better to accept that half the world
474:
attacks are generally easy to handle, but persistent low-level disruption is corrosive, and if unchecked would drive good editors away, leaving only those who enjoy battles. Readers have very diverse backgrounds, and some would be familiar with a word like "humankind", while others would not. It is
605:
I didn´t expect to go from a block of 48 hours to an entire month. Anyway, it had been a week since the last post on the talk page and 5 editors editors had weighed in. None of them except Dr.K objected to the change. As such, in my edit summary I said that there seemed to be consensus and changed
501:
Thanks for taking the time to write that. I do take it on board, though I´m not actually conducting a campaign. I´ve removed humankind on only four articles when I happened to come accoss them and I´ve seen at least half a dozen other editors also express disapproval of ´humankind´. There wouldn´t
89:
Thanks for the advice. However 90% of my edits are actually changing humankind to humanity. From the title of the discussion you opened, Man vs human, I think you misread the edit (though granted my first edit to the page changed to mankind as it´s so similar to the rare ´humankind´, when another
294:
I disagree slightly with Mark, in his elaboration in item 1. I think it should read "keep going page to page making the same change and get blocked". That you're edit warring in various articles on this point is clear, you've been reverted by plenty different editors to make the point clear, and
73:
Hi Edgth, I wanted to give some friendly advice here. I realize you're a new user and we didn't start off on the right foot so to speak. Basically, here at
Knowledge, we welcome everyone to edit, as long as they're here to improve or maintain the encyclopedia. As long as you're making good-faith
309:
It´s a little more complicated than that. The recent dispute with Dr.K just has him objecting to the edit, while others did so for different reasons. Opposition to mankind which was fixed, mistakes about MoS which was explained, requirement for consensus which is blocked by only Dr.K.
445:
You have recently been blocked twice for edit warring. In each instance, you have been reported for battling over the term "humanity", "humankind", "human race", etc. Despite your failure to obtain a consensus for your view, you continue to disrupt articles, most recently
475:
neither possible nor desirable to remove all words that may be unfamiliar to some readers, so anyone conducting a campaign to remove a particular word is going to needlessly cause disruption. Please just accept that people have different backgrounds, and are
665:
The above unblock request was made more than 24 hours after the block, so it is reasonable to assume that its content was considered carefully. In that case, what does "None of them except Dr.K objected to the change" mean? Any reading of
918:
for the first change from "humankind" to mankind. It is followed by 4 edits in 10 minutes making multiple changes from humankind to mankind. What follows is edit-warring and repeated disregard for the comments of multiple editors.
468:, but was delayed by some real-life issues. I did not expect a block—it is often the case that weeks of time have to be lost before an admin will act—nevertheless I will make the gist of the comment I had earlier planned.
29:
265:
and ask for Dr. K to be banned from interacting with you 3. forget about "mankind" and "humankind", at least for the time being, and improve the project in some other way. I think option three is the best idea.
136:
Sorry to bang on about this, but your reply suggests a lack of familiarity with what the word "argument" means in the context used here. Are you sure you are the best person to correct word usage on
Knowledge?
151:
Well the arguments are created when Dr.K reverts a minor change like this. I feel like I´m qualified to correct this word. After all, they mean the same thing, just one is far more often used.
280:
I´m not just focused on changing humankind to humanity, but it is a part of my editing (should be an irrelevant part) so I think the interaction ban, voluntary or not is the best option.
751:
Lol, I´m very curious about you. Can you tell me what I did that started your campaign? An honest answer if possible, I´m not interested in a boring narrative designed for others.
894:. That appears to be correct for the latter editor, but is not so clear for the former. Also, there is another editor not named above at that page who wants "humankind" retained.
939:
but it becomes clear that Edgth is hard and fast in his decision to change humankind to mankind (or other options) not just at the Bahai article but anywhere he finds it.
657:
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.
943:
continues the weeks old debate. In spite of an overwhelming number of reasoned attempts, Edgth remarkably begins to claim that consensus is on his side.
667:
882:, so it is absurd to claim "There aren´t any other objectors, just Dr.K.". I don't feel like investigating more at the moment, but Edgth mentioned
470:
Knowledge relies on a collaborative community, and actions which interfere with that collaboration are very damaging. Vandalism and nonsense like
848:
gave links to three different editors who reverted Edgth's changes (two not mentioned above), and was definitely not supportive of Edgth's edits.
628:
Per
Johnuniq's analysis below. I suggest you find something else to do on Knowledge; you're not going to be able to continue on this track. --
345:
104:
Mark mentioned "mankind", but my guess is that he doesn't care what the actual word in question is. Rather, I would highlight the statement "
672:
I´m going to replace the rare, jarring and awkward ´humankind´ with humanity when I happen to come across it, whether or not it´s done here
122:
There shouldn´t be an argument as there´s nothing wrong with the edit. I´m the one making these simple edits, not creating the arguments.
935:
and myself all tried to convince Edgth with different and correct reasoning. Edgth would have none of it. A lengthy discussion is had at
808:
739:
642:
465:
447:
408:
384:
560:
261:
Well, the way I see it, you have three options: 1. keep going page to page making the same change and clashing with Dr. K. 2. Go to
670:
shows plenty of other objections, so how could the views of the other editors be missed? Also, what is meant by Edgth's comment "
944:
680:? That is followed by a "nevermind", but the latter does not seem to be directed at what looks like a clear campaign statement.
414:
696:" which can easily be clarified—please identify the six other editors and the pages where they expressed that disapproval.
422:
555:
392:
532:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
807:
The above is a concern because it shows a clear inability to interpret simple discussions and edits. Starting at
533:
426:
371:
716:
Carter, BiologistBabe at
Mythology and --Soundofmusicals, ~Adjwilley at Bahá'à Faith. Okay 5 editors in total.
527:
936:
692:) should not be made, and particularly should not be made when seeking an unblock. The same comment includes "
106:
In general, going from page to page making the same argument about a minor issue is usually frowned upon here.
793:
388:
380:
165:
I read ´making the same argument´ as repeating this dispute (argument) with Dr.K from article to article.
271:
238:
202:
79:
920:
874:, but a quick look makes it appear that a further two editors reverted Edgth's change of "humankind".
871:
574:
418:
899:
887:
789:
701:
489:
142:
113:
752:
717:
607:
538:
503:
311:
281:
248:
216:
166:
152:
123:
91:
956:
52:
883:
815:
651:
480:
398:
344:
Hello, Edgth. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at
300:
267:
234:
198:
75:
455:
434:
363:
891:
694:
I´ve seen at least half a dozen other editors also express disapproval of ´humankind´.
932:
924:
895:
827:
697:
629:
485:
471:
262:
230:
194:
138:
109:
948:
839:
44:
693:
683:
671:
105:
912:
845:
296:
928:
879:
451:
430:
215:
Seriously? It´s just Dr.K and he´s just following me from previous disputes.
940:
852:
738:
This user's disruptive and tendentious editing has not been limited to the
391:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
233:
guideline: if your edits are disputed, don't continually reintroduce them.
348:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --
247:
Then wtf am I supposed to do if he keeps following me just to revert me?
197:. I don't think you have consensus to make those edits at this point.
684:
There wouldn´t actually be any disruption if not for the good doctor
964:
903:
797:
760:
746:
725:
705:
632:
615:
511:
493:
459:
438:
352:
319:
304:
289:
275:
256:
242:
224:
206:
190:
174:
160:
146:
131:
117:
99:
83:
60:
28:
518:
362:
421:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
639:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
464:
I intended commenting here after reverting the change at
659:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
916:
863:
857:
832:
820:
688:
676:
588:
584:
578:
569:
565:
551:
547:
543:
502:
actually be any disruption if not for the good doctor.
668:
Talk:Voluntary Human
Extinction Movement#Man vs human
425:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
526:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
387:. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
193:today, it you revert again you may be blocked for
842:commented (with refs) that "humankind" was good.
395:by adding the following text below this notice:
340:Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
8:
890:as supporting the removal of "humankind" at
784:when there is an RFC open. :) The time to
413:During a dispute, you should first try to
26:
941:Mythology#"Mankind" versus "Humankind"
788:is prior to the opening of an RFC. :)
346:Knowledge:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
7:
878:The above is addition to reverts by
809:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
740:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
466:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
448:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
385:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
937:Talk:Bahá'à Faith#"Man" vs "Human"
14:
867:) made by two additional editors.
870:I don't feel like investigating
295:you've been warned. Happy days,
27:
407:. However, you should read the
682:I suggest that comments like "
1:
415:discuss controversial changes
375:from editing for a period of
189:You've made three reverts on
965:06:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
904:05:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
855:, we see reverts of Edgth (
798:00:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
780:However I don't approve of
761:04:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
747:04:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
726:04:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
706:04:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
633:05:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
616:03:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
530:, who declined the request.
512:03:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
494:07:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
460:00:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
439:00:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
353:08:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
175:02:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
983:
320:03:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
305:02:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
290:02:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
276:02:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
257:01:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
243:01:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
225:01:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
207:01:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
161:00:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
147:06:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
132:04:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
118:04:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
100:03:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
84:03:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
61:14:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
643:guide to appealing blocks
409:guide to appealing blocks
389:make useful contributions
229:I suggest you follow the
33:
756:
742:article. Just sayin. --
721:
611:
507:
315:
285:
252:
220:
170:
156:
127:
95:
37:The Friendship Barnstar
523:
367:
833:23:45, 18 August 2013
575:change block settings
522:
403:Your reason here ~~~~
366:
43:Nice to meet you. ```
921:User:Soundofmusicals
821:01:45, 9 August 2013
911:Regarding edits at
16:Don´t template me!
947:comes to mind. ```
888:User:BiologistBabe
524:
423:dispute resolution
368:
963:
393:appeal this block
66:
65:
59:
974:
955:
884:User:John Carter
866:
860:
835:
823:
816:User:Mark Arsten
745:
695:
691:
685:
679:
673:
656:
650:
594:
592:
581:
563:
561:deleted contribs
521:
406:
383:, as you did at
351:
107:
51:
31:
24:
23:
982:
981:
977:
976:
975:
973:
972:
971:
862:
856:
831:
819:
743:
687:
686:" (just above,
675:
662:
654:
648:
647:, then use the
636:
619:
582:
572:
558:
541:
534:blocking policy
519:
442:
427:page protection
396:
360:
349:
342:
71:
22:
12:
11:
5:
980:
978:
970:
969:
968:
967:
960:
952:
892:Talk:Mythology
876:
875:
868:
849:
843:
837:
825:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
778:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
731:
730:
729:
728:
710:
709:
637:
626:
622:Decline reason
603:
599:Request reason
596:
517:
516:
515:
498:
497:
462:
369:You have been
361:
359:
356:
341:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
210:
209:
186:
185:
184:
183:
182:
181:
180:
179:
178:
177:
163:
70:
67:
64:
63:
56:
48:
40:
39:
34:
32:
21:
18:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
979:
966:
962:
961:
958:
954:
953:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
933:User:Smkolins
930:
926:
925:User:Jeff3000
922:
917:
914:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
873:
869:
865:
859:
854:
850:
847:
844:
841:
838:
834:
829:
828:User:Johnuniq
826:
822:
817:
814:
813:
812:
810:
799:
795:
791:
790:BiologistBabe
787:
783:
779:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
762:
758:
754:
750:
749:
748:
741:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
727:
723:
719:
714:
713:
712:
711:
708:
707:
703:
699:
690:
678:
669:
664:
663:
661:
660:
653:
646:
644:
635:
634:
631:
625:
623:
618:
617:
613:
609:
602:
600:
595:
590:
586:
580:
576:
571:
567:
562:
557:
553:
552:global blocks
549:
548:active blocks
545:
540:
535:
531:
529:
528:administrator
513:
509:
505:
500:
499:
496:
495:
491:
487:
482:
478:
473:
467:
463:
461:
457:
453:
449:
444:
443:
441:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
410:
404:
400:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
373:
365:
357:
355:
354:
347:
339:
321:
317:
313:
308:
307:
306:
302:
298:
293:
292:
291:
287:
283:
279:
278:
277:
273:
269:
264:
260:
259:
258:
254:
250:
246:
245:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
214:
213:
212:
211:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
187:
176:
172:
168:
164:
162:
158:
154:
150:
149:
148:
144:
140:
135:
134:
133:
129:
125:
121:
120:
119:
115:
111:
103:
102:
101:
97:
93:
88:
87:
86:
85:
81:
77:
68:
62:
58:
57:
54:
50:
49:
46:
42:
41:
38:
35:
30:
25:
19:
17:
957:
951:Buster Seven
949:
877:
872:Bahá'à Faith
840:User:Buster7
806:
785:
782:edit warring
781:
681:
658:
640:
638:
627:
621:
620:
604:
598:
597:
570:creation log
537:
525:
476:
469:
412:
402:
381:edit warring
376:
370:
343:
72:
53:
47:Buster Seven
45:
36:
15:
913:Bahai Faith
846:User:Drmies
358:August 2013
268:Mark Arsten
235:Mark Arsten
199:Mark Arsten
76:Mark Arsten
929:User:Dr.K.
880:User:Dr.K.
566:filter log
479:. We have
853:Mythology
830:reverted
818:reverted
641:read the
585:checkuser
544:block log
481:WP:ENGVAR
477:different
419:consensus
417:and seek
377:one month
896:Johnuniq
786:edit war
698:Johnuniq
630:jpgordon
556:contribs
486:Johnuniq
401:|reason=
139:Johnuniq
110:Johnuniq
945:WP:Rope
652:unblock
579:unblock
399:unblock
372:blocked
915:, see
472:WP:BLP
411:first.
297:Drmies
263:WP:ANI
231:WP:BRD
195:WP:3RR
69:Advice
864:diff2
858:diff1
753:Edgth
718:Edgth
645:first
608:Edgth
539:Edgth
504:Edgth
452:Bbb23
431:Bbb23
312:Edgth
282:Edgth
249:Edgth
217:Edgth
191:VHEMT
167:Edgth
153:Edgth
124:Edgth
92:Edgth
20:Hello
959:Talk
900:talk
886:and
861:and
794:talk
757:talk
722:talk
702:talk
689:diff
677:diff
612:talk
508:talk
490:talk
456:talk
435:talk
379:for
316:talk
301:talk
286:talk
272:talk
253:talk
239:talk
221:talk
203:talk
171:talk
157:talk
143:talk
128:talk
114:talk
96:talk
80:talk
55:Talk
851:At
744:#Â â–„
589:log
536:).
429:.
350:#Â â–„
931:,
927:,
923:,
902:)
811::
796:)
759:)
724:)
704:)
655:}}
649:{{
624::
614:)
601::
583:•
577:•
573:•
568:•
564:•
559:•
554:•
550:•
546:•
514:}}
510:)
492:)
458:)
437:)
405:}}
397:{{
318:)
303:)
288:)
274:)
255:)
241:)
223:)
205:)
173:)
159:)
145:)
130:)
116:)
108:"
98:)
82:)
898:(
836:.
824:.
792:(
755:(
720:(
700:(
674:"
610:(
593:)
591:)
587:(
542:(
506:(
488:(
454:(
433:(
314:(
299:(
284:(
270:(
251:(
237:(
219:(
201:(
169:(
155:(
141:(
126:(
112:(
94:(
78:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
