User talk:Ben.Gowar

:Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaay. My first article accepted! Thank you @Greenman!

:Ben.Gowar (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template.

:@Cullen328, this is not true. I edited an editor's talk page. In my edits, I asked how we might undelete an article. This is different from editing a "page related to pseudoscience and fringe science." As far as the article in question goes, I made no edits to it at all. Ben.Gowar (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::The notification is standard and uses the word "page" not "article". Contentious topics restrictions apply to every single page on Wikipedia, including user talk pages. You wrote {{tpq|I believe Christopher Mellon's Wikipedia page was unjustly deleted.}} To be frank, that is nonsense. Cullen328 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Cullen328 You can argue whether it's "nonsense" on the editor's Talk page.

:::Anyway, thanks for the introduction. I now know that even editing an editor's Talk page can be considered a "page related to pseudoscience and fringe science." Thanks again. Ben.Gowar (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC

File:Ambox warning pn.svg Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. bonadea contributions talk 08:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:One does not equal five. Ben.Gowar (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::You said a draft had been rejected when it had actually been declined. Were you lying? The bottom line is that if you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked. So heed the warnings you have received. Cullen328 (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I did not know there was a distinction. I told a falsehood, though I did not intend to. The moral gravity of this offense is less than if there were an intent to deceive. Nevertheless, it's not good, so I'm sorry. If you define telling falsehoods without an intent to deceive lying, then yes, I lied.

:::However, it seems probable Chetsford knows how to count, and it also seems improbable that he made so many counting errors so many times. So, it seems probable that he stated these falsehoods with the intent to deceive. So, I accuse him of lying. Ben.Gowar (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::While I reject the notion that calling a "UFO" a "Flying Saucer" is a "lie", and I reject that invoking Mellon's surname three times in the same passage constitutes three unique mentions, etc., it's not important for the purpose of content building that you resolve that. You can just resubmit the draft and don't even have to make changes. Verily, your comment is the only thing a reviewer is ever going to see as it takes half-a-dozen scrolls just to get through it all. The next reviewer won't even see mine. So, if you truly believe the draft would have been accepted if only I had not called a UFO a Flying Saucer (or a Rocket Ship from Venus, or a Magical Martian Flying Machine, or whatever) in a non-mainspace comment, you have nothing to worry about. Just resubmit. Chetsford (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Even if you had used the terms from the source article, it would not excuse all the other specified instances of your mendacity. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Christopher_Mellon&diff=prev&oldid=1288214736&diffonly=1 My favorite] was when you implied that we should not use the Space.com or Wired articles because they were previously cited in the deleted version, when they were not. Ben.Gowar (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Stop hand nuvola.svg This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at :User talk:Ben.Gowar, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 10:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:People can read the record. My conscience is clean. Ben.Gowar (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::And if you keep these personal attacks up, you will enjoy your clean conscience in an enforced vacation from Wikipedia. If you haven't learned yet, the premise "I'm right, and therefore everyone else is wrong" is not in favor here, and wins you no arguments. The nature of a consensus-based encyclopedia is that from time to time, we all find ourselves on the wrong side of it, and our only viable option is to lose gracefully and move on. Ravenswing 11:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That was not my premise. Besides, I wrote an argument, rather than a mere premise. You can reread the argument in the record. In any case, a clean conscience is always a joy, regardless of any threat of force. Ben.Gowar (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::There was no threat, of force or otherwise. There was a warning to inform you that you are one attack away from being blocked. I am here to extend the scope of that warning to also cover baseless accusations, general belligerence, wikilawyering, unwillingness to drop the stick, and other tendentious and/or uncollegial behaviour.

::::Do yourself a favour, leave this matter to rest and go do something nice and constructive in real life for a while, rather than continue down this path and get yourself blocked. Because once you are blocked, it is considerably more difficult for you to get unblocked, than it is at this moment (still) to avoid getting blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)