User talk:Skellyret

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Des Vallee (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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.

:I didn't know Javier Milei's economic policies were actually gender-related Skellyret (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::The notification is related to much older edits of yours. We have a system to handle more contentious topic areas. Unfortunately, for the system to work properly, participants need a specific notice related to the topic area. So I'm just making sure you get this, just like you got the intelligence notice a while ago. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh ok fair enough Skellyret (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Am I cooked or nah? Skellyret (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Not all of your edits are necessarily problematic, but that doesn't mean we need to tolerate your non-constructive ones. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SeraTON&oldid=1285937315 Stuff] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Sontag&diff=prev&oldid=1274624200 like] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Javier_Milei&diff=prev&oldid=1291862558 this] plus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skellyret&oldid=1275497917#%22wiki_soyboys%22 what led to your previous block] (soyboy in the big 2025? 💔) is little different from trolling and is wasting your own time and that of other editors. If you want to be unblocked, I would recommend editing less controversial topics and redirecting your immaturity. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Or in short, most people don't find joke replies like "Am I cooked or nah?" in response to serious messages very mature. Controversial areas are not only stressful to edit, and mentally depressing but also puts even seasoned editors into risks of getting dragged to noticeboards, frustrating them into retiring (I have literally witnessed many of these cases, and I'm on the verge of snapping too if this happens so frequently.) So yeah, I hope that convinces you to stay off from controversial topics for now. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 01:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I've not edited anything controversial for more than 2 months to avoid this scenario. In my opinion this is quite silly. Skellyret (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Moneytrees}} I apologize for making jokes in reference to Skellyret, I was frustrated and also wanted to have fun with what I feel is an obvious troll. My mistake. Des Vallee (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{unblock|reason=I'm sorry I didn't mean for the susan sontag thing to be disruptive (for some reason I thought calling the white race a cancer was grounds to label her as racist. Funny thing is I'm not even white, it was just so such a reprehensible comment imo) and I just wanted to have a little fun in a conversation with Vallee, I didn't think they'd get so offended by it that they'd research my entire history in under half an hour just to get me blocked. The soyboy comment is fair enough but if I've already been blocked bc of it, why use it again as a reason?

::> I would recommend editing less controversial topics and redirecting your immaturity.

::Well what do you think I've been doing the past 2 months? I've kept to mostly editing non or slightly controversial articles where I have extensive knowledge in in order to avoid literally this exact scenario. A one or three day block I can accept, an indefinite block is exaggeratory.

::By the way, I would say that Des Vallee's edits on the Javier Milei page actually were highly disruptive as she changed vast areas of the page without atleast discussing it, heavily shifting the tone of the page and breaking the references/citations. In any case, I won't be making disruptive edits again, certainly won't treat any user unprofessionally after this.}} Skellyret (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Just a heads up, User:Skellyret. In your unblock request above, there's a missing opening curly bracket at the beginning ( { ). There should be two of those, instead of one. Fix that, and then it should turn into the real thing. Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Aah ok, thank you Skellyret (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Sam1370 Hey, currently blocked but I still want to defend my edits:

1) But that's true though. The opposition parties, some of whichw are peronist are the most staunch against Milei's reforms because it's antithetical to their ideology. If you want you can rewrite it, but that part is true and I can't see how it's biased.

2) fair enough, rewrite that if you want.

3) Sure, you can remove 'the opposition has criticized' if you want. I only wrote it like that because the parliament and government had been bickering about poverty specifically, which was one of the main arguments that the opposition parties held.

4) This is also true. The blue dollar and official exchange rates hadn't merged together since 2019, inflation hadn't seen such a reduction since 2022 etc etc. If you want you can remove that specific wording but the facts remain facts.

5) Causal links are drawn because they're causal, they're also written as causal in all the sources I referenced. Following the IMF's objectives in order to obtain an IMF loan is a causal link, reducing the market risk assessment when it was consistently above 500 points for the duration of 2 seperate presidential terms is causal, liberalising the economy and allowing exports is also causal to obtaining investment. In fact J.P Morgan corroborates this "The policy advancements represent a significant step forward, enabling the country to unlock a potential that has been stifled for decades due to poor policy-making." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skellyret (talk • contribs)

:While blocked, you only have access to this page to ask to be unblocked(which you have); you may not use it for other purposes until the block is removed. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:aight ima head out Skellyret (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)