User talk:Lamptonian

Welcome!

Hi Lamptonian! 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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

By the way, we don't cite the plot summary in a book article, as the book itself is the citation, and the source is plainly identified elsewhere in the article. Also, while it's best if an article's citations are incorporated in the text, as for instance when book reviews are described in a reception section, that's not compulsory: the requirement is simply that sources are present.

Happy editing! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't know about the plot thing. Thanks. Lamptonian (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You may need to go back over your book article edits and make some adjustments... Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can do that, no worries. I just found some categories full of rather dubious articles. Lamptonian (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be plenty of those to keep everyone busy! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goddess

This is in large part a WP:LIST article, see WP:NEXIST. In this case everything you removed has it's own article. I've restored the original. I think you need to slow down and do something else for a while, learning more about our policies and guidelines as you go. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. How does one recognize if this kind of article is a list? Lamptonian (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loads of links to existing relevant articles. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding sources rather than removing major parts of articles?

That would be a constructive and interesting thing to do. See WP:CITING SOURCES It's one of my favorite things to do. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly try to be more careful if you have concrete policy violations to point to. However, especially political biographies are often very careless here. That should really change. Lamptonian (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop 'trimming' publication lists by deleting entire sections

I reverted your edit to Ann Cudd which removed her book chapters and journal articles, reducing her publication list to only books. Books are not the only form of scholarly communication, and you are unlikely to get a good picture of someone's publications if you remove other publication types. DrThneed (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrThneed Thanks, I'm pretty sure this editor has removed similar material from a lot of articles. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's a better alternative? For one thing, I could use that "very long section" or "indiscriminate list" banner for now Lamptonian (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several things you could do. You could engage in a discussion on the talk page about whether a list is really too long or whether it is necessary to show the breadth/depth of what someone has worked on. You could trim it slightly and explain your rationale for doing so (e.g. "removed least cited papers as per Google Scholar citations", "updated list to remove older papers on similar subjects, added newer work"). You could indeed use a long section template - I would not agree with the use of "indiscriminate list" as AFAIK there is no accepted way for an editor to indicate how they chose what they included on a publication list. So it may be a very carefully selected list, you wouldn't know without asking the editor. Quite frankly, edits like this one, where you have removed every publication except a book, look far more like vandalism than an attempt to improve the article.

I am concerned about your approach to unsourced content as well. For instance, it would be more appropriate to add a citation needed template or a template indicating an entire section lacks sources than to simply delete nearly an entire article. DrThneed (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can try most of your recommedations. Thank you! But, in my opinion, political BLPs should still never include claims entirely without sourcing. Lamptonian (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Political" here includes politically active/vocal academics. I think that's a good rule of thumb. Lamptonian (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't disagree that claims should be sourced, what I think @Doug Weller and I have a problem with is your approach to dealing with unsourced information. Deleting very large amounts of text, without using a more conservative approach such as using existing sources on the page to add inline citations yourself, trying to add new sources, adding a cn template or having a discussion on a talk page is not, in my view, appropriate. I also think the fact that you view these academic biographies as political is a red flag. How are you choosing the articles that you are editing? DrThneed (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for political keywords and categories like "activist" or "socialist". Lamptonian (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am not intending to only ever remove unsourced text here. I guarantee you that I will add sourced content eventually. I want to create some new articles. That's why I created my account here, but I apparently need to wait 30 says or so before I can create these. Lamptonian (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing stopping you from finding sources and improving existing articles by adding them as has already been suggested to you, rather than removing very large amounts of information, and it would go a lot further towards improving the encyclopedia. Currently you are stripping articles back to their bare bones and making them candidates for deletion as you have removed information about notability such as awards sections. DrThneed (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thirding what has been said by others about removing generally unproblematic material rather than marking it as unsourced. I have checked a selection of your recent edits and some of them seem over the top. Things like publication lists should not be hacked unnecessarily -- there is no one-size-fits-all model for these -- and unsourced but unproblematic statements such as someone worked at a place, even in a BLP, can usually just be tagged as needing a source. Other things are essentially self-sourcing such as someone's papers being archived at a particular archive, and should definitely not be removed unless you have real reason to believe it is false.

Please just slow down and try to work on something constructive for a while. As others have written, providing sources for poorly sourced material is always extremely helpful, and there is nothing stopping you creating articles yourself using the Articles for Creation review service. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict I have another problem - searching for words like activist or socialist is itself a political act, especially as it doesn't appear that "conservative" is considered political by this editor. Doug Weller talk 07:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for disruptive editing with a political bias.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to edit articles again - starting with the ones where you've been deleting material using political criteria, I'll undo the partial block. Doug Weller talk 08:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller, this is urgent. Please undo the block. I have searched for various kinds of political criteria, it's just that categories like "conservative" are usually already trimmed down to what the sources say. Also, there are very few categories referring to them, for example "Category:Conservatism in the United States" that does not even include many BLPs. Lamptonian (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not urgent. What category did use for Sue-Ellen Case. Lesbian or feminist? Looks like you also used "gay". Doug Weller talk 13:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not. I used the category: "Feminist studies scholars". If there were a category called "Masculinist studies scholars" I would have done the same. Lamptonian (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if you got the impression that I was a political conservative. I hope you can unban me now. Lamptonian (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lamptonian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have deleted large chunks of completely unsourced material from BLPs I consider to be particularly vulnerable to (self-)promotion and or sabotage. I do not consider being a deletionist a blockable offense. Lamptonian (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Now checkuser blocked. Acroterion (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

WP:V does not demand the removal of all unsourced content, only that which falls into the four categories mentioned. Must be sourced is not the same as must be removed for all other material. It is preferable to go and find sources rather than going through categopries of articles and removing every unsourced paragraph you encounter, regardless of value. Yes, there is quite a lot of dross that you've removed, but taking a semi-automated approach that looks a lot like POV-oriented editing is not helping other editors understand what you're doing and evaluate the actual worth and potential need for referencing instead of removal. In any other case consider finding references yourself, or commenting on the article talk page is the appropriate action for non-contentious unreferenced content. Acroterion (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion. It wasn't automated. I was just interested in how many articles I could edit in 1... and then in 2 days.

I will not continue. In fact, if you check my contributions, I had already changed my approach in response to talk page comments.

If I were to pursue a deletion campaign again in the future, I would include long-form edit summaries that reference the exact policy on which I base this. But then... I don't really want to anymore anyway.

Please unban me. Lamptonian (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really fast then, without evidence that you were considering what each edit was accomplishing on its own merits. I will look through the mass of edits in greater detail before taking further action. Acroterion (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Lamptonian to challenge themselves at speed editing at the expense of our articles is a kind of conduct and motivation that Wikipedia needs to protect itself against. My assumption of good faith is already on life support when somebody behaves like that and then says the quiet part out loud: "I was just interested in how many articles I could edit in 1... and then in 2 days". Note the "just" — no big deal to waste other editors' time in that way, apparently. Not "a blockable offense". And now they consider an unblock "urgent" — because they have proved themselves such an asset to the encyclopedia? I don't think so. Thank you for going through their edits in greater detail, Acroterion — I'm afraid I don't have time to help at this time. Bishonen | tålk 22:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I considered it urgent because of the mass revert. My edits weren't so out of the ordinary.

So far my experience has been that every single statement I have made has been used against me. Lamptonian (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far you've been emphasizing speed over encyclopedic content. I just looked at Anne Phillips (professor) for instance, and was able to source what you removed as "purported" in 20 minutes or so. And yes, the published works of an influential academic should be mentioned. Acroterion (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In ten minutes I found sources for most of the statements in Gaylon Alcaraz's article, if not every detail. Acroterion (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I found Michael Argyle (psychologist)'s obituary in The Guardian, which covered nearly all of his biographical information, in less than a minute. Shall I go on? I am open to unblocking, but I want you to tell is how you wioill improve the encyclopedia in a positive manner by finding sources instead of just finding things that aren't and discarding them. Acroterion (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion. I am no longer interested in another deletion spree at all. Justified or not is irrelevant. Deleting unsourced content from left-wing or left-adjacent research disciplines is not realistically possible and I am willing to accept this.

I was originally intending to write articles. I have two of these in a word file and would like to publish them. I'd also like to restore the ~100 completely unrelated edits I have made. Please unban. Lamptonian (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:ChopinAficionado per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChopinAficionado. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]