User talk:Housemousemarie

Final warning.

Next time it's WP:ANI. DeCausa (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per repeated reverts by user DeCausa and subsequent personal remarks, I wish to clarify: my reinstatement of the Disputed tag on the “Messiah in Judaism” article was made in accordance with WP:DISPUTETAG, in response to an active and unresolved content disagreement documented on the talk page. I have also posted on DeCausa’s user talk to document behavior relevant to this dispute. While I understand user talk pages are user-managed, posting concerns about editorial behavior is explicitly permitted under WP:UPNOT, particularly in the context of ongoing content disputes. Let me be clear: threatening ANI while repeatedly removing dispute markers—without engaging in resolution or attempting to improve the article—is a violation of both the spirit and process of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR. Consensus is not a vote, and it is not a fiat. It is a product of dialogue, source analysis, and transparency. None of which have occurred here. If you believe this requires administrator attention, I fully encourage that route. But I also trust that any admin reviewing the revision history and talk page logs will see clearly who has remained in good faith and who has not. Disrupting the consensus-building process while citing procedural authority is not only disingenuous—it erodes the very integrity Wikipedia claims to uphold. WP:NOBITING supercedes even your neglect of Wikipedia:Twinkle#Abuse, which details that "If a change is merely "unsatisfactory" in some way, undoing/reverting should not be the first response. Editors should either make a reasonable attempt to improve the change, or should simply leave it in place for future editors to improve. Undo/revert is appropriate in cases where the contribution is arguably "wrong" (consider moving it to the Talk page), or is unreasonably difficult to fix (e.g. incomprehensible, and the author is unresponsive), or is actually harmful to the article (such as vandalism). A plain language edit summary (not merely tags) should be used when reverting changes that appear to have been made in good faith because many contributors will not recognize minimalistic tags and will not learn what the problem was and are likely to repeat it." Please refrain from further disruptive editing or tag removal that undermines the consensus-building process. Continue on your one-sided war of personal attacks, and administrators will have no choice but to involve themselves.

Plip!

Your threats mean nothing to me without you yourself abiding by the policies and standards.

Crunch, crunch!

Here are some chips to go with your fish!

Housemousemarie (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025 ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DeCausa (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern, I remain committed to resolving the dispute without resorting to personal attacks or edit warring. WP:Consensus is a process, not a destination. Housemousemarie (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Hello, Housemousemarie,

My comment in the ANI discussion was not an attempt to resolve the dispute but well-meaning advice to you from an experienced editor to a newer one. I'm sorry that you misunderstood its intentions. I assume you are trying to establish yourself as a long-term contributor and I was trying to point you to an essay that might help you with that transition. Editors on Wikipedia often give each other advice because it is very difficult to master all of the many policies and guidelines that are the backbone of the project. If you want to be here for the long-term, it's important to be able to assess criticism without seeing it as a personal attack. I've been editing here for 12 years and editors still come to my User talk page to point out when I've made a mistake. Mutual constructive criticism is part of working on a collaborative editing project and it's better to get used to that culture sooner, rather than later. Happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly, and I want to clarify that I didn’t mean to frame your comment specifically as a personal attack. Rather, my concerns stemmed from interactions with DeCausa—as noted in the diff I linked—where critique (however unorthodox in presentation) was met with comments such as “infantile garbage” or implications of incompetence.

I genuinely welcome the feedback you offered, and I deeply appreciate the tone and intent behind it. My only concern was that it didn’t quite capture the full weight and scope of the dispute—particularly with regard to DeCausa’s repeated unilateral removals of a Disputed tag without engagement, which I believe constitute a pattern warranting deeper review.

Believe me, I didn't want this to have to go to the admins either, which is why I initially would write criticism on the user's talk page. It's 100% alright to delete the criticism if it doesn't meet the user's aesthetic tastes, as I noted, but, without responding to the basis presented, attempting to call it harassment when it is critique in response to blatant and repeated breach of policy is an equally blatant attempt to leverage administrative action towards dissenting opinion.

My posts to their user page were made in an effort to highlight policy breaches and invite resolution—not to harass. As I’ve said before, deletion is understandable, but escalating critique rooted in guideline violations to accusations of harassment is, in my view, a misuse of procedural mechanisms.

I respect everyone involved and trust that the administrative team will approach this with fairness and reflection.

Miscommunications happen, and we’re all learning to navigate both the policies and each other.

We’re all here to cultivate understanding.

Thank you for your reply, your patience, and your understanding. :)

Housemousemarie (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (User talk:DeCausa) for posting after being told to stay off page.

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 ~~~~}}. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]