What are you talking about? I'm a human being. And why did you revert my edit without explanation? I am a new user but I've read deleting entire sections without explanation is called partial blanking vandalism and is frowned upon. I explained why I was adding the section on the discussion page. Why didn't you offer the same courtesy of discussing your edit/revert/whatever there? I intend to restore the section if I don't get a suitable explanation. If it happens again I intend to report your vandalism. Clear? --DKorn01:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are a new user who, immediately after joining, rushed to an article and immediately reverted to the favored version of a previous user who was recently blocked and who has employed several other obvious socks. I think you will be hard-pressed to find anyone who wouldn't assume you're a sock under such circumstances. If you don't want to be taken for a sockpuppet of another user, I suggest that stop acting like one. Abandon Ray Nagin for a week or so, go to other articles, and edit there constructively for a while instead of immediately devoting all your edits to backing up someone else who is known for using frequent socks. Aquillion01:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillon, you wrote, "Worst of all, most of the religious people on Wikipedia seem to be Western Judeo-Christian faith; when religion is touched upon, this tends to slant it towards those faiths and away from many other major world faiths. "
This may be true to some extent but the current to-do list on the WikiProject does not reflect your opinion. There are many articles on the to-do list that I edited that, I have to admit, contain quite a lot of critical remarks, e.g. guru that user:Goethean complained about. Like Goethean, I am a Hindu, though a skeptical one, and the reason that that article and several other article contain sourced, notable attributed critical remarks as per the NPOV policy is not because it was edited by people with a "Western Judeo-Christian faith" but because I edited those articles.
If we really want to counter systematic bias following the NPOV policy then the solution is not to remove those critical remarks that perfectly follow NPOV policy but to insert more critical remarks at articles related to the " "Western Judeo-Christian faith", such as prophet, as I have already done a bit, though this is difficult for me, because I don't know much about the Abrahamic religions.
I don't see anything wrong with leading an article with a quote; like you said on talk, there didn't seem to be much consensus one way or the other when it came up on the village pump, and it does add a certain amount of character. But I don't think it's worth worrying too much over either way. Aquillion23:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The troll from 209.x.x.x appears to be the same person who has been making tendentious edits to the Able Danger article. Very similar modus operandi, just keep making edits to one copy of the article, reverting it repeatedly. It appears that this is also the same as Corwin8 who admits to being a paid political consultant. The reason the guy has changed his handle is that after calling me a liar and a NAZI he was likely to end up being blocked. --Gorgonzilla02:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very kindly for your support for my nomination. I promise your trust will not be misplaced; I may occasionally be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0(scribble) 22:29, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you... I have one problem now... Memento is working and Memento (film) is working... but for some reason the link from Memento to the movie page redirects back at Memento, even though I've linked it correctly, and tried different linking methods. I couldn't find any redirection code or anything on the movie page... so I'm at a loss... Can you help? Sorry to bother you... -- NatsukiGirl\talk05:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand. But I think it best to restore them just to avoid any suggested improprieties -- done now. Wouldn't worry about it too much, it's not really the place for that sort of thing. · Katefan0(scribble)22:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are a supporter of the Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system; we have moved the proposal page from meta to here, and are looking for supporters to add their names, and help in making the proposal specific and detailed. Join us! JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Deleting is like what happen When God said to U
instead of saying you are deleted
in the same tone God whispered "condemned to Hell"
...happening on Karl Rove, in case you're interested. Suspected JCC sockpuppet User:DEastman showed up a few days ago, with User:John Henry soon following, so I became suspicious of that user too. And sure enough, today this John Henry user inserted some stuff about the evacuation plan. Just FYI. · Katefan0(scribble)19:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say thank you for your support of my admin nomination. I look forward to the time when our Wikipedia paths, blended in amity, cross once again. —WaywardTalk05:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been rewritten to reflect current knowledge. I urge you to take a look at it and reconsider your delete vote. Thanks. Denni☯03:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support Aquillion and much more thanks for your defence on my behalf, and understanding of some of the bad faith motives that some editors have been making against me. I look forward to working with you in the near future. :) --a.n.o.n.y.mt22:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for removing the linkspam at Bollywood. Usually I'm the vandalism patrol, but I was busy this afternoon. Nice to get some help. Zora07:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aquillion -- since you have occasionally shown up to watch for abuses on the ACLU article, I was wondering if you could put the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education also on your watchlist? FIRE is sort of a "conservative" ACLU; in as much as the ACLU article usually gets POV and vandalism from the right, FIRE gets it from the left. The article just recently attracted a rather heavy POV-pusher, and I don't want it to be just a him-versus-me thing. If you could keep a watch and add your input, that would be very helpful. Thanks in advance. Sdedeo07:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your support of my RfA, I guess you don't have to be Bernard Lewis to be an admin after all! Thanks again, I really appreciate it! Ramallite(talk)04:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comments on the Village Pump on vote solicitation. I've also been quite frustrated at the way 'voting' goes on AfD, and have stayed away from it for a while, as it was taking a day-and-a-half to wade through one days's worth of nominations. I've been kicking an idea around some, but but it feels too clunky and to fit in Wikipedia. If you are interested in talking about possibly doing something about AfD 'votes', drop me a line. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk)23:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. You have proposed the article Forever Autumn for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein17:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aguillion, I am not going to revert your restoration of this article. But what should I do? The contents is false. Since it is false, I doubt that one can find scholarship to support it. I asked the author of the article to provide sources, and he replied evasively. I did research and the only biblical historian I could find who uses the word Yahwism is John Noth, so I put that - with a citation - into the article. Do you know of any scholarship that supports the article? Why has Thadman not provided any sources or citations, even when asked to? Slrubenstein | Talk15:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing how much some train-watchers care about their passion, isn't it? Anyway, thanks, that's very helpful. I retracted my warning to 81.104.165.184, so hopefully now this whole thing is behind us. TheJabberwʘck 04:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you made a comment earlier [3] and I don't understand it all. I started the poll to get a broader range of peoples' opinions, especially people unassociated with the article. I'd like to understand what you mean. Thanks. Ste4k17:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that information. They are probably encyclopedic, but I deleted the article based on the fact that there was very little content and no context. Academic Challenger07:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your participation in my RfA. Due to an almost even spread of votes between Oppose and Support (Final (16/13/6)) I have decided to withdraw for now and re-apply in a couple of months as suggested. I thank everyone for their kind support of my editorial skills; it meant a lot to me to get such strong recommendations from my fellow editors. If you ever have any hints as to how I can improve further, I would love to hear from you. ViridaeTalk15:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point of clarification: I have never said that the AfD was in bad faith. It is rather impossible for me to make objective assessments of my own actions anyhow. If you object to the reopening, then WP:AN is the place to bring it up as Aquillion isn't a sysop himself. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri23:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Small Larsen & Toubro Logo on White Background.com .gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.)18:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If my post to Chairboy on AN/I confused you, I apologize. It was an inside joke between him and I about something he had said to me the other day. As far as I know, he was simply providing the link to the essay on "wrong version protected". I'm not aware that either he or myself are involved in the article being reported. Lsi john20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. I got the names mixed up... it was Chairboy's comment that confused me, not yours. Oh well... it doesn't really matter, since User:CBM, who the complaint was directed at, wasn't the one who protected that page either. --Aquillion21:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You wrote: "rm. quote. One person's quote does not illustrate or significantly describe larger popular usage." I agree. That is solved by adding more quotes. Please see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. These type of popular use sections on wikipedia pages are common. They have to start somewhere. An anonymous user added the quote. It is wrong to delete sourced info, especially from newcomers. See WP:BITE. The quote is accurate. I listened to the NPR audio online. You can too. --Timeshifter05:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous problems with the quotation in any case. First, it is not describing Corporatism, merely using the word in passing. A quotation intended to illustrate usage should focus on the word itself, preferably exclusively. Second, it isn't a 'popular' usage of corporatism by any stretch of the imagination--it comments on the present U.S. healthcare system, calling it corporatism, which is not part of any widely-accepted popular usage that I am aware. This isn't an article on the U.S. healthcare system, so it hardly belongs there. Additionally, the text made no effort to work the quotation into a discussion of how the term is used more broadly; I do not think, given the tangental and unrepresentitive nature of the quote, that it is possible to work it into a discussion of how it is used more broadly. Finally, and given the above, it's worth pointing out that Ron Paul has some very enthusiatic supporters online, to the point where quotes and references to him are frequently mentioned in inappropriate places by his supporters online; I think that, given the generally tangental and inapplicible nature of this quote to the place it was put, its extremely inapproprate length, the way in which it focused more on Ron Paul's views than on the article's subject, and the fact that no effort was made to work it into the text, it is plain that the anonymous user who added was influenced by their desire to insert as many references to Ron Paul as possible. While we certainly shouldn't WP:BITE new users, they do often fail to understand Wikipedia policies; WP:AGF does not mean we cannot fix their mistakes when they make them. This quote is, plainly and unquestionably, a mistake... if you must have a quote there, find one by a well-known scholar and use that, one talking primarily about corporatism and not something else. Using random tangentials on the U.S. healthcare system just because they happen to have the word 'corporatism' in them will detract more than it informs. --Aquillion15:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about scholarly usage versus usage in partisan politics. Maybe the section title should be changed from "In popular usage" to "In popular culture". I think that would be more accurate. Scholarly usage is already covered in the article. Many articles have sections about popular usage in popular culture. That is what I was referring to, not popular scholarly usage. See Mark Twain in popular culture, The Thunder, Perfect Mind#In contemporary culture, etc.. For many more examples:
OK, I've restored it. I honestly didn't think anyone would revert all those redirects without talking to me about it. If you're interested in discussing the merits of the merge, by the way, Kizor and I are doing so. Andre (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you understand why I deleted it -- after substing it on the List article I had made, it wasn't used on any articles, so I deleted it per the CSD on housekeeping. Andre (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Pete and Repeat, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination of List of grassroots organizations
Thanks for uploading File:JohnnyTurbo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see your recent edit at Wind power. I presume the "wind-watch" site is skewed to promote wind power?
On a broader level, I do think we should make a determined effort to produce a scientifically cautious perspective. I'm certainly an advocate of wind power, but WP's article, I believe, will have more authority in the tangled web of power-generation politics and emissions policy if it is seen to be carefully NPOV. What do you think? Tony(talk)04:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with your reply. However, just one point: (from credible peer-reviewed journals when writing about scientific topics, for instance) then we'll end up with an NPOV article naturally"—pharameceutical companies are well-known for funding lots of studies of their products, but vetoing the publication of all but those that cast the products in a positive light. WP can't escape the need to assess, summarise, choose, and that by itself is hard to differentiate, on occasions, from the NOR doctrine. This is not widely enough acknowledge, IMO. Tony(talk)07:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Aquillion, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which failed with a final result of (40/19/12).
Thank you for your participation in my RfA which I withdrew after concerns of my knowledge of policy. Special thanks are owed to Coffee, who defended me throughout and whom I cannot thank enough for the nomination; to 2over0 for being supportive and helpful; to A Stop at Willoughby for the thorough, thoughtful and articulate support rationale; to IP69.226.103.13 for maintaining composure and for a pleasant interaction on my talk page and, last but not least, to Juliancolton who was good enough to close the RfA at my request and, frankly, because an editor whom I respect so much found the time to support me! If the need for more admins at the main page is still apparent in a few months, I may try again. Thank you all for a relatively drama-free RfA and for providing me with much material from which to learn from my mistakes. You're all welcome to drop by my talk page any time. God save the Queen Wiki! HJMitchellYou rang? 20:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
Thanks for uploading File:Kino no Tabi eyecatch.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is little point in bending over backwards to excuse Ryulong's attempts to make me look as bad as possible by skewing a source's already debatable interpretation to be slanderous. He could have provided my original quote that Isquith uses, but no, he very deliberately put the worst spin imaginable on it. His agenda is clear, and it has no business on Wikipedia. You can deal with the problem or ignore it, but until it is fixed, I can only hope *not* to be cited on that page. Auerbachkeller (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. You're probably aware of this. Just making sure everyone gets one. Strongjam (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This edit is not correct. As far as I can tell, that is the only section mentioning the existence of female and minority GamerGate supporters. Even though it was watered down from the previous version that simply noted their existence as fact, the material you removed was still better than not speaking to their existence at all. Would you please restore that material?--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.04:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Aquillion -- I just wanted to take a moment to note that I found this to be a very well-phrased and on-point analysis of the relevant policy issues with regard to that contentious matter. You found a way to talk about the problematic nature of that content that didn't rely on condemnation of the parties behind the sources or our own involved editors, but which rather focused instead only on the relevant policy and community consensus. I like a well-constructed, well-presented and neutral argument, so... . :) Snowlet's rap05:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Thought I'd take a look at it. Turns out that the paragraph you removed was duplicated in the article. I've removed it. — Strongjam (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments on Political Correctness article edits.
Under no circumstances are news sources of this sort considered secondary sources in biography or other kinds of history: they date from the event in question and are part of the event, not an impassionate outside source writing by reviewing things created during the event. You may wish to go through the review literature published in The Journal of American History (these reviews are tertiary sources, consisting of scholarly critiques of secondary sources) and see how many newspapers are reviewed there. Or if you disagree with the number of news articles reviewed there, you may wish to complain to the editor; after working with him a couple years ago, I can guess his response. But I'm not going to bother doing anything: I'm tired of getting overwhelmed by Randies who think they know scholarly terminology better than professional scholars do. Just don't get surprised that the backlogs get bigger when you drive off the administrators who spend their time trying to close them in accordance with the strongest discussion points, rather than by vote counting. And don't be surprised when you try to use newspapers as secondary sources in medical articles, since the medical editors have done a good job of documenting professional standards in their disciplines. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to consult with Britannica's editors and ask whether encyclopedia writing be different from scholarly writing. I will continue to enforce the actual sourcing standards demanded by the terminology in the relevant policy, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" (in this case, interpretation is necessary to determine that it's a critical event warranting intro mention), so it would be appreciated if you'd stop trying to convince me that sword-wielding skeletons were involved in the Peloponnesian War. You will hear no more from me on this topic until you can get Ed Linenthal to contact me (he has my email address) and tell me that you're right. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I find fascinating is the appeal to authority here, as if Wikipedia needs to follow a scholar's best practices. If that was the case, we will not have Wikipedia, we would have Citizendium, and we all know where that ended up. What is also amazing to me is that an editor with 180,000 edits in WP and an admin to boot can be so wrong. - Cwobeel(talk)04:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit weird to respond to an edit summary via a talk page, maybe, but you addressed me directly and I wasn't going to make an edit just to reply in the history. Anyhow, the beginning of the sentence I removed was absolutely duplicated, word for word, and needed to be removed in one place or other. The second example in the sentence wasn't duplicated, true, which I actually hadn't noticed when I first made the revision. When I did notice it, I thought about editing it into the sentence I'd kept, but that example itself had been part of the whole back-and-forth revising when the duplication happened (first there was no second example, then I added one, then my addition was replaced with this different one) and I wasn't sure what to do about it, so I decided to let that be for the moment. JudahH (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I realized I'd been confused by that after I posted it (and started to make an edit to merge the two versions together, but someone else already did it.) Sorry about that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Connection to the cultural beliefs held by the individual, which seem to dictate the phenomena experienced in the NDE and the later interpretation thereof.[1]
to the near death experiences page - could you please add the page of the book from which citation is taken ? because citation does not sound right to me
only the government of liberland claims the area. crroatia even said the ydo not claim the area but that they think Serbia claims the area even after the Serbian government released an official statement that they did not claim the area. So no country other than liberland controls the area — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splashyelephant2003 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were two refs stating that the land is claimed by both; I've added a third one. Jedlička says that Serbia and Croatia do not claim the land, but most sources disagree with him. --Aquillion (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what you meant in your edit summary on the GGC talk page(apologies if you have and I missed it)? I don't really get what you mean, and how it applies to the email campaign. Best Wishes. Brustopher (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit, the second part of my edit summary got cut-off (that part was referring to the second sentence); after the comma, it also said that I wasn't sure the email campaigns were high enough priority to put in the lead. But thinking about it, it might be worth mentioning them... let me try another way of putting it. --Aquillion (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Main concern there is redundancy. Compare the second paragraph to the third:
"In the 4chan post that Ars Technica said may have coined the hashtag"
"reported that a series of logs from 4chan chat rooms and discussion boards indicated that the #NotYourShield hashtag was created on 4chan"
This is saying the same thing. It's important to note Ars is citing the logs, but it's essentially a drawn out version of the sentence in the preceding paragraph. Which is why I discussed it with the other editor on his talk page. Wouldn't referring to the logs in the second paragraph provide enough information given what's said in the previous one?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps simply move the second sentence to the first paragraph, give it some needed length? When read aloud it does feel like it's repeating itself. What do you think?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
^Holden, Janice Miner (2009). The Handbook of Near-death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publishing Data.
I like when someone, in one sentence, encapsulates an incredibly difficult WP policy point. So thanks for posting "politicians or people from think-tanks calling their opponents 'fascists' doesn't belong on Fascism, because we recognize that as a rhetorical device and unlikely to to reflect any sort of political-science consensus" on the talk page for Moral panic. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillion,
On Talk:Gamergate controversy, I see you refer to Sexism in the circuitry: female participation in male-dominated popular computer culture by Heron, Belford & Goker but as far as I can see in the talk page archives, only selective quotes have been offered and the entire article is not available. Do you know of an online location where the entire article can be read in order to see the the context of the quotes? Thanks. LizRead!Talk!13:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.
Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Need your input for a dispute resolution on the Bill Cosby article
Hello, I noticed that you had some comments on the Bill Cosby talk page and was hoping you could help us resolve an issue. Please see the section titled "Discussion: Should the lead sentence mention the sexual assault accusations?". Thanks! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is forum shopping and IDHT behavior. Hamster totally reordered talk page sections, placing them in opposite order and thus changing the meaning and progression. They also changed headings made by others, and also created an improperly formed RfC to hijack the discussion. All is now restored. We had a consensus until this disruption occurred. This is massive IDHT behavior, and this thread should be closed. Such behavior should not be rewarded. Hamster should be blocked for this. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk}19:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Political correctness. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Campus sexual assault.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.
1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.
3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.
6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.
Hey, I'm just dropping you a note because you previously participated in this RfC on the Campus Sexual assault Talk page. The dispute was never really resolved, in part because of a lack of participation. I've posted a new RfC that deals with the issue, and, if you have time comments would be appreciated!
I collapsed a discussion that you had responded to, because the individual in question was an antisemitic troll who's a regular at the refdesks. If a brand new account mentions the refdesk and Jews at the same time, feel free to just revert. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted a dubious tag at Political Correctness about something the concensus is currently for changing. Next time it gets reverted I'm taking this straight to ANI. In addition you claimed it has stood there for long. As of currently it has stood there for 4 days. Before that it stood there for three months, as long as the RfC has been open about it. The RfC is now 3 months old as well. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate your input on some of the recent Pinto edits and concerns that I have attempted to raise on the article talk page. Certainly getting a long time article voice might help. In 4 days the new editor has added over 150 edits! Springee (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, on the Talk for the argument from authority page, you said you didn't support the example since you were "not seeing any sources on the chromosome example that describe anyone involved as relying on an argument from authority". But now a source has been added that explicitly refers to it as an argument from authority, and which uses it as an example of a bad one. On page 40 it says "The power of argument from authority, the power of routine 'givens', and the influence of peer-group pressure are all revealed in this case" and discusses our example of how "In 1923, the eminent American zoologist Theophilus Painter pronounced that there were 24 pairs. This authoritative conclusion was repeated in...".
I'm happy to have it moved. As you probably know Guzman put a completely misrepresentative quote there so to avoid edit warring I added the rest. Useful quote though I think. Doug Wellertalk05:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Jack bros Japanese boxcover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, Aquillion. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
^This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
^Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
I reverted your removal of those statements because the reasons you stated don't appear to hold up. There is no question that those two people accused Puar of those things - BLP is not applicable, so I have reverted those edits of yours. However, you could argue that those two folks' opinions are represented in the article with WP:UNDO weight. Toddst1 (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Afternoon, I would appreciate your input to an RFC introduced by an SPA relating to the inclusion of SRS in the "Controversial Reddit communities". SPA has canvassed to overturn 3 years of consensus on a 4 day vote. Koncorde (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my apologies and I would self-revert, but I think at this point in time it is more in line with what you were thinking with one main "Rewards" section.
I want to tell you that I am very thankful for the magnanimity you displayed when we worked through our conflict. I have never had such constructive conflict anywhere else on the internet.
Hello, Aquillion. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You were right about the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party revert. I thought that the paragraph had been in for longer than it had, so thought that the version with it in was the stable version, but it was only her 1-sentence bit that had been in for a while. Sorry about that. EddieHugh (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Aquillion. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Aquillion. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thank you for your suggestions for correcting my RfC concerning "Instrumentalism." But I don't see that that procedure can solve my problem. I stand accused of deleting an article identified as conforming to WP protocols, and replacing it with a new article that violates those protocols. I can only respond to those charges by showing why I find both charges in error--involving the substance and structure of legitimate articles, which you convince me is not allowed in RfCs. I suggested to my accuser that we should mediate, but he is unwilling, saying I am asking him to do original research which is forbidden. Two questions: would the mediation format allow us to debate substantive and structural issues about articles, and how can I convince my accuser to accept mediation? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've reverted this guy's editorial on the WikiBan of a national newspaper, claiming he was obscure. On the talk page I've added a link to his most famous work: the Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone. Your logic in reverting was: "WP:UNDUE to put so much weight on a newsblog post by such an obscure figure ". I hope you are able to see what others reading the talk page will see: that this guy's observations on wiki-process during the Daily Mail ban are certainly at least as notable & weight-worthy as those of its competitor's digital reporter Jasper Jackson. SashiRolls t · c23:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillion, Happy New Year! Be brave, be prosperous, and be happy! May every day in 2019 be a good day to make edits! My best wishes be with you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 00:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained on talk why the order I edited the Ideology section was important to readers, and I strongly feel this is appropriate... but at the very least you should not see it is very critical overall. We're still working on that section, and becoming petty about ordering is the least you should worry about. It is unnecessary to revert my change, spiteful, and smacks of wanting to have the last word and impose. Sometimes, its ok to just let non-harmful edits sit for a day, wait for responses on talk, and then agree on a direction. If we move back to the order I had, with the sourced self-statements (quote and "nonpartisan terms" line), neither of which we much disagree about, we can probably move the dispute tag below it in that section.
Secondly, your reversions to my edit clearly included errors on your part and untrue accusations of errors against me, saying I had made "presumably-accidental changes" but in the same edit you re-added the duplication I had fixed, which you later caught on to. You also made the mistake of re-added "consistently" which is totally inappropriate editorialization, of course, which you also had to later fix.
Third, the word "Nonetheless" is also editorializing on your part. It is a word that strongly implies that what preceded it is actually incorrect... which a subjective viewpoint with no definitive stance can't be. I don't think that's your intent, but that's what the word implies.
So, please, in good faith, self revert back to my last edit in the interest making the section order more readable, but feel free to keep the this>their change. -- Netoholic@06:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's sort of the standard knee-jerk response to DS alerts. They are supposed to be informational, but with the carefully crafted jargon (including "This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.") they really come of as very unfriendly (as if you were handed a court summons or something). Icewhiz (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there- I realise this was from a few days ago, but I read what you wrote on the talkpage, and thought it was really good. As it looks like your suggestions seem to have got lost in the discussion, I thought to drop you a line here (apologies if it's not correct wikiettiqutte). At one point I was trying to expand the history section to introduce some of that information, but wasn't quite sure how to lay it all out. (How much under straight history, and how much under political stances/whatever you want to call it) I'm good with history, but haven't written about politics at all so far, and well as you mentioned, that's what the paper is known for, hence all the debate.
After researching it seems obvious to me that the article should follow lines similar to those you started on; there is so much material out there, and its really quite interesting; seems a shame not to be able to write what could actually be a decent, informative article, using academic sources. For instance I found a great article on the early cartoonists, and how they shook up how political cartooning evolved in Australia. Not to mention all the rest of it.
Would you be interested in trying? I thought perhaps trying to build a section up in a sandbox first might work. Curdle (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate on how you reached, your conclusion that Task and Purpose is a “blog”. I did some digging and weighed in on the Reliable sources. I do not concur with the assessment Task and Purpose is a blog. I think it meets the criteria for wp:rs. Certainly want to hear how you came to that conclusion. In fact the writer of the Nathan Phillips Stolen valor is listed as and editor in cheif Paul Szoldra. Can you also source the claim that Buisness Insider didn’t exert editorial oversight when they republished that story? I don’t think they did, but I can’t source either or, but assume based on my research of Task and a Purpose that they meet the journalistic standard and Buisness Week concurs. I just want to ensure we don’t have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling#Unreasonable_sourcing_demands occurring here.0pen$0urce (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, just to following up since I don’t see a reply. Made some bold claims about “Task and Purpose”. Can you source these claims, because at this juncture seems subjective and POV. Here’s 2 sources that rebut your unsubstantiated blog claims. Furthermore proclaiming a blog and spouting BLP repeatedly create a perception that your intentions may not be NPOV. Again scrutinizing sources is great, until it enters the threshold status quo stonewalling. https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/news-opinion/the-far-right-is-attacking-task-purpose-a-popular-military-website
Hi. Just a friendly note about this edit, since I had just recently copyedited the comma back in. When writing the full month-day-year, American English style, a comma should be placed after both the day and the year (thought the first link does acknowledge that there is one major grammar source which has opined it is unnecessary when used as an adjective). [4][5][6]Grandpallama (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the source of his claim she was laughing at male suicide. [1]
A more charitable interpretation is that she was visibly and audibly laughing at the idea of a MP wanting to discuss male issues like elevated level of suicide and prostrate cancer in Parliament. But by no means groundless, possible less than charitable an interpretation at best.
I believe you have a misconception about see also sections. If something were already mentioned in the article there would be no reason to put it in "see also" so that is actually a negative reason for inclusion. From the MOS:
The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.
Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.
So I would say that clearly in a comprehensive article on online harassment of female game developers ("the topic" in a broader sense), Kathy Sierra would be mentioned. In fact I think such a link is quintessentially appropriate. If not for such a link there would be little reason for "see also". —DIYeditor (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, the kids at Call-out culture are back at it, adding back in excessive and unreliable sources, again. I'm done fighting the dodgy citations on the page, not by choice, but hey I don't want to get blocked. Would you be interested in casting some uninvolved eyes over the new section? Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm a researcher with the Anti-Harssment Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation. One of my colleagues passed along a message you wrote recently, about anonymous reporting systems for English Wikipedia. I'd like to invite you to participate at our user reporting system consultation, since it sounds like many of the features you propose are similar to the ones proposed by other editors that we've talked to over the course of this project. If you are interested, you can also see the research we have conducted to date about reporting systems.
Hi there, kindly respond to the comments in the talk section of the page under the neutrality discussion regarding your edit revert. Many Thanks Bhistory 17:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Im the one that include these links. Please i invite to discuss the including of these links in the talk page of the article. Thanks.--BrugesFR (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. About [7], I understand your view, but please note that it was going from 2 sources to 1, not 3 to one (I used the wrong summary, and explained my mistake in my next edit) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And about this, you're both right. Everything else and this fade with time. Not just in the future or on September 8, 2019, but constantly, even right now. Nothing good can last, nothing bad can last and everything in between is always the same. Anyway, don't think too hard about it, whatever it's all about. Just keep on keeping on, fellow traveler, and say hi to Danny for me! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Help with IP editor on internment/concentration camp pages
Hi Aquillion. I am looking for advice on how to handle an who isn't logged in, who appears to be the same person but whose IP keeps changing. You've already responded once to their addition of a NPOV tag to List of concentration and internment camps. They've now also taken their problem with the camps in question to Internment by removing the entry from that page as well.
They've now pinged, Sir Joseph, who specifically asked not to be pinged on Talk:List of concentration and internment camps back in August and who is currently blocked. They've also pinged Hurledhandbook, who hasn't been active anywhere since mid-July, and was never active aside from these two articles.
All of their arguments are a rehash of what was discussed during the "List of concentration and internment camps" RfC, including that they think the entry should be removed for factually incorrect, and I said as much. I don't know what else to do.
So, my questions are 1) should I continue to ping Sir Joseph? 2) How does it work to bring up a previously-settled argument in this way? As I responded to them once, I'm not really interested in relitigating old arguments with someone new who hasn't brought any new sources to reevaluate the section. And 3) how does it usually go when two articles with similar subject matter have that material challenged on one page, where it's upheld? Basically, does the RfC conclusion to keep the migrant concentration camps on "List of concentration and internment camps" have any bearing on whether the entry should remain on "Internment," with respect to its factual accuracy?
Apologies for this being a bit long. I hope it isn't too much.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding edit war. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Call-out culture".The discussion is about the topic Call-out culture.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - Sridc (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
P.S.: If you genuinely feel that you're not involved enough to be listed as a party, I give you my permission to remove yourself from the "involved parties" list without discussion. ToThAc (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Regarding this edit and similar ones: ordinarily I wouldn't bring up typos. However in this specific case, I just wanted to note that though I'm sure most people just substitute "deprecated" wherever you wrote "depreciated", it's a little jarring when you write about how the proposal in question may redefinine "depreciated". It's not a big issue but a bit ironic given that you are arguing for maintaining a standard definition, yet are mistyping the word. isaacl (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2019
Hi, I reverted your edit in the article Qasem Soleimani since it was obviously a mistake, the person is dead (read the article) and WP:BLP does not apply here. --Z06:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you please help with that discussion? It really doesn't seem to end and JLMadrigal seems to be always asking something more, continuing to deny the common name and making this edit to make it sound like right-libertarianism isn't a real thing, but just a made-up term used to distinguish various forms of libertarianism; as both Pfhorrest and I explained, the article isn't about the term but about the concept, so adding that to the lead isn't necessary (there's the Definition section for that), is an unusual way to start a lead and Right-libertarianism is contrasted with left-libertarianism, a type of libertarianism that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources.[11] In contrast to socialist libertarianism,[4] right-libertarianism tends to support free-market capitalism.[1] is a better and more concise way to say that. What do you think? Should I revert that?--Davide King (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's still going on and I'm honestly really tired. I worked on wording for compromise, but they seem no happy unless they get their own exact wording. I don't really think there's a big issue, if there's any, at all. I think Pfhorrest hit the nail in the coffin here, here, here and here, but it never ends.--Davide King (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any opinions about the Audience response section, and my attempt to include a version of it in keeping with Wikipedia rules and rare exceptions, I would appreciate if you could add them to the article talk page. Thanks. -- 109.76.131.91 (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hi, I also see you are using press releases as sources, that is most certainly not allowed as a valid source and especially not in the IP area. You have also removed valid sources that support NGO Monitor. Sir Joseph(talk)16:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you are well. If you'll oblige my reaching out, I'm a student doing some research for a summer internship related to improving content safety online. The company I'm interning with is trying to keep the web free of misinformation. We are hoping to learn from dedicated Wikipedia editors about their motivations to spend time doing editing work online (so that we can motivate others to do the same on other platforms). I saw that you are fairly active with edits; would you be willing to chat with me about your work for about ~20 min one day? If you prefer I can give you my questions in writing, too.
Hey, have you seen this? Since no one has proposed any new wording and since already proposed another rewording that had success, I would like to ask you if you could do the same for this. Thank you. :) Davide King (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:JohnnyTurbo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi Aquillion, I saw that the edit regarding Ilhan Omar’s real name was removed because it cited Twitter. I understand that we’re generally not supposed to use Twitter as a source but as I understand it, Wikipedia’s page on sources makes an exception for Tweets written by the subject that contain information about themselves. If I’m mistaken, please let me know. I won’t try to put it back or cause an edit war—I just wanted to get my question cleared up. 100.14.159.49 (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This research study is part of a larger project where we are trying to understand how editors collaborate in different language editions of Wikipedia. I was looking through our team’s prior dataset and came across conversations that you have had on the Birthright Israel article talk page. I am interested in learning more about those conversations.
Would you be willing to participate in a 1 hour interview about your experience? The interview will take place virtually over Skype, Hangout, Zoom or phone.
Our research team will make our best efforts to keep your participation confidential. Participation in our study is voluntary. If you are willing to participate in this interview, or if you have additional questions please email me. Or, if you are concerned about direct email you can contact me through Wikipedia’s mail feature.
If you are interested or have any other questions, please let us know.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
It is quite likely that I based using it there off the fact that it was used to cite similar things in the lead (and hadn't been challenged there, so I assumed that was good); if it doesn't support it then feel free to take it out. --Aquillion (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC) (moved from my user talk page) Politrukki (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not challenged? Not true. I already referenced the talk page challenges in my last message to the BLPN discussion. This is a timeline of relevant edits:
The last edit is also the last edit before your edit. As you can see here, the edit was challenged by three different editors.Thanks for the discussion. I will revert your bold addition. Politrukki (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Aquillion and thank you for your offer to formulate a better RfC. Frankly, I do not know how to continue now. Taking into account what happened at Talk:Bitcoin Cash#Bcash altname again and how, e.g. my tag was handled, I decided to challenge the recent close. Perhaps that is not the correct way. You may not know it, but there were significantly poorer "sources" (actually press releases) in history maintained by edit-warring that I had to remove using RfCs, since there was no other way how to achieve that. Now, there is still a "source" that actually forecasts the creation of Bitcoin Cash and that is still used as a "reliable source" for the claim and maintained in there by edit-warring. It seems quixotic to do it this way, but it looks to me that a simple question not removing the sources one by one will just determine that there are many editors claiming that the sources cited are all "exceedingly well cited" and that, in their total, they confirm the claim "exceedingly well". Thanks for your time. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go ahead, though when it comes to statistics one extension of what I said there that I didn't bring up is that ideally it's best to cite secondary sources covering statistical studies (ones that can provide interpretation and analysis to say what the numbers mean, taking methodology, context, any limitations of the study, etc. into account) rather than citing primary sources of statistical data directly, for much the same reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aquillion, would you suggest to delete the entire controversy section of the journal HAU as it's based on sources Wikipedia doesn't consider legitimate, such as blogposts about living persons? Thestudentspirit (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was why I deleted it. I left the one decent source (and found another one, although it's from the same site) and wrote a little bit covering it - I don't think those are a problem, so a few sentences summarizing them are fine. We could expand from there if other good sources can be found, or a bit more can be added from those two sources, but we definitely can't cite a massive section making extremely WP:BLP-sensitive claims about specific individuals to stuff like blog posts, Google docs, pastebins, and primary sources. And in general the scale of the section was probably WP:UNDUE in the first place given how slight WP:RS coverage was. --Aquillion (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, makes sense, the only citable sources are either the InsideHighered piece or the Chronicle of Higher Ed piece then? If any of them are included it should be both. And the fact they they contradict eachother should be highlighted, InsideHigherEd publishes allegations from personal websites, while the Chronicle piece dispels them after a journalistic investigation. There is also a Quillette piece which is well researched and from a reputable source. Can this be cited? Thestudentspirit (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)thestudentspirit[reply]
I saw your post about Coda Story at WP:RSN and wanted to say that I broadly agree with what you wrote. I was loathe to cast a !vote in that RfC, because I felt that it was a misuse of the RSN - bringing a vague RfC about a source in general in order to try to settle a dispute about a specific use of the source in a particular context. However, after seeing that the RfC was going ahead anyways, and after reading more about Coda Story, I decided to write up my views on Coda Story in general, only to see that the RfC had been closed.
Two things I noticed about Coda Story:
They mix opinion and fact fairly freely. I would describe most of their content as essay-style, rather than straight news reporting.
They publish what I would describe as one-sided "hit pieces" fairly often. They recently published a piece about two popular Chinese YouTubers who make videos about their lives in rural China. The videos are basically arts-and-crafts videos, without words, set in the countryside. I think most people watch them as a form of escapism. Coda Story strongly implies - without presenting any actual evidence - that these Chinese YouTubers are somehow government propagandists. The Coda Story article has a lot of lines like this: Both women have faced accusations of providing content that serves the interests of the Communist Party of China. Accusations by whom? There's a strong Fox-News-esque "people are saying" vibe here. The only "evidence" that Coda Story really gives is that the women who make the videos are Chinese and not banned by the government, and that the videos might help improve the image of China. In other words, the Coda Story piece feels very much like an attempt to take down two apolitical arts-and-crafts videographers from China for the sole reason that they might inadvertently give people a positive image of China. Given that Coda Story is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, I guess this isn't surprising. I'm concerned that editors might start using Coda Story articles to insert poorly grounded attacks on living persons, especially now that it's gotten the green stamp of approval.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hi there! I notice this RfC is still rumbling on (and not, I think, in a good way). If you judge your question has been answered the way is open to you simply to remove the {{rfc}} tag and put it out of its misery, per WP:RFCEND. Personally, I think this would be a good thing given how stretched editing resources are over the COVID topics, since the open RfC seems to be encouraging wibble. Alexbrn (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the convention is but the sockpuppet's remarks are still visible (indeed, for visitors using screen-readers, the strikeout is ignored). Per WP:BMB, should we not simply delete and replace with a simple note saying something like "background noise"? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to do so, I have no objections. I've seen people do both depending on how many people participated in the conversation and whether there is anything worth retaining. They could be removed, or anything that hasn't gotten a reply could be removed, or they could be collapsed, or archived immediately since it is very unlikely the conversations will continue. --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was going to look for the proper place to post, maybe just at ANI, but there's at minimum meatpuppeting if not also socking, but maybe concerted brigading organized from an outside source over at Julia Salazar. Look at the contribution history of those accounts that came out of nowhere. Not all of them, but the first few and the quick response times. I didn't correct, for instance, the good-faith moving of the standard "Early life and education" section header and order into a non-standard sub of "Personal details", or respond further on the Talk to see how many more might show up. Not a problem that you did of course, it's a tricky allegation, but wanted to give you the heads up, as I might post later today if I can find the right venue and the time. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to say anything yet, but it may be worth looking at banned users who have edited that page in the past. In particular, E.M.Gregory (talk·contribs) was banned for extensive sockpuppetry, and was also heavily focused on that page for a while, so if you suspect someone might be a sockpuppet the first thing I would do is compare them to him and his socks, see if it seems likely that one or more people is him, and if so start putting together evidence for WP:SPI. Other banned users who edited it include Icewhiz (talk·contribs) and SunCrow (talk·contribs), but they are less likely both because they made fewer edits there and because AFAIK there's no reason to think they've socked in the past, whereas E.M.Gregory was abusing sockpuppets even before he was banned. --Aquillion (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was specifically looking at the ODDoom99 and the Knowitall who sound a lot more like the Competition Lawyer or whatever. And, of course, the 24...IP who followed me around for months and there's a lot of stuff at ANI about those accounts and this particular article. One of the "new" ones even "found" the buried in the middle of my user talk Julia Salazar section instead of starting a new one -- I don't archive and it's 530kB, so they didn't just read it and find it in situ. Thanks for the reminder about those older accounts too. Will maybe put it together tomorrow. JesseRafe (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Posted at ANI without notifying the users so as to not get flamed yesterday. Prior admin, El-C, who gave the article temporary EC protection two years ago moved it to indef basically right away. I made the edits to largely restore status quo ante and expanded a little. Don't know if the EC protection extends to article talk, but we'll see what happens, maybe the update will show up on their little discussion boards again. If so, I'll just sit tight on it and not engage see who shows up. Obviously it's on my Watchlist. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to ask this over on the Gamergate talk page but I don't have an account to beat the semi-protection. I was reading the lawsuit filed against Activision by the California Dept. of Labor and in the intro they cite Gamergate several times (see the footnotes) as an example of hostility to women in the field of video game development. I was wondering if that should go in the Gamergate article? Or would referencing the lawsuit itself constitute Original Research? 130.44.133.220 (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usually for something like that it would be best to look for secondary sources that cover it, rather than citing the lawsuit directly. A lawsuit is a primary document and anyone can say whatever they want when suing someone else, so it's hard to say that it's WP:DUE until it has secondary coverage, and even if it is due we'd be very limited in what we could say about it without a secondary source to provide interpretation and analysis. --Aquillion (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I wasn't sure who to ask this. I saw your vote on an AfD from 5 years ago and most of the other accounts who voted seemed inactive. You raised good concerns about OR and 5 years later many of those articles are still based on primary or not very reliable sources (eg Expedition of Alqammah bin Mujazziz). Should I go through them one by one and delete poorly sourced material, or should someone mass nominate them for deletion like before? VRtalk06:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously correct about the the VoC's Dissident blog, and you clearly know how WEIGHT works, so I would like to kindly ask you if you could analyze the article more in deep. Because the whole article is essentially "he said, she said" but rather than attribute this to secondary coverage for each author's views,1 we cite it to the author themselves.2 This is not necessarily an issue because we are not disputing their reliability but whether their chapters or mentions about Communist regimes were cherry picked and misused to treat this as a separate or new topic.3 Additionally, while Valentino et al. are clearly secondary sources about the events (e.g. mass killings happened, many people have died, etc.), they become primary sources when they are putting forward their ideas and theories about it, which is what the main topic should be. Is this correct?
It does not mean that we cannot cite Valentino for what he said or thought, but it needs to be backed up by secondary coverage to make sure that we are representing him, and any other author, fairly — and that we are not cherry picking quotes and mentions about Communist regimes. If we cannot find such coverage, it means they are undue and should be removed; the fact that there is a lack of literature about MKuCR as currently structured, it shows that those scholars are acting in isolation and do not represent majority views — but we cannot write a NPOV from the POV of a minority, can't we? This is why the article must be rewritten around the only topic for which we have tertiary sources, i.e. this4 — the "victims of communism" narrative, 100 million deaths, communism as the main cause, therefore communism should be criminalized like Nazism.
I am asking you this because you are clearly good at source analysis, literature finding, and weight comparison. If you tell me I am wrong, I can move on and make peace with myself. In particular, I would like to ask you if The Four Deuces is correct—as I think they are—about SYNTH and grouping.5
Notes
1. A few exceptions are Rummel cited through Totten & Jacobs 2002, or Singh cited through Jahanbegloo 2014; however, none of this secondary works are about Communism (e.g. Totten & Jacobs 2002 is about genocide studies, and Jahanbegloo 2014 is about non-violence — this shows that such sources are cherry picked to push the view of Communism as a separate or special category, and new topic, when it is clearly not the case, and Communist regimes can simply be discussed at Mass killing, like any other regime type.
2. Another exception is Fitzpatrick 2008 (a work about the Russian Revolution) for a useless and decontextualized quote by Lenin. Fizpatrick is one of many wrongly used sources who do not operate or write within a Communist grouping as the article ostensibly does.
3. Compare secondary coverage of Valentino's work (quotes). Majority of sources do not discuss Communism as a separate category that warrants a new topic or article, unless we are discussing the theories and narratives, and Communist regimes (Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes) are discussed within works about mass killings in general, and some sources do not discuss them together (Jones discusses Stalin and Mao together, and Pol Pot in a separate chapter, which proves TFD's point about lack of connection).
4. I would really appreciate if you could comment on this topic, sources listed (you may add more), etc.
5. We need sources, and they need to represent a mainstream, majority viewpoint, making a connection between Communist regimes. To quote them:
Valentin[o] for example, while noting that mass killings have occurred under Communist regimes, provides no theory about the connection. It would be the same as if he said that there have been mass killings in Asia and we created an article called "Mass killings under Asian regimes." ...
While Valentino does say that, he does not elaborate on his theory. Furthermore, it would only justify creating an article on his theory, although the lack of secondary sources covering it meets it fails notability. ... I know that Valentino's book has a chapter called "Mass Killings under Communist Regimes," but it provides little that connects them and only discusses Stalinist USSR, Maoist China and Kampuchea. ...
The next source (Mann), says, "All accounts of 20th-century mass murder include the Communist regimes. Some call their deeds genocide, though I shall not. I discuss the three that caused the most terrible human losses: Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia." That is consistent with what I said about Valentino's article: "it provides little that connects them and only discusses Stalinist USSR, Maoist China and Kampuchea." ...
The article title implies a causal connection between Communist regimes and mass killings. Unless we can show that reliable sources have made that connection, it is synthesis or the topic lacks WP:Notablity. Note we do not have an article "Languages in Communist countries" although we might have articles about languages in North America or languages in the EU. If there is no connection, then what is the point of an article? We had a similar discussion about Jews and Communism, which implied that there was a connection between Jews and Communism. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination).)
In regards to this, I agree. We actually have WP:MKUCRSA, and I think your comments would be very helpful. Here and here, you can see the most cited sources, though they have been mainly used in support of A/C. For a proposal for B, with non-primary literature, you may find this useful. Davide King (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened
Hi! I wanted to ask why Thomas Sowell's part under Commentary -> Economists got completely removed (Minimum wage in the United States). I fully understand where the WP:UNDUE argument is coming from, but if that's the case, the paragraph citing Paul Krugman's arguments should also be removed. Can we find common ground here? (as always, WP:FAITH) 46.193.66.211 (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to give you a heads up; I’ve reverted your addition per the core content policy WP:VNOTSUFF. The content very well may be suitable for inclusion, and consensus may well find that to be the case, but the policy now requires that consensus to be garnered (and with it being a BLP, this is especially so). Please bring up the issue on the talk page and allow a discussion to take place. And I hope you understand I’m not taking a position on your edit, this is just to ensure we follow necessary protocols at this stage. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to thank you for your articulate reply in the thread. You made some great points but there are some minor disagreements on how the guideline applies here that I'm excited to reply with in the morning. Fun debate! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me!01:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Rp2006 (talk·contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
Roxy the dog (talk·contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
Yes Bbb23 struck the vandalism warning, but I have seen terrible behavior from that admin before. That admin flags people and blocks people for no reason, and then when called out on it, Bbb23 removes that discussion. Years ago, Bbb23 reverted legitimate AFDs as "spam" even though all articles were actually deleted via AFD later on.
How do I know this? Bbb23 was a fellow admin with me, but I left. Bbb23 does more damage to WP than help. Bbb23 thinks far too much is spam, and then takes an authoritarian stance when called out on it.
I'm shocked, simply shocked, that Bbb23 actually relented and realized my latest edits were not spam. Of course they weren't. But Bbb23 admitting one mistake in 20 years is just not good enough.
This guy has been giving me trouble and harassing me. can you ban him or send in the word of his harassment up to the chain of command? Pleas Persesus (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the clause in the main paragraph of the Daily Wire Wikipedia Article, "Its coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic has been described as "junk health news," is a clause that specifies certain criticism that has already been mentioned in the Accuracy section of the article. By placing specific criticism of the Daily Wire on the main paragraph, you misrepresent the article's neutrality and present a biased perspective. On 5/4/22 23:09, but you reverted the removal of the clause with the reason that the description of the Daily Wire as "junk health news" is a key point, thus can be used in the main paragraph.
The Oxford Report — titled "Social Media Misinformation about the WHO" — only mentions the Daily Wire once in their examination, and their role is used as a support for its section's main examination of The Daily Caller. The citation is a minor mention of the Daily Wire and is by no means important enough to be in the main paragraph.
Hi Aquillion. Per your question here, does that imply that you're currently preparing to submit evidence about ARS to the case, beyond the specific evidence you've already submitted about 7&6=thirteen? I was considering doing a deeper dive on ARS canvassing and battleground mentality, and refactoring the evidence I provided to focus more heavily on that. But if this is something that you're already working on, then I might spend my time elsewhere. —ScottyWong— 14:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't done anything beyond what I've posted yet. My question was mostly trying to get a sense of whether it would be useful to do it in the future. --Aquillion (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would pay attention to the reply I got from an arb in the discussion you linked; it is probably more useful to focus on evidence that relates to individuals. This isn't totally unexpected - realistically ArbCom isn't going to take action against a Wikiproject unless its core purpose is so egregiously against Wikipedia policy that it calls for the At Wits' End principle, which isn't the case here. Otherwise they would effectively be creating policy. Also, I mean... at this point most meaningful ARS activity amounts to a handful of editors anyway, so it's easier to just look at them and see if there are issues. Like, based on your own data, there are just a few really active ARS members; if there are issues with what ARS is doing then that should also show up as, and be easy to demonstrate as, issues with their own individual conduct. --Aquillion (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think what you said in the last sentence here was what you meant to say. Surely you're arguing against making it easier, not harder? —Cryptic00:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not understanding why you feel that the tag at NOCON requires or is equivalent to the tag you have placed at ONUS. ONUS merely states that Verification is an necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion in an article. It's to prevent tendentious reinsertion of irrelevant or UNDUE text with the sole justification being that it appears in a Reliable Source. As you know, we see that quite frequently. But the NOCON bit and some editors' unfortunate extension of ONUS to apply to changes in longstanding text (notwithstanding other reasons to prefer longstanding text) is without basis and paradoxically leads to the same kind of edit-warring ONUS is intended to forestall. I think your tag in NOCON is fine, but I'd ask you to reconsider the one in ONUS, which I think is a different matter and not "disputed" in the same way that the NOCON sentence is disputed or unclear. SPECIFICOtalk12:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add the tag on NOCON; I'd lean towards having neither tagged, but I object to tagging only one during a dispute over a conflict between the two of them, since that gives the impression that ONUS is uncontroversial while NOCON is not. And while the first sentence of ONUS is not disputed, look at the talk page; there is clearly substantial disagreement over what the last part of the paragraph means. --Aquillion (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I know you are not responsible for the NOCON tag. I think we agree as to the central point wrt ONUS as well. I'm just saying that "disputed" sounds as if some follks believe that Verification is sufficient for inclusion at any time and place. I just wonder whether the ONUS tag needs to stay for as long as the NOCON tag is in place? As to the larger issue, I'm at a loss to understand how there could be such widespread and varied misreading of the very simple language in the current ONUS text. It's quite remarkable. SPECIFICOtalk13:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's only intended for the last sentence; it could be made specific to that. Regarding the larger issue, I think that it's a combination of factors. One issue is ONUS' wording is so simple (because that page wasn't really the right place to put it); another is that WP:ONUS has unusually sweeping language compared to our actual dispute-resolution policies and guidelines, which leads people to reach for it to "win" disputes. I don't generally think policies worded like that are a good idea - they don't encourage useful discussions or compromises; instead, they push people towards bludgeoning each other with red tape and process-wonkery. A policy that explains what our ultimate goal is and why it's that way is generally more useful than a policy saying "always do X". I also think there's a divide between people who are picturing WP:ONUS primarily as something getting invoked in good-faith disputes between experienced editors, and people who see it as mostly existing for use against inexperienced, bad-faith, or WP:TENDENTIOUS editors. This is probably also related to how it ended up in WP:V - WP:CONSENSUS is something that is mostly referred to while dealing with experienced editors in good faith, for intricate disputes that involve complex enough and prolonged enough arguments to require guidance on how to resolve them. WP:V is more basic and while obviously its intricacies matter everywhere, citing V as your core objection is more likely to happen when dealing with inexperienced editors, probable hoaxes, etc. You can see this in a lot of the examples people are posting to argue for a maximalist interpretation, which tends to presume the need to block innumerable hoaxes or which focus on the idea of people trying to "get away" with something. I don't think it's feasible to have a dispute-resolution policy premised on that sort of assumption. (I also don't think that ONUS, if actually enforced the way they suggest, would have the effect they want it to - part of the problem with stridently-worded policies is that they themselves can become tools in the hands of the same bad actors they're intended to stop. We reach good outcomes by encouraging people to focus on the outcome, not process-wonkery. Completely honestly, I do not think I have ever seen an invocation of ONUS improve discussions in any way - not in terms of resolving things, not in terms of getting people to understand each other's positions, nothing. It mostly derails things into pointless process-wonkery. The principle of the first sentence is important but the idea of "I don't need to explain my position, the ONUS is on you" is an unhelpful way to frame it.) --Aquillion (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, thanks for taking the time to lay that out. I find myself repeatedly having to point out that text can be longstanding with almost no editor scrutiny or awareness -- this is actually the case more often than not on our millions of article pages -- and that while there can be a strong implicit consensus on actively edited pages, that is not the most frequent circumstance. But at any rate, I would have no objection to moving ONUS to the NPOV page, from which it could just as easily be cited and with more supporting context. SPECIFICOtalk14:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jim Shooter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Byrne. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hey. Just wanted to say I really do not appreciate being taken out of context in the Talk:July–August 2022 United States floods#RfC about mentioning of climate change discussion. You probably will just ignore this request, but I would ask if you changed your statement to reflect the meaning of my statement instead of the (not even) word-for-word statement. Not taking someone out of context shows respect for the other user, and right now, I have lost a lot of respect for you as an editor with this incident. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to provide a diff. I think the context of your comment was pretty clear and while you may think you have effectively masked your agenda, I think Aquillion was dead-on in their evaluation. Shame, that. I think people pursuing degrees in meteorology ought not to be so blinkered by politics that they think teaching people about climate change is somehow "controversial". jps (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like someone else has already closed it again, so I'll just let it lie. But I think it's a mistake to close it, since at least one arbitrator, Worm, has said in the RFAR that I believe we should wait until the ANI thread reaches it's conclusion. Closing a discussion that an Arbitrator has said they want to see play out before starting a case because that case has been requested makes no sense. In particular whether the community endorses the indefinite block, turning it into a community one, would be vital and might mean that all ArbCom has to do is desysop by motion; since an indeffed administrator can't do anything, there is no need to rush to drop the entire question on ArbCom when ANI was in the process of handling it. --Aquillion (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more thing - I didn't get a notification that my edit was undone, meaning that it was done manually rather than clicking 'undo' - please can I ask why this was? GiantSnowman17:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
While Round and Roudner was a sockpuppet, previous consensus for the article was to include the names and the edit there was simply to revert an edit done without discussion on the talk page. Per WP:BLOCKEVADE However, this does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. I will be reverting the change, and re-including the names. Cheers! Freedom4U (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Normally it would be helpful to link a section about this to a main page rather than a category; however it's exactly the same text without the tagging. I tried to remove it as undue, since we have collaboration in other countries that affected hundreds of people that remains unmentioned, and I don't agree with the hyperfocus on the Warsaw ghetto. However, it was reverted back in, in addition to the new article. Given that and the input I've received from another editor that there are worse problems, I've been working on those, and verifying the references in the section, in particular the very-overused Times of Israel reference, which got a scathing reception at RSN. Just saying, I don't revert people, but I think you should reconsider that edit, and btw I could use some help with this article if you are so inclined. if so see the talk page. Elinruby (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't disagree that that article is terrible; but that means that it ought to be either fixed to be not-terrible, deleted, or merged to elsewhere. Linking to it means more people will see it which ultimately means that it's more likely that one of those outcomes will occur; and in any case it's weird to link to the category when we have a main article. While the sourcing is still an issue, I just tweaked it to fix what I feel is the most glaring deviation from the source. --Aquillion (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you can help me, but on my Android, talk pages are now formatted oddly, with no TOC. I don't like it. Do you know anything about this? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
since we have to evaluate the way potential misconduct could slant the sources when eg. looking at our section on the source in our article on it.
The section was written by me and I have neither edited the topic area prior to the G&K article nor been acquainted with Icewhiz. There was some intense discussion at t/p where others appear to concede the unavailability of reliable sources that portray Glaukopis in a positive light. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.
Thanks for sticking with the original issue concerning the mass removal of "committed suicide" over at ANI. Every additional voice today seems to have been taking issue with me, my opinions, my justifications for bringing it to ANI, etc. and trying to respond meaningfully and intelligently to them all is wearing me out. I know you have no particular reason to help me out any further, but I don't want to drag in uninvolved editors just because I'm beginning to feel personally attacked—something I've tried to avoid saying explicitly over there for fear of inviting warnings about civility and assuming good faith—and it's becoming hard for me to do that when it feels like none of the arguments go to whether the behaviour I reported was or wasn't disruptive.
Something particularly upsetting was said to me tonight concerning a suggestion I made on another page to add something to the list of alternative formulations for "committed suicide"—something I think is unrelated to my report, although obviously my thought was prompted by the discussion. One of the editors who hadn't posted until today said that I had no business suggesting anything of the sort while the report was under discussion—or for the rest of the year—which I perceive as a thinly veiled threat of retaliation for making the report and continuing to defend myself for having made it. Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but it really does feel like I'm being told to stay away from the topic for the foreseeable future, and I don't know of any Wikipedia policies that would support that action based solely on the discussion at ANI.
I don't know what to do about it—obviously making another report at ANI would be courting disaster, although I suspect that threatening other editors, explicitly or implicitly, in retaliation for their arguments in other forums is potentially a serious breach of Wikipedia policy. I know that constantly having to reply to one accusation after another is emotionally draining, which I think is the point—making people sorry for reporting something/arguing something that you disagree with. Or as I said, I might just be paranoid. Do you have any advice, or am I barking up the wrong tree? P Aculeius (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:JohnnyTurbo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Whoops, fixed. But the basic point is the same; an ArbCom case should examine the behavior of everyone involved (even if it's likely to find that some of them did nothing wrong) and should avoid a title that overtly casts the blame on one editor from the start. --Aquillion (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The close itself and its precise implementation are different things; the discussion on talk plainly failed the WP:CONLEVEL for the implementation you suggested. You have sufficient experience as an editor to understand the difference. --Aquillion (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CONLEVEL, the level of consensus and participation necessary to change a policy page is higher than you can reasonably claim exists on the talk page or in the (extremely minimal) discussion of the matter in the discussion you closed. I am not disputing your close, or I would have reverted that; I am saying that the discussion you closed demonstrates insufficient consensus for the change you are proposing, since your proposal was not significantly discussed there. Simply closing a discussion does not grant you limitless leeway to invent new changes to policy pages yourself and then immediately implement them; you can only assess the consensus of what was actually discussed, and only to the degree and with the WP:CONLEVEL that it was discussed. If you disagree and think that sufficient consensus exists, you need to go back to talk and demonstrate that the consensus actually exists; edit-warring it into the article now that your WP:BOLD change has been disputed by multiple editors is inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLD is about edits without a prior consensus. Implementing a close is not a BOLD edit.
Again, per WP:CONLEVEL, you cannot simply point to arbitrary discussions as a justification for arbitrary changes to policy pages - the standard there is higher than on a random article. Your proposed changes were not meaningfully discussed in the discussion you closed; therefore, the wording of your close makes no difference - your edits are not an "implementation" of them but a WP:BOLD revision of policy. If you believe that a consensus exists for your proposal you should be able to rapidly start a new discussion focused on that and demonstrate it, but you can't simply rewrite a policy page in arbitrary ways based on the fact that you were the one who closed the RFC; neither can you make arbitrary claims in a closing statement that don't relate to the topic of discussion, then demand that other people go to WP:AN if they want to undo your changes. Policy pages need to be stable and based on clear positive consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A brand-new user issued an edit request that is a near verbatim copy of a previous request by a then-undisclosed COI editor. Thirteen minutes later, another brand-new account supported both editors' requested changes. This stinks on ice, could you have a look? Thanks, Xan747 (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:JohnnyTurbo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Have you considered it? Long-term sensible editor with a content focus who edits in sometimes contentious areas without being sanctioned (that I can find) would be a positive with the tools. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Election denial movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
rootsmusic (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Republicans pounce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Knowles.
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 special powers 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 practice;
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 {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Note: This notification was triggered due to your recent edits to Sweet Baby Inc.
I believe that User:Edits for Integrity is a sockpuppet of User:Moon darker since the first account repeats nothing but his exact opinion on Talk:Sweet Baby Inc., and has no other edits besides that page. As a more experienced Wikipedia editor, can you do further due diligence and, if you believe it is a sockpuppet, file a report? I would greatly appreciate it, as I am dumbfounded why people care so much about culture war topics like this to create such a long debate. -1ctinus📝🗨00:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's certainly possible, but in a situation like this distinguishing between WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT, WP:CANVASSed users, and users who just saw something that got them mad and headed over to Wikipedia to update an article about it can be difficult. As a lot of the sources say, the narratives about this sort of thing get hammered out on Discords and subreddits and spread through them and social media, so it's unsurprising we'd see a lot of people with the same views all at once. In this case they have somewhat different writing styles and have a lot of interleaved comments replying to different people (eg. [13][14][15], all in the same minute.) Is it possible for someone to fake that? Sure, but I don't think it's likely they're doing that in this case. Of course, this doesn't preclude them being canvassed or meatpuppets or whatever, but usually in a situation like this, that sort of thing is better-handled with more sweeping actions... like the semi-protection the article is currently under, limiting the amount of damage meatpuppets or sockpuppets can do; or tagging WP:SPIs, as someone was doing earlier, so the fact that the talk page may be the focus of that sort of activity is taken into account. --Aquillion (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never done anything in wiki before. never felt that this page was this dishonest anymore. I for one, will never be visiting this site again. once you lose all confidence in the medium a new wiki with more integrity will have a chance to appear. Edits for Integrity (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given your account's lack of constructive contributions in the first place, and it's questionable motivations based on your username, I suspect we'll recover just fine. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!16:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.
Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.
Hi, I noticed you recently reverted an edit of mine to left-libertarianism. I would like to question your reasoning for this revert, but first I'll explain my rationale for both changes. First, I uncapitalized "individualist" because it is not a proper noun, as it is not an organization, and is not an ideology derivative from a name. It specifies the ideology of individualist anarchism, while focusing on the US. Second off, I added the inline for unbalanced opinion because the text makes the assertion of property that "gives privilege and is exploitative," which implies property which does this, and does not specify what this property is anyway, as it uses an ideological definition. Thanks,NeuropolTalk12:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed decision in the Venezuelan politics case posted
Thank you for reverting my edit here. I believe that, in the moment, I thought that the article saying "stated" would mean that the involvement of Kiwi Farms was confirmed. You're completely right that it does not confirm that and that "stated" does not mean "confirmed," I appreciate the correction. JeffSpaceman (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aquillion. Thanks for joining the current discussions at HA, and for pointing out your 2021 RfC. I don't believe I've ever seen a RfC reopened other than when it was closed too quickly. From my reading of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Restarting_an_RfC, which I wasn't previously aware, there appears to be no time limit if it wasn't formally closed. Is that your understanding? --Hipal (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who re-added the RFC tag, but someone else initially dredged it out of the history and started adding !votes to it. I did think it was odd, but I went with adding the tag and completing the re-opening rather than objecting because... well, what would objecting accomplish? WP:CCC applies, so even if I'd undone the re-opening (awkward when people were already weighing in) they would certainly be within their rights to just start another RFC after three years; reverting or objecting would just waste everyone's time. Better to just add the tag so this one gets properly broadcast and let it run. I would assume that after so long, for material that was clearly disputed, the status quo would be to omit it - WP:QUO / WP:ONUS applies and a nocon outcome will not result in it being restored, if that's what you're worried about. -- Aquillion (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to tworeferrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:
First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.
It's not really appropriate to contact people individually on talk about an open RFC (because it could reasonably be seen as WP:CANVASSing, at least unless you have some clear criteria for contacting them that avoids selecting them in a biased way, eg. contacting everyone who participated in a previous discussion.) That said, one thing I would point out is that even many of the sources presented by the people who are arguing it is not fascist are written in a way that makes it clear that they are participating in an active dispute, ie. these are academics saying "the other academics who believe this to be fascist are wrong because..." I think that it could be difficult to argue for outright calling them fascist in the article voice in the face of all those academic sources disputing it, but if you can turn up the sources on the other side that they're arguing with and demonstrate that they're roughly equal in weight, then you could reasonably argue for presenting and describing it as an active dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. To be honest I would like to add that JPratas made a lot of biased edits to article related to the Estado Novo over the years, similar to what he tried to with Franco. There are many issues with WP:TONE in those article currently.
One example:
The corporatist state had some similarities to Benito Mussolini's Italian fascism, but considerable differences in its moral approach to governing. Although Salazar admired Mussolini and was influenced by his Labour Charter of 1927, Salazar distanced himself from fascist dictatorship, which he considered a pagan Caesarist political system that recognized neither legal nor moral limits.
Notice how "considerable differences in its moral approach to governing" is written as if it is a fact, even though in practice it was a regime that brutally suppressed dissidents, conscripted thousands of men to fight a colonial war when all other European powers were abandoning colonialism, etc.
Hello, Aquillion. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
FWIW I agree with you entirely regarding your last point. I'm just steelmanning a bit and pointing out that, even if AJL was somehow violating COI standards, that doesn't excuse paid editing from another editor. Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. But the fact that academics (and others, but especially academics) can edit in areas they've published in is important - obviously that's necessary. And having someone trying to equate it to paid editing is alarming, especially at a moment when Wikipedia is targeted by all sorts of systematic efforts to shift our content. My concern is that the false equivalence could be used to downplay and relax our restrictions on paid editing at a moment when we ought to, if anything, be tightening them up. --Aquillion (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At Village Pump you said "so undue relative to the topic as a whole that it should be included entirely": should that be "excluded"? PamD23:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.
Details of the balanced editing restriction
In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.
This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future.
Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed.
They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace).
This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive.
Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.
If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.
Hey there, so there's an editor who is active in China politics articles ProKMT - and this editor has been making rather a mess of the topic space. They have a strong POV - they really want Wikipedia to say that the CPC is a right-wing party and that groups in Taiwan and Hong Kong that favour independence are left-wing. However more problematic than this pervasive POV issue is that they seem to completely fail to understand WP:SYNTH. Another example is here where they openly admit that they created a new article about a novel term that had almost no basis for an article existing as a form of compromise during a content dispute. A very good proportion of my China politics editing history is basically cleaning up their messes to the point that I've considered going to AN/I about them. Anyway one thing that's a common technique of theirs is to find older sources like this one, pull a very vague quote from them and then apply those sources out of context. I think that's what's going on at Neoauthoritarianism but I'm not really sure - this could be original material from the pre SYNTH version of the article. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're not the ones who added that to Neoauthoritarianism, at least; almost the entire article, including that part, was written by FourLights, its creator, years ago. I suggest installing Who Wrote That?, an incredibly useful browser extension for situations like this - it can bring you back to the exact diff that added a bit of text, so you can also see when it was added and what things looked like before. (Annoyingly, it doesn't work on policy pages.) Really, just skimming that page, I think the core problem is that it hasn't had enough editors since its creation and is still in a very rough state overall. --Aquillion (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just wanted to congratulate you on your "recent" essay on recentism. This is very balanced and helpful. Since an essay is intended to be one user's viewpoint, I'm not sure if it is appropriate for me to make edits there. But in the second sentence of the section "How to avoid crying recentism", did you mean to write "they ought not to be included", or am I misundersanding? Anyway, I thought you might like to know that I'm already seeing your essay used constructively in talk-page disputes. Well done. Doric Loon (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Aquillion. You have new messages at Talk:Fox News. Message added 03:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for uploading File:JohnnyTurbo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Kino no Tabi eyecatch.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
. :) Snow let's rap 05:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Fixed Thought I'd take a look at it. Turns out that the paragraph you removed was duplicated in the article. I've removed it. — Strongjam (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding reason for discussion. The thread is WP:TAGTEAM, WP:YESPOV and breach of WP:CONSENSUS at Political Correctness. Thank you. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpeg)
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Newimpartial § Do not hound me. 
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stonkaments (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
