|
![]() | This user is a regular and doesn't mind if you template him. |
Every bit of what was added [and then shortsightedly and erroneously removed immediately afterward (which proves how little you know about the subject, or you would have realized it was all factual)], was privileged, insider FACTS that enriched the page and provided more information to the reader about its subject. Why don't you fact-check BEFORE brazenly removing such privileged, FACTUAL information??? Ridiculous. 2600:8801:350E:C400:6C15:D29C:76DD:654C ( talk) 22:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Bowler the Carmine. I see that you have reverted nine times on this article to reinstate the unreferenced "Controversy" section. There are a few issues with this. First and foremost, it's a violation of our BLP policy, as it's contentious (and negative) material about a living person that is completely unsourced. In this case, policy dictates that such material should be removed immediately and that it's up to the editor who is seeking to restore the material to provide the reliable sources to merit inclusion. In these cases where our articles can have real-world impacts on living individuals, it's not okay to just revert, slap an {{ unreferenced}} tag on it, and move on. Second, the constant reverting without any discussion on the talk page from anyone is basically an extended edit war, even if it's not three reverts within a 24-hour period, and your reverts don't qualify for any of the edit warring exemptions (I would actually say that the editors removing the material qualify for exemption #7).
Due to the BLP concerns, I am going to remove the section. If you want to include it in the article, I strongly recommend looking for reliable sources first, and perhaps it would be more appropriate to integrate the content within other sections rather than a stand-alone controversy section. As this is a BLP matter, I'm also going to leave the following notice – it's not a sanction (not even a warning) and doesn't imply wrongdoing, it's a standard template used to let editors know about certain areas where policies may be enforced more stringently.
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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
Thanks, DanCherek ( talk) 06:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Please read the guidelines for Wikipedia:Signatures and update your signature. There is literally nothing readable except the popping colors. Thanks! — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 21:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
background-clip
CSS property, which is supported on all major browsers. The issue is with the browser you are using, Brave Browser, so I will not change my signature.
Bowler the Carmine |
talk
17:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
background-clip
, but only the prefixed version. I had to replace it with -webkit-background-clip
for it to work on Blink-based browsers.
Bowler the Carmine |
talk
19:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)You requested an RD1. While a well-formed request includes the range of IDs to be reverted that's not an issue here; I can figure it out. However, you identified the following site is the source of the text: https://htaba.com/art-autism-all-the-benefits/
That site doesn't work for me S Philbrick (Talk) 00:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Can you explain what the copyvio is? I have used Earwig on it, I've eyeballed it myself, and I've used sentence fragment searches; I see no copyvio or even close paraphrapsing. I've declined the revdel and restored back to the version added by Efalwell. -- Whpq ( talk) 02:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Love of Corey. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Colorado Springs nightclub shooting, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Love of Corey (
talk)
19:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Why are you putting maintenance tags without offering an indication of what need to be corrected? What aspect of that section is "close paraphrasing? And if you believe that the section needs correcting, why haven't you fixed it, especially when you are basing your opinion on something that is not wikipedia policy? AgntOtrth (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply] AgntOtrth ( talk) 21:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
You reverted my removal of content that is weakly sourced and fails our WEIGHT section of NPOV. Simply asserting in your edit summary that it is good content does not satisfy the standard we set for article inclusion.. In the many centuries of economic thought and the many tens of thousands of peer-reviewed sources on the subject, this content is simply not encyclopedic. If you feel strongly about this, you are welcome to make a case for this content on the talk page, where I and others will discuss with you. Meanwhile, please self-revert your reinstatement of this content. Thanks and best wishes. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in a lack of civility
WP:CIV in the talk page of
Killing of Tyre Nichols and in an editors own talk page. In the articles talk page you have made personal attacks/disparaging comments about another editor. Please review the
Wikipedia:Five pillars. We do not need to agree, we can at the very least do our individual best to help the content of Wikipedia be informative and reliable. Thank you
AgntOtrth (
talk)
19:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a
prior RfC on a similar issue.
Chess (
talk) (please
mention me on reply)
02:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
Please reinstate the changes made. Was not aware of an edit area.
The changes are being made to reflect the intent of the National organization.
Thank you,
Katie Evans National Treasurer 2600:4041:6683:1C00:8114:4478:18E1:2422 ( talk) 23:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
"The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked;" This is what you did by removing the Personal attacks. Mhhossein talk 12:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
![]() | This user is a regular and doesn't mind if you template him. |
Every bit of what was added [and then shortsightedly and erroneously removed immediately afterward (which proves how little you know about the subject, or you would have realized it was all factual)], was privileged, insider FACTS that enriched the page and provided more information to the reader about its subject. Why don't you fact-check BEFORE brazenly removing such privileged, FACTUAL information??? Ridiculous. 2600:8801:350E:C400:6C15:D29C:76DD:654C ( talk) 22:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Bowler the Carmine. I see that you have reverted nine times on this article to reinstate the unreferenced "Controversy" section. There are a few issues with this. First and foremost, it's a violation of our BLP policy, as it's contentious (and negative) material about a living person that is completely unsourced. In this case, policy dictates that such material should be removed immediately and that it's up to the editor who is seeking to restore the material to provide the reliable sources to merit inclusion. In these cases where our articles can have real-world impacts on living individuals, it's not okay to just revert, slap an {{ unreferenced}} tag on it, and move on. Second, the constant reverting without any discussion on the talk page from anyone is basically an extended edit war, even if it's not three reverts within a 24-hour period, and your reverts don't qualify for any of the edit warring exemptions (I would actually say that the editors removing the material qualify for exemption #7).
Due to the BLP concerns, I am going to remove the section. If you want to include it in the article, I strongly recommend looking for reliable sources first, and perhaps it would be more appropriate to integrate the content within other sections rather than a stand-alone controversy section. As this is a BLP matter, I'm also going to leave the following notice – it's not a sanction (not even a warning) and doesn't imply wrongdoing, it's a standard template used to let editors know about certain areas where policies may be enforced more stringently.
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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
Thanks, DanCherek ( talk) 06:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Please read the guidelines for Wikipedia:Signatures and update your signature. There is literally nothing readable except the popping colors. Thanks! — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 21:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
background-clip
CSS property, which is supported on all major browsers. The issue is with the browser you are using, Brave Browser, so I will not change my signature.
Bowler the Carmine |
talk
17:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
background-clip
, but only the prefixed version. I had to replace it with -webkit-background-clip
for it to work on Blink-based browsers.
Bowler the Carmine |
talk
19:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)You requested an RD1. While a well-formed request includes the range of IDs to be reverted that's not an issue here; I can figure it out. However, you identified the following site is the source of the text: https://htaba.com/art-autism-all-the-benefits/
That site doesn't work for me S Philbrick (Talk) 00:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Can you explain what the copyvio is? I have used Earwig on it, I've eyeballed it myself, and I've used sentence fragment searches; I see no copyvio or even close paraphrapsing. I've declined the revdel and restored back to the version added by Efalwell. -- Whpq ( talk) 02:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Love of Corey. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Colorado Springs nightclub shooting, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Love of Corey (
talk)
19:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Why are you putting maintenance tags without offering an indication of what need to be corrected? What aspect of that section is "close paraphrasing? And if you believe that the section needs correcting, why haven't you fixed it, especially when you are basing your opinion on something that is not wikipedia policy? AgntOtrth (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply] AgntOtrth ( talk) 21:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
You reverted my removal of content that is weakly sourced and fails our WEIGHT section of NPOV. Simply asserting in your edit summary that it is good content does not satisfy the standard we set for article inclusion.. In the many centuries of economic thought and the many tens of thousands of peer-reviewed sources on the subject, this content is simply not encyclopedic. If you feel strongly about this, you are welcome to make a case for this content on the talk page, where I and others will discuss with you. Meanwhile, please self-revert your reinstatement of this content. Thanks and best wishes. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in a lack of civility
WP:CIV in the talk page of
Killing of Tyre Nichols and in an editors own talk page. In the articles talk page you have made personal attacks/disparaging comments about another editor. Please review the
Wikipedia:Five pillars. We do not need to agree, we can at the very least do our individual best to help the content of Wikipedia be informative and reliable. Thank you
AgntOtrth (
talk)
19:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a
prior RfC on a similar issue.
Chess (
talk) (please
mention me on reply)
02:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
Please reinstate the changes made. Was not aware of an edit area.
The changes are being made to reflect the intent of the National organization.
Thank you,
Katie Evans National Treasurer 2600:4041:6683:1C00:8114:4478:18E1:2422 ( talk) 23:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
"The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked;" This is what you did by removing the Personal attacks. Mhhossein talk 12:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |