Archives: | |
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Knowledgekid87 (
talk)
21:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Gaming the system?. Thank you.
Guy Macon (
talk)
04:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Responding here since you pinged my name... I saw your AE comment and do not think it was fair. There are some differences between AYW and me. First, unlike him, I respected 1RR rule on the page. Second, if you look at my last edit on the page, it is essentially the same as the edit by AYW who was allegedly on the "opposite side" of the dispute. So here we go: my edit actually reflected WP:Consensus, when "partisans" from the opposite sides had happen to agree about something. Not mentioning that many other contributors made the same edit, and the content still remains on the page, meaning it does reflect a de facto consensus on the page. Third, unlike AYW, I did not WP:BATTLE by reporting other users on WP:AE, only to withdraw the request when it came to the "boomerang" action. Finally, unlike AYW, I am not an SPA focused on editing US politics from a certain POV perspective. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. It's just that talk pages are not the place for those types of comments, BLP violations. -- Malerooster ( talk) 12:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Sagecandor ( talk) 18:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at 2016 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 08:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
(Sigh) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article is under 1rr, as you would know if you checked the talk page, where I told you to go before deleting material that was restored by 2 other editors before me. You are lucky I haven't reported you yet.The article is under 1rr, as you would know if you checked the talk page, where I told you to go before deleting material that was restored by 2 other editors before me. You are lucky I haven't reported you yet. 63.143.203.101 ( talk) 09:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC) By the way, you lied 4 times: 1. lied that it was copyrighted 2. lied that the article "is not under 1rr" 3. lied about the burden of proof 4. lied that the file is not being used in any other Wiki sites. I see that you read German, so you should have noticed this. Please stop lying and violating 1rr. I am within my rights to revert your remaining reversions on sight because you are only allowed 1 per 24 hours and two other editors added that material. CUT IT OUT NOW. 63.143.203.101 ( talk) 09:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC) You've been reported for your outrageous conduct, lies, and edit warring. I hope you are blocked for eternity. 63.143.203.101 ( talk) 09:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you lack basic English fluency and literacy, or is this an issue of a lack of cognitive capacity? You might be the most obtuse editor I have ever encounteredLet me know! 63.143.196.107 ( talk) 13:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC) "Near native level of English"! GOOD ONE. I nearly died laughing. Trust me, a native can spot you a mile away.I think if you weren't so big on deceit you might knock yourself down a couple of notches on that vaunted "english proficiency" of yours. Level 4 is a bit optimistic, don't you think? 63.143.196.107 ( talk) 13:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC) |
2rr. Please undo. SPECIFICO talk 09:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Unproductive threats |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
OK I'm reviewing your recent history. I see numerous reinsertions w/o consensus, a violation. I see 1RR violations on several recent occasions. Are you sure you don't just want to take care of this and clean it up? The AE stuff is really a hassle and it's better for everyone if we all just stick to the Sanctions and clean up when we breach them. I'll stand back from this for 8 hours. I suggest you review your edits over the past week or so.
SPECIFICO
talk
03:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
|
I removed some content that you added to an article that was completely lacking in secondary sources, is not encyclopedic, and is clearly controversial (others removed the same stuff for the same reasons). Now I see that you're trying to drag me into no less than two separate arbitration requests, plus additional behavioral accusations on the talk page. Yeah, I deleted your stuff. No, it doesn't belong in the article. You should probably accept that and move on rather than trying to pick a fight with me about it. What you seem be thinking you need, but which you most certainly do not need, is for me to drag you into an AE proceeding on Harassment. That will be happening in the surprisingly near future if you do not alter your obnoxious behavior. But if it stops now, it doesn't have to. Geogene ( talk) 02:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I recommend that you self-revert here [6]. My My very best wishes stated in their edit history "challenging some materials via reversion" [7]. This is exactly on point at the current AE. The DS template on this talk page specifically states "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Steve Quinn ( talk) 06:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a request for sanctions pertaining to you at WP:AE --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Unproductive aspersions |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
To this. WP:REDACT is about article talk pages. WP:AE is not a talk page and not a place for bickering. My advice: please improve your own statement. Are you telling that you did not violate the restriction? Why? Did not you restore a content challenged by another contributor through reversion? My very best wishes ( talk) 13:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
To revert is to undo the action of another editor.Your edit was not a revert, as it removed a large section of material that had been collaboratively edited over several weeks by dozens of editors. My edit was a simple, straightforward revert of your action. — JFG talk 06:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Please undo your second revert. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I reported your 1RR violation here. Note that you did it several times. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi JFG, this might interest you – [11]. It's a really interesting coincidence ;-) – [12], [13]. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 10:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
This is reply to that. First of all, please do not make misleading edit summaries like here. There was no discussion. Second, what I did was not revert of multiple edits (several sequential edits count as one), and it was not blind revert, but a compromise version. Finally, if you disagree with content changes, please use article talk page. Thank you. My very best wishes ( talk) 12:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
At Russian intervention. Here [14] [15]. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 12:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Enough arguing on my talk page. Back to article talk for content or a drama board for conduct. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@
El C:: What's actually going on is that SPECIFICO is edit warring to remove the same text (while scrupulously
the the 24hr rule):
here
here.
The text being modified by JFG is not the same text at all:
It seems that SPECIFICO has a long term pattern of harassing editors she disagrees with on the Russian Interference page. See her harassment of User:Darouet here (unsubstantiated 1rr accusation) and here (absurd accusations of misogyny against Darouet and against Thucydides411). This again is a pattern: she blankedly called editors she disagreed with "video-gamer whitewash hordes". More in the same vein: "Not all editors are glued to their computers 24/7 -- in fact there may be a systematic bias toward freaks and geeks that favors such editors over the more worldly and broadly read among us."; This is not a video game; he (Guccisamscub) is still speaking in WP:battleground video game mode. The last one I take strong exception to: the only video games recall having played in my whole fucking life are Tetris on a TI-89 series (in physics class) and Mortal Combat (twice, when I was 10). If this behavior is not sanctioned with a permanent block, wikipedia can't work. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 16:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
|
Various people arguing the definition of a revert – this should go to a policy page. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
If we approach 1RR similarly to how we do 3RR ("...is analogous to the three-revert rule"), both JFG and SPECIFICO appear to have violated the former. JFG, this is indeed a revert (partial, but nonetheless) of this. How can you argue otherwise? Feel free to argue otherwise. And SPECIFICO, this and this seems like gaming of 1RR. Now I can block both of you for 24 hours, or issue a warning in this case, since there seems to be some (long-standing) confusion as to what constitutes a revert. I'll ask this though: is that area of the text really disputed, or are you here only because it is technically a partial revert? That's actually key. El_C 19:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
A revert is a revert, be it distinct or be it the same area of text. *** |
I asked question here that involves you. You are welcome to respond and explain it. My very best wishes ( talk) 02:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
You need to revert this [24]. Thanks SW3 5DL ( talk) 06:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
here.
SW3 5DL (
talk)
06:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Nobody has supported the text you've reinserted in the US 2016 Presidential Election article. You have violated DS by reinserting your earlier edit without first getting consensus on talk. I suggest you undo your violation. I previously mentioned this on article talk, but I see the violation still in the article. Thanks. Go to 3d opinion or RfC if this is very important to you. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Yet another unsubstantiated accusation |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You have multiple reverts violating DS on Russian interference. P.S. you should get up to date on what "revert" means, as your view was explicitly rejected elsewhere after you escaped sanction when @ My very best wishes: reported you to the 3RR noticeboard instead of AE. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
|
One [25] Two [26] SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
You've escaped justice for now, but you can't escape it forever.
Just when you think it's safe to remove the truth from an article based on your churlish WP:BLPREMOVE claims, one of your betters will make a 10,000-word post arguing (successfully) that maybe there were no BLP implications after all, thus you've violated 1RR on an article subject to discretionary sanctions—whose purpose is to ensure that the truth is not improperly removed from WP articles—and all of a sudden, BLAM, you'll be indeffed without discussion. Book it. Your days are numbered, troll.
lololololololol Factchecker_atyourservice 19:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are restricted to 0rr (including manual reverts) on
post-1932 US politics articles that already have the 1rr restrictionon Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.
You have been sanctioned for violating the 1rr restriction on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections after multiple warnings.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described
here. I recommend that you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.
Ian.thomson (
talk)
09:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC) 23:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Jytdog (
talk)
22:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
It appears that you may have misread my words "There's no point opening an RfC without waiting for it to demonstrate consensus on whatever the question." regarding the RfC on the Russian interference article. My comment relates to the ongoing edits prior to the resolution of the RfC not prior to its having been opened. SPECIFICO talk 11:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
You have made 2 reverts of the "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" language at Russian interference.
17:05 3 May 2017. [28] 03:21, 4 May 2017. [29]
Please undo your second edit, which violates DS. SPECIFICO talk 12:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Please don't delete another editor's comments on the article talk page as you did here. It's disruptive and made no sense, especially with that odd edit summary, Thanks. SW3 5DL ( talk) 18:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
To be discussed on the article talk page
|
---|
Please don't make unilateral page moves against consensus, as you did, at Trump Tower: A Novel. Please read WP:SUBTITLES. Specifically the express mention of short titles. WP:SUBTITLES expressly says we should keep the page at full title Trump Tower: A Novel for short titles, per: The only exception to that is short article titles, for disambiguation purposes. Please also don't unilaterally change the article information which is sourced to multiple sources, against talk page comments by myself and Drmies, thank you ! Sagecandor ( talk) 17:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
|
To be discussed on article talk page (bis)
|
---|
Please stop the changes made to Trump Tower: A Novel against cited sources and without consensus. Please instead discuss on the article's talk page. Thank you ! Sagecandor ( talk) 02:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
|
Circular discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please do not add unsourced additions to Wikipedia articles, especially about WP:BLPs, as you did, here [32]. Please make sure all additions to Wikipedia have cited sources. Thanks. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad you brought up circular. You can't cite other Wikipedia articles as an excuse to add content to different Wikipedia articles with no sources. This violates site policy. Per WP:CIRCULAR. It becomes a WP:REFLOOP. Please, read those. Thanks! Sagecandor ( talk) 04:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
|
More pointless drama |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please stop unilateral page moves and closing move processes as an involved party. Please start talk page discussions before you move pages of book articles, especially on controversial topics. Please do not close discussions to which you were an involved party, on controversial topics. Thanks! Sagecandor ( talk) 04:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
|
WP:LISTEN failure, fatal error, guru meditation #00A8732F |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please stop violating WP:No original research. What you are engaging in is the very definition of this policy. We use secondary sources here on Wikipedia. We do NOT do our own research about words and terms and their earliest usages from our own personal opinions. Please take a moment to read WP:No original research. And also read WP:PRIMARY. Thanks ! Sagecandor ( talk) 19:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
|
Meta-fail |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Great, so you won't even reply when it is pointed out that you are so obviously wrong and blatantly violating site policy ? Sagecandor ( talk) 20:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
|
More angry badgering |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please stop altering posts by another editor. You have done this twice now. [35] and [36]. Please stop. Do not do this again. Sagecandor ( talk) 20:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
|
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hidden Tempo (
talk)
07:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:AE for discussion about your behavior. Sagecandor ( talk) 07:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
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! Thanks for helping out, I know you may be busy with that frivolous AE complaint against you right now, but it'd be great to have your input at DRN. Hidden Tempo ( talk) 01:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
See: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#JFG
Casprings ( talk) 17:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
"... and exhibits no battleground mentality" - uh, seriously? If there is one key characteristic of that user, it's a battleground mentality. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
If you encounter a Colorado- (or sometimes Texas-) based IP following SPECIFICO around from article to article and "protecting" her at her own talk page, it's almost certainly this indeffed sock puppeteer. As long as SPECIFICO keeps restoring his edits and fighting against page protection for articles afflicted by Oneshotofwhiskey's rapid IP-hopping edit wars, he may never go away entirely. Regards, TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 22:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Presidency of Donald Trump: Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.
The source states that any concrete result from this order is very much to be determined in the future. The order itself merely recites a principle without specifying the application or implementation. That's not "OR" but rather a reading of the primary document that's evident on its face and confirms the RS discussion of it. If you've not done so, it's time well spent to read the order.
At any rate, do be a champ and undo your violation so that you can pursue your views on talk and perhaps even find additional discussion in other sources that flesh out an NPOV secondary view of the order. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Your edit summary "Also, please mind DS restrictions" ? [38] SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
This edit was made at 12:54, Dec 23. It restored BLP violating material that a single purpose brand new created throw away account started an edit war over. Discretionary sanctions were added to the article at 10:45 Dec 23, more than two hours prior to your edit. As such your edit is either an outright violation of the discretionary sanction OR it's a blatant attempt to game the restriction by "jumping in first". Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 23:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Waste of energy |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
ay, come on, this is obviously restoring challenged edits without consensus - which is a violation of the discretionary sanction. Please undue it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi JFG. You may not realize it, but your edit here restores content challenged here, that was originally added here. As far as I know, you did not obtain consensus for restoring this challenged content, which puts you in violation of the article editing restrictions. Would you please self-revert?- Mr X 🖋 18:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
This is the required warning that you reinserted the content I challenged at Racial views of Donald Trump here: [39]
In case you did this by mistake, please be advised that this content was just added yesterday and that my removal was a challenge by revert. Your reinstatement was therefore a DS violation. I expect you to undo your violation and engage with the other editors who were already discussing this on talk at the time of your re-insertion. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Re
this, that is not what is linked in the citation in which the |quote=
occurs. From
Template:Cite news: "quote: Relevant text quoted from the source." Not relevant text from some other source. ―
Mandruss
☎
16:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
They say mostly the same thing, so it's not very important whether we use one or the other.Quotations are verbatim by definition. If you want to change the source, go ahead, but that's different from what you did in your revert. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
My talk page is not a forum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it. |
|
Back to topic: Frankly I don't see the issue with one quote or the other. This snippet wasn't authored by The New York Times anyway, the referenced URL just provides an embedded PDF of the ODNI report; it's not even hosted by the NYT, which is why I suggested to change the source URL (but I haven't acted on this). Then, choosing which part of that report to quote is a matter of editorial judgment. The longstanding quote in the article was fine, I don't see why it should be replaced by another bit from the same document. @ Mandruss: what was your rationale for that change? I also don't see why SPECIFICO considers one report excerpt NPOV and the other POV or cherry-picked. The longstanding excerpt, from ODNI's own summary of "key judgments" on page 7, says:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
The excerpt from page 11, as quoted by Mandruss, says:
We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign then focused on undermining her expected presidency.
Unless a consensus of editors explains why the page 11 excerpt is more relevant than the page 7 excerpt, I see no reason to "cherry-pick" the page 11 paragraph rather than the page 7 "key judgements" paragraph, which has the distinct advantage of being presented by ODNI themselves as a summary of their findings. — JFG talk 18:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
|page=11
, so that was where I looked. What I saw there didn't match the |quote=
, so I made it so. If you prefer the page 7 version, the cite needs to be fixed. The page 11 version does include an additional point, highlighted in blue in my diff; so I think that could be the deciding factor. If you think that point is noteworthy, use page 11, else page 7. But I don't care much as long as the |quote=
is verifiable via the |url=
and |page=
. No opinion otherwise. ―
Mandruss
☎
18:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Any consensus on this POV issue needs to be reached on the article talk page. And after you've repeatedly drawn rebukes for unilateral declarations of consensus, it's unfortunate to need to remind you of that yet another time. The P11 text has "high confidence" right up front, which gives the extract an entirely different thrust. As I've said before, it strains belief that each of these little POV tweaks is just due to your insensitivity to the nuances of English style and usage. Because all these tilts are in one direction, over and over. Your change should be proposed on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
...how many kids learned balance by riding a see-saw?
Scuba diving teaches
neutral buoyancy and what it actually means in RL to be neutral. Could it be that far too many kids spent too much of their time on a merry-go-round
and the spinning made them lose all sense of balance and neutrality in adulthood? Spinning = 0 balance + 0 neutrality. A humorous essay in the making?
Atsme
📞
📧
22:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi JFG – I noticed this edit that you made to Donald Trump. I believe this revert was incorrect. As you point out in your edit summary, the quote you added is on page 7 of the report. However the citation specifies page 11, which does contain the text Mandruss specified. Could you please restore the older quote, unless there is a reason not to? Thanks, Prodego talk 03:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
This revert [40] was not collaborative. You caught an error I made, mentioning the TV series without removing the out of place mention of it a few sentences later. You know very well that I don't put OR in articles. Your comment about OR/SYNTH is nonsense, as it is well known and documented why and how Trump got into all these non-capital intensive businesses after he went tits up. You could easily have found a source if it bothered you or you could have tagged it rather than revert and trigger the undue requirement to go through a "consensus required" process on talk. Very disappointing to see this. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
...he is being railroaded. It happened to me back in 2015. It's sad because of what it's doing to the quality of the articles in WP. I've tried hard to AGF, but I'm not as sanguine about the future of WP's political future if they're basing so much on biased journalistic opinion, questionable sources, speculation and inaccurate commentary. 😔 BTW, have you seen this article? I'm not sure I agree with it completely but that doesn't make it any less interesting. Atsme 📞 📧 22:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Just a note on not getting dragged down with me
Atsme. Officially, I am supposed to acknowledge the "consensus" of NOTLIKINGTHAT, and take it to some noticeboard or official venue of dispute resolution. But if you've seen how those things work, it would really only be a larger version of the utterly off-topic and/or misrepresentative beatdown that occurred at article talk, or, in the case of the formal venues, a highly formalized months-long version of it where the PAs are more subtle.
The flip side of it, and the one that explains my simple dogged insistence on replying to every "wrongbuttal", is that dispute resolution and arbcom should not be required to simply cite straightforward reporting from New York Times, WaPo, BBC, et cetera. If every POV contrary to progressive narratives becomes a dispute resolution issue, that just effectively means you can't add anything that is contrary to progressive narratives, no matter how well sourced or soundly weighted and attributed it is. Atsme, you have said you are retired and perhaps you may have time for that--I'm not and I don't. Look at the months we've argued over this one tiny issue! This isn't even some issue of how prominently to feature the ideas of a noted but controversial academic (say, Noam Chomsky) in articles about a subject on which he is not regarded as an authority, or some esoteric crap like that. It's not sorting out any complex subject matter. It's literally just, do we report what the newspapers say? and so far the answer seems to be "no, that would be misleading" (!). Nor did I ever try to present some misleading or skewed impression that Trump was innocent. My original content proposal prominently featured Schiff's commentary saying that existing evidence showed collusion, and his specific claims of non-public knowledge showing collusion, I also talked about how harshly the Nunes committee's proceedings were viewed, etc. I gave a lot of air to the narratives that (1) evidence of collusion was there, or (2) that collusion was clear even without evidence. Then with the more recent issue where I tried to garner support for just quoting NYT, after the iterated objections that somebody might think he's not guilty!, I specifically suggested quoting the NYT ed board speculation saying Mueller "may have a good deal more than he's letting on", which IMO would pretty soundly address the need to mention that evidence may yet be revealed. I noticed that at every juncture that whatever I was proposing was deemed unreasonable, no alternative was on offer, no suggested paraphrasing, nothing but a conclusory there's no way for us to reflect this that didn't pass the smell test. Anyhow though. You don't have to lose sleep or personal WP capital defending me. Same to you, JFG. Factchecker_atyourservice 23:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC) |
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here
For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias ( T)( C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
If he wanted to unhat you I suppose he could but why would he also remove your comments and leave the personal attack standing? [41] MONGO 12:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Methinks there's too much thin skin around here. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 22:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls.
PackMecEng (
talk)
01:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I think this should start after my comment which was very much on topic and why I did not support inclusion. It went downhill after that.... Atsme 📞 📧 17:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Since you are indirectly invoked, I think it only fair to point you to this discussion as a courtesy. -- Scjessey ( talk) 17:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Your now hatting innocuous comments while at the same time providing this and this? Whatever. The entire discussion is rife with nastiness and loaded with hate filled rhetoric so why not just hat the whole thing and start over.-- MONGO ( talk) 21:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
|
There appears to be some confusion here: I don't work for you, nor am required to fit the convenience of your schedule. It's certainly not my job to help you obscure the obvious because it clashes with your political agenda.
I'll note your frequent appearances at WP:AE, and I'll also note your sudden respect for a hardline view of "consensus required" seems at odds with what you said last year: which seems, overall, to suggest that you view WP:AE as just another tool in getting your way on political articles. Calton | Talk 13:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
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 recently shown interest in 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 any 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. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC).
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 recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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 any 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. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC).
Archives: | |
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Knowledgekid87 (
talk)
21:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Gaming the system?. Thank you.
Guy Macon (
talk)
04:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Responding here since you pinged my name... I saw your AE comment and do not think it was fair. There are some differences between AYW and me. First, unlike him, I respected 1RR rule on the page. Second, if you look at my last edit on the page, it is essentially the same as the edit by AYW who was allegedly on the "opposite side" of the dispute. So here we go: my edit actually reflected WP:Consensus, when "partisans" from the opposite sides had happen to agree about something. Not mentioning that many other contributors made the same edit, and the content still remains on the page, meaning it does reflect a de facto consensus on the page. Third, unlike AYW, I did not WP:BATTLE by reporting other users on WP:AE, only to withdraw the request when it came to the "boomerang" action. Finally, unlike AYW, I am not an SPA focused on editing US politics from a certain POV perspective. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. It's just that talk pages are not the place for those types of comments, BLP violations. -- Malerooster ( talk) 12:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Sagecandor ( talk) 18:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at 2016 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 08:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
(Sigh) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article is under 1rr, as you would know if you checked the talk page, where I told you to go before deleting material that was restored by 2 other editors before me. You are lucky I haven't reported you yet.The article is under 1rr, as you would know if you checked the talk page, where I told you to go before deleting material that was restored by 2 other editors before me. You are lucky I haven't reported you yet. 63.143.203.101 ( talk) 09:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC) By the way, you lied 4 times: 1. lied that it was copyrighted 2. lied that the article "is not under 1rr" 3. lied about the burden of proof 4. lied that the file is not being used in any other Wiki sites. I see that you read German, so you should have noticed this. Please stop lying and violating 1rr. I am within my rights to revert your remaining reversions on sight because you are only allowed 1 per 24 hours and two other editors added that material. CUT IT OUT NOW. 63.143.203.101 ( talk) 09:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC) You've been reported for your outrageous conduct, lies, and edit warring. I hope you are blocked for eternity. 63.143.203.101 ( talk) 09:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you lack basic English fluency and literacy, or is this an issue of a lack of cognitive capacity? You might be the most obtuse editor I have ever encounteredLet me know! 63.143.196.107 ( talk) 13:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC) "Near native level of English"! GOOD ONE. I nearly died laughing. Trust me, a native can spot you a mile away.I think if you weren't so big on deceit you might knock yourself down a couple of notches on that vaunted "english proficiency" of yours. Level 4 is a bit optimistic, don't you think? 63.143.196.107 ( talk) 13:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC) |
2rr. Please undo. SPECIFICO talk 09:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Unproductive threats |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
OK I'm reviewing your recent history. I see numerous reinsertions w/o consensus, a violation. I see 1RR violations on several recent occasions. Are you sure you don't just want to take care of this and clean it up? The AE stuff is really a hassle and it's better for everyone if we all just stick to the Sanctions and clean up when we breach them. I'll stand back from this for 8 hours. I suggest you review your edits over the past week or so.
SPECIFICO
talk
03:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
|
I removed some content that you added to an article that was completely lacking in secondary sources, is not encyclopedic, and is clearly controversial (others removed the same stuff for the same reasons). Now I see that you're trying to drag me into no less than two separate arbitration requests, plus additional behavioral accusations on the talk page. Yeah, I deleted your stuff. No, it doesn't belong in the article. You should probably accept that and move on rather than trying to pick a fight with me about it. What you seem be thinking you need, but which you most certainly do not need, is for me to drag you into an AE proceeding on Harassment. That will be happening in the surprisingly near future if you do not alter your obnoxious behavior. But if it stops now, it doesn't have to. Geogene ( talk) 02:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I recommend that you self-revert here [6]. My My very best wishes stated in their edit history "challenging some materials via reversion" [7]. This is exactly on point at the current AE. The DS template on this talk page specifically states "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Steve Quinn ( talk) 06:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a request for sanctions pertaining to you at WP:AE --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Unproductive aspersions |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
To this. WP:REDACT is about article talk pages. WP:AE is not a talk page and not a place for bickering. My advice: please improve your own statement. Are you telling that you did not violate the restriction? Why? Did not you restore a content challenged by another contributor through reversion? My very best wishes ( talk) 13:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
To revert is to undo the action of another editor.Your edit was not a revert, as it removed a large section of material that had been collaboratively edited over several weeks by dozens of editors. My edit was a simple, straightforward revert of your action. — JFG talk 06:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Please undo your second revert. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I reported your 1RR violation here. Note that you did it several times. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi JFG, this might interest you – [11]. It's a really interesting coincidence ;-) – [12], [13]. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 10:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
This is reply to that. First of all, please do not make misleading edit summaries like here. There was no discussion. Second, what I did was not revert of multiple edits (several sequential edits count as one), and it was not blind revert, but a compromise version. Finally, if you disagree with content changes, please use article talk page. Thank you. My very best wishes ( talk) 12:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
At Russian intervention. Here [14] [15]. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 12:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Enough arguing on my talk page. Back to article talk for content or a drama board for conduct. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@
El C:: What's actually going on is that SPECIFICO is edit warring to remove the same text (while scrupulously
the the 24hr rule):
here
here.
The text being modified by JFG is not the same text at all:
It seems that SPECIFICO has a long term pattern of harassing editors she disagrees with on the Russian Interference page. See her harassment of User:Darouet here (unsubstantiated 1rr accusation) and here (absurd accusations of misogyny against Darouet and against Thucydides411). This again is a pattern: she blankedly called editors she disagreed with "video-gamer whitewash hordes". More in the same vein: "Not all editors are glued to their computers 24/7 -- in fact there may be a systematic bias toward freaks and geeks that favors such editors over the more worldly and broadly read among us."; This is not a video game; he (Guccisamscub) is still speaking in WP:battleground video game mode. The last one I take strong exception to: the only video games recall having played in my whole fucking life are Tetris on a TI-89 series (in physics class) and Mortal Combat (twice, when I was 10). If this behavior is not sanctioned with a permanent block, wikipedia can't work. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 16:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
|
Various people arguing the definition of a revert – this should go to a policy page. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
If we approach 1RR similarly to how we do 3RR ("...is analogous to the three-revert rule"), both JFG and SPECIFICO appear to have violated the former. JFG, this is indeed a revert (partial, but nonetheless) of this. How can you argue otherwise? Feel free to argue otherwise. And SPECIFICO, this and this seems like gaming of 1RR. Now I can block both of you for 24 hours, or issue a warning in this case, since there seems to be some (long-standing) confusion as to what constitutes a revert. I'll ask this though: is that area of the text really disputed, or are you here only because it is technically a partial revert? That's actually key. El_C 19:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
A revert is a revert, be it distinct or be it the same area of text. *** |
I asked question here that involves you. You are welcome to respond and explain it. My very best wishes ( talk) 02:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
You need to revert this [24]. Thanks SW3 5DL ( talk) 06:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
here.
SW3 5DL (
talk)
06:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Nobody has supported the text you've reinserted in the US 2016 Presidential Election article. You have violated DS by reinserting your earlier edit without first getting consensus on talk. I suggest you undo your violation. I previously mentioned this on article talk, but I see the violation still in the article. Thanks. Go to 3d opinion or RfC if this is very important to you. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Yet another unsubstantiated accusation |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You have multiple reverts violating DS on Russian interference. P.S. you should get up to date on what "revert" means, as your view was explicitly rejected elsewhere after you escaped sanction when @ My very best wishes: reported you to the 3RR noticeboard instead of AE. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
|
One [25] Two [26] SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
You've escaped justice for now, but you can't escape it forever.
Just when you think it's safe to remove the truth from an article based on your churlish WP:BLPREMOVE claims, one of your betters will make a 10,000-word post arguing (successfully) that maybe there were no BLP implications after all, thus you've violated 1RR on an article subject to discretionary sanctions—whose purpose is to ensure that the truth is not improperly removed from WP articles—and all of a sudden, BLAM, you'll be indeffed without discussion. Book it. Your days are numbered, troll.
lololololololol Factchecker_atyourservice 19:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are restricted to 0rr (including manual reverts) on
post-1932 US politics articles that already have the 1rr restrictionon Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.
You have been sanctioned for violating the 1rr restriction on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections after multiple warnings.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described
here. I recommend that you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.
Ian.thomson (
talk)
09:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC) 23:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Jytdog (
talk)
22:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
It appears that you may have misread my words "There's no point opening an RfC without waiting for it to demonstrate consensus on whatever the question." regarding the RfC on the Russian interference article. My comment relates to the ongoing edits prior to the resolution of the RfC not prior to its having been opened. SPECIFICO talk 11:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
You have made 2 reverts of the "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" language at Russian interference.
17:05 3 May 2017. [28] 03:21, 4 May 2017. [29]
Please undo your second edit, which violates DS. SPECIFICO talk 12:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Please don't delete another editor's comments on the article talk page as you did here. It's disruptive and made no sense, especially with that odd edit summary, Thanks. SW3 5DL ( talk) 18:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
To be discussed on the article talk page
|
---|
Please don't make unilateral page moves against consensus, as you did, at Trump Tower: A Novel. Please read WP:SUBTITLES. Specifically the express mention of short titles. WP:SUBTITLES expressly says we should keep the page at full title Trump Tower: A Novel for short titles, per: The only exception to that is short article titles, for disambiguation purposes. Please also don't unilaterally change the article information which is sourced to multiple sources, against talk page comments by myself and Drmies, thank you ! Sagecandor ( talk) 17:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
|
To be discussed on article talk page (bis)
|
---|
Please stop the changes made to Trump Tower: A Novel against cited sources and without consensus. Please instead discuss on the article's talk page. Thank you ! Sagecandor ( talk) 02:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
|
Circular discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please do not add unsourced additions to Wikipedia articles, especially about WP:BLPs, as you did, here [32]. Please make sure all additions to Wikipedia have cited sources. Thanks. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad you brought up circular. You can't cite other Wikipedia articles as an excuse to add content to different Wikipedia articles with no sources. This violates site policy. Per WP:CIRCULAR. It becomes a WP:REFLOOP. Please, read those. Thanks! Sagecandor ( talk) 04:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
|
More pointless drama |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please stop unilateral page moves and closing move processes as an involved party. Please start talk page discussions before you move pages of book articles, especially on controversial topics. Please do not close discussions to which you were an involved party, on controversial topics. Thanks! Sagecandor ( talk) 04:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
|
WP:LISTEN failure, fatal error, guru meditation #00A8732F |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please stop violating WP:No original research. What you are engaging in is the very definition of this policy. We use secondary sources here on Wikipedia. We do NOT do our own research about words and terms and their earliest usages from our own personal opinions. Please take a moment to read WP:No original research. And also read WP:PRIMARY. Thanks ! Sagecandor ( talk) 19:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
|
Meta-fail |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Great, so you won't even reply when it is pointed out that you are so obviously wrong and blatantly violating site policy ? Sagecandor ( talk) 20:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
|
More angry badgering |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please stop altering posts by another editor. You have done this twice now. [35] and [36]. Please stop. Do not do this again. Sagecandor ( talk) 20:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
|
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hidden Tempo (
talk)
07:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:AE for discussion about your behavior. Sagecandor ( talk) 07:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
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! Thanks for helping out, I know you may be busy with that frivolous AE complaint against you right now, but it'd be great to have your input at DRN. Hidden Tempo ( talk) 01:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
See: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#JFG
Casprings ( talk) 17:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
"... and exhibits no battleground mentality" - uh, seriously? If there is one key characteristic of that user, it's a battleground mentality. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
If you encounter a Colorado- (or sometimes Texas-) based IP following SPECIFICO around from article to article and "protecting" her at her own talk page, it's almost certainly this indeffed sock puppeteer. As long as SPECIFICO keeps restoring his edits and fighting against page protection for articles afflicted by Oneshotofwhiskey's rapid IP-hopping edit wars, he may never go away entirely. Regards, TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 22:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Presidency of Donald Trump: Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.
The source states that any concrete result from this order is very much to be determined in the future. The order itself merely recites a principle without specifying the application or implementation. That's not "OR" but rather a reading of the primary document that's evident on its face and confirms the RS discussion of it. If you've not done so, it's time well spent to read the order.
At any rate, do be a champ and undo your violation so that you can pursue your views on talk and perhaps even find additional discussion in other sources that flesh out an NPOV secondary view of the order. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Your edit summary "Also, please mind DS restrictions" ? [38] SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
This edit was made at 12:54, Dec 23. It restored BLP violating material that a single purpose brand new created throw away account started an edit war over. Discretionary sanctions were added to the article at 10:45 Dec 23, more than two hours prior to your edit. As such your edit is either an outright violation of the discretionary sanction OR it's a blatant attempt to game the restriction by "jumping in first". Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 23:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Waste of energy |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
ay, come on, this is obviously restoring challenged edits without consensus - which is a violation of the discretionary sanction. Please undue it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi JFG. You may not realize it, but your edit here restores content challenged here, that was originally added here. As far as I know, you did not obtain consensus for restoring this challenged content, which puts you in violation of the article editing restrictions. Would you please self-revert?- Mr X 🖋 18:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
This is the required warning that you reinserted the content I challenged at Racial views of Donald Trump here: [39]
In case you did this by mistake, please be advised that this content was just added yesterday and that my removal was a challenge by revert. Your reinstatement was therefore a DS violation. I expect you to undo your violation and engage with the other editors who were already discussing this on talk at the time of your re-insertion. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Re
this, that is not what is linked in the citation in which the |quote=
occurs. From
Template:Cite news: "quote: Relevant text quoted from the source." Not relevant text from some other source. ―
Mandruss
☎
16:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
They say mostly the same thing, so it's not very important whether we use one or the other.Quotations are verbatim by definition. If you want to change the source, go ahead, but that's different from what you did in your revert. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
My talk page is not a forum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it. |
|
Back to topic: Frankly I don't see the issue with one quote or the other. This snippet wasn't authored by The New York Times anyway, the referenced URL just provides an embedded PDF of the ODNI report; it's not even hosted by the NYT, which is why I suggested to change the source URL (but I haven't acted on this). Then, choosing which part of that report to quote is a matter of editorial judgment. The longstanding quote in the article was fine, I don't see why it should be replaced by another bit from the same document. @ Mandruss: what was your rationale for that change? I also don't see why SPECIFICO considers one report excerpt NPOV and the other POV or cherry-picked. The longstanding excerpt, from ODNI's own summary of "key judgments" on page 7, says:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
The excerpt from page 11, as quoted by Mandruss, says:
We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign then focused on undermining her expected presidency.
Unless a consensus of editors explains why the page 11 excerpt is more relevant than the page 7 excerpt, I see no reason to "cherry-pick" the page 11 paragraph rather than the page 7 "key judgements" paragraph, which has the distinct advantage of being presented by ODNI themselves as a summary of their findings. — JFG talk 18:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
|page=11
, so that was where I looked. What I saw there didn't match the |quote=
, so I made it so. If you prefer the page 7 version, the cite needs to be fixed. The page 11 version does include an additional point, highlighted in blue in my diff; so I think that could be the deciding factor. If you think that point is noteworthy, use page 11, else page 7. But I don't care much as long as the |quote=
is verifiable via the |url=
and |page=
. No opinion otherwise. ―
Mandruss
☎
18:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Any consensus on this POV issue needs to be reached on the article talk page. And after you've repeatedly drawn rebukes for unilateral declarations of consensus, it's unfortunate to need to remind you of that yet another time. The P11 text has "high confidence" right up front, which gives the extract an entirely different thrust. As I've said before, it strains belief that each of these little POV tweaks is just due to your insensitivity to the nuances of English style and usage. Because all these tilts are in one direction, over and over. Your change should be proposed on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
...how many kids learned balance by riding a see-saw?
Scuba diving teaches
neutral buoyancy and what it actually means in RL to be neutral. Could it be that far too many kids spent too much of their time on a merry-go-round
and the spinning made them lose all sense of balance and neutrality in adulthood? Spinning = 0 balance + 0 neutrality. A humorous essay in the making?
Atsme
📞
📧
22:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi JFG – I noticed this edit that you made to Donald Trump. I believe this revert was incorrect. As you point out in your edit summary, the quote you added is on page 7 of the report. However the citation specifies page 11, which does contain the text Mandruss specified. Could you please restore the older quote, unless there is a reason not to? Thanks, Prodego talk 03:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
This revert [40] was not collaborative. You caught an error I made, mentioning the TV series without removing the out of place mention of it a few sentences later. You know very well that I don't put OR in articles. Your comment about OR/SYNTH is nonsense, as it is well known and documented why and how Trump got into all these non-capital intensive businesses after he went tits up. You could easily have found a source if it bothered you or you could have tagged it rather than revert and trigger the undue requirement to go through a "consensus required" process on talk. Very disappointing to see this. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
...he is being railroaded. It happened to me back in 2015. It's sad because of what it's doing to the quality of the articles in WP. I've tried hard to AGF, but I'm not as sanguine about the future of WP's political future if they're basing so much on biased journalistic opinion, questionable sources, speculation and inaccurate commentary. 😔 BTW, have you seen this article? I'm not sure I agree with it completely but that doesn't make it any less interesting. Atsme 📞 📧 22:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Just a note on not getting dragged down with me
Atsme. Officially, I am supposed to acknowledge the "consensus" of NOTLIKINGTHAT, and take it to some noticeboard or official venue of dispute resolution. But if you've seen how those things work, it would really only be a larger version of the utterly off-topic and/or misrepresentative beatdown that occurred at article talk, or, in the case of the formal venues, a highly formalized months-long version of it where the PAs are more subtle.
The flip side of it, and the one that explains my simple dogged insistence on replying to every "wrongbuttal", is that dispute resolution and arbcom should not be required to simply cite straightforward reporting from New York Times, WaPo, BBC, et cetera. If every POV contrary to progressive narratives becomes a dispute resolution issue, that just effectively means you can't add anything that is contrary to progressive narratives, no matter how well sourced or soundly weighted and attributed it is. Atsme, you have said you are retired and perhaps you may have time for that--I'm not and I don't. Look at the months we've argued over this one tiny issue! This isn't even some issue of how prominently to feature the ideas of a noted but controversial academic (say, Noam Chomsky) in articles about a subject on which he is not regarded as an authority, or some esoteric crap like that. It's not sorting out any complex subject matter. It's literally just, do we report what the newspapers say? and so far the answer seems to be "no, that would be misleading" (!). Nor did I ever try to present some misleading or skewed impression that Trump was innocent. My original content proposal prominently featured Schiff's commentary saying that existing evidence showed collusion, and his specific claims of non-public knowledge showing collusion, I also talked about how harshly the Nunes committee's proceedings were viewed, etc. I gave a lot of air to the narratives that (1) evidence of collusion was there, or (2) that collusion was clear even without evidence. Then with the more recent issue where I tried to garner support for just quoting NYT, after the iterated objections that somebody might think he's not guilty!, I specifically suggested quoting the NYT ed board speculation saying Mueller "may have a good deal more than he's letting on", which IMO would pretty soundly address the need to mention that evidence may yet be revealed. I noticed that at every juncture that whatever I was proposing was deemed unreasonable, no alternative was on offer, no suggested paraphrasing, nothing but a conclusory there's no way for us to reflect this that didn't pass the smell test. Anyhow though. You don't have to lose sleep or personal WP capital defending me. Same to you, JFG. Factchecker_atyourservice 23:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC) |
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here
For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias ( T)( C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
If he wanted to unhat you I suppose he could but why would he also remove your comments and leave the personal attack standing? [41] MONGO 12:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Methinks there's too much thin skin around here. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 22:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls.
PackMecEng (
talk)
01:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I think this should start after my comment which was very much on topic and why I did not support inclusion. It went downhill after that.... Atsme 📞 📧 17:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Since you are indirectly invoked, I think it only fair to point you to this discussion as a courtesy. -- Scjessey ( talk) 17:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Your now hatting innocuous comments while at the same time providing this and this? Whatever. The entire discussion is rife with nastiness and loaded with hate filled rhetoric so why not just hat the whole thing and start over.-- MONGO ( talk) 21:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
|
There appears to be some confusion here: I don't work for you, nor am required to fit the convenience of your schedule. It's certainly not my job to help you obscure the obvious because it clashes with your political agenda.
I'll note your frequent appearances at WP:AE, and I'll also note your sudden respect for a hardline view of "consensus required" seems at odds with what you said last year: which seems, overall, to suggest that you view WP:AE as just another tool in getting your way on political articles. Calton | Talk 13:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
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 recently shown interest in 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 any 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. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC).
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 recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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 any 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. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC).