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.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Llll, I just wanted to say thanks for disagreeing in a respectful way. A lot of these topics can get heated. An editor who stays respectful even after an extended disagreement is something to be acknowledged. Springee ( talk) 22:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC) The above was typed out before your post here [ [1]] and still stands after Springee ( talk) 22:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Llll5032
Reported with this and examples including, but not limited to, past violations/warnings from other accounts. (e.g. edit warring, biased vandalism).
All edits reverted to @ Llll5032
That's not the entire issue though, hence the report. Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that although multiple sources from one website need secondary reference, it's not a reason to warrant complete deletion; in this case, you deleted the entire show section. Also, it looks like you deleted the report from your talk page, which also violates Wikipedia guidelines. I'm not going to send another report, but a simple look through your talk page shows that you're notorious for this, as well as biased editing. The previous request is already submitted, along with every other example of these type of actions coming from your account, and there's no reason to continue warring. Machiavellian Gaddafi ( talk) 05:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
You're continuing to assume that I haven't read these articles. If you look through the pages history, you'll see that I'm chipping away at validating and giving secondary references to several different topics within the article. Again, although many of these references come from the same website, they are not invalid or against guidelines. There was also an issue with deleting valid references, one being the association to vice media that was given in a very valid article from and approved source. I understand that cleaning up is part of what we do here, but you're overreaching. As aforementioned, you have a history of that. I didn't request for a total ban, but rather that you're locked out from editing this one page for at least some time. I don't want to argue about it, as we're both editors that are doing what we can to make Wikipedia better, and I would never go into any of your edits and change anything based on my personal feelings. I guess we're going to have to leave it up to the board to review my complaint. You do a good job on a lot of your edits, but you do tend to overreach. It's not a big deal, but I'm asking you to let me please fix the minor reference issues. Expecting an email with various articles included in it tomorrow, and I will implement them once I receive them. Machiavellian Gaddafi ( talk) 05:55, 9 December 2022 (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 shown interest in post-1992 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 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.
Doug Weller talk 08:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gavin McInnes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salon.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Llll5032. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, " Steven S. Biss".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
, {{db-draft}}
, or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
to remove the need for more citation and better citations to be added to the page on Francis Parker Yockey? StrongALPHA ( talk) 18:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I just skimmed it, but it looks like you did a lot. Prezbo ( talk) 13:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello User:Llll5032, you may be able to help me with an article where I think that some editor (have not even looked at who they are yet) went crazy -- in my small opinion -- and created a huge list of people that they thought were notable enough to list in a section (dedicated to this list of people) on the article Hudson Institute. Can you please take a short look at the section Notable personnel over at the article and let me know your opinion on the appropriateness of including such a (huge) list. My view is that the entire section (list and all) should be removed. All of those people are listed somewhere on the website of the organization itself and my view is that such a list has no place in an encyclopedic article. My view is also that the list simply provides gross and inappropriate advertisement for the organization, which is completely and entirely inappropriate for any encyclopedia and also for WikiPedia (as encyclopedic as it claims to be). If you agree with me, can you express your opinion over on the Talk page of that article ( Talk:Hudson Institute) and bring some friends along with you if you can, to help squash this madness. I will defer to your opinion and those of other accomplished contributors if this kind of madness is deemed to be appropriate for WikiPedia (as I tend to always do anyway). My comments on this matter are already on the Talk page. Thanks for any help in this matter. -- L.Smithfield ( talk) 10:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
"...advances Judeo-Christian values" is one of the most common ways they describe themselves in many places, but even though that is also covered by secondary sources it does all derive from their self-published description, is that all good for being in the lead? I feel like it's all good if I just cite a source but it is a bit of an odd one now that I think about it. MasterTriangle12 ( talk) 06:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello Llll5032!
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there! Just here to say: I love this kind of competing to achieve the best copy edit in this article. Well, not exactly competing, but I guess you know what I mean. Have fun! ;) Boscaswell talk 06:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Gottfried, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intelligencer.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
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.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
Thank you for being a voice of reason on Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism, directing discussion back to P&G instead of fighting to push a point of view. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |
It's becoming clear to me that this article's supposed topic is barely present in literature, and its valuable content belongs on Criticism_of_Israel#Criticism_of_Israel_and_antisemitism (which has a broader and more real scope that can receive lots of the information on the weaponization article that doesn't belong there). Do you agree with proposing a merge there? I ask because I've never proposed a merge before, and I don't know about the process. Zanahary ( talk) 02:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
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.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Llll, I just wanted to say thanks for disagreeing in a respectful way. A lot of these topics can get heated. An editor who stays respectful even after an extended disagreement is something to be acknowledged. Springee ( talk) 22:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC) The above was typed out before your post here [ [1]] and still stands after Springee ( talk) 22:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Llll5032
Reported with this and examples including, but not limited to, past violations/warnings from other accounts. (e.g. edit warring, biased vandalism).
All edits reverted to @ Llll5032
That's not the entire issue though, hence the report. Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that although multiple sources from one website need secondary reference, it's not a reason to warrant complete deletion; in this case, you deleted the entire show section. Also, it looks like you deleted the report from your talk page, which also violates Wikipedia guidelines. I'm not going to send another report, but a simple look through your talk page shows that you're notorious for this, as well as biased editing. The previous request is already submitted, along with every other example of these type of actions coming from your account, and there's no reason to continue warring. Machiavellian Gaddafi ( talk) 05:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
You're continuing to assume that I haven't read these articles. If you look through the pages history, you'll see that I'm chipping away at validating and giving secondary references to several different topics within the article. Again, although many of these references come from the same website, they are not invalid or against guidelines. There was also an issue with deleting valid references, one being the association to vice media that was given in a very valid article from and approved source. I understand that cleaning up is part of what we do here, but you're overreaching. As aforementioned, you have a history of that. I didn't request for a total ban, but rather that you're locked out from editing this one page for at least some time. I don't want to argue about it, as we're both editors that are doing what we can to make Wikipedia better, and I would never go into any of your edits and change anything based on my personal feelings. I guess we're going to have to leave it up to the board to review my complaint. You do a good job on a lot of your edits, but you do tend to overreach. It's not a big deal, but I'm asking you to let me please fix the minor reference issues. Expecting an email with various articles included in it tomorrow, and I will implement them once I receive them. Machiavellian Gaddafi ( talk) 05:55, 9 December 2022 (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 shown interest in post-1992 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 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.
Doug Weller talk 08:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gavin McInnes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salon.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Llll5032. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, " Steven S. Biss".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
, {{db-draft}}
, or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
to remove the need for more citation and better citations to be added to the page on Francis Parker Yockey? StrongALPHA ( talk) 18:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I just skimmed it, but it looks like you did a lot. Prezbo ( talk) 13:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello User:Llll5032, you may be able to help me with an article where I think that some editor (have not even looked at who they are yet) went crazy -- in my small opinion -- and created a huge list of people that they thought were notable enough to list in a section (dedicated to this list of people) on the article Hudson Institute. Can you please take a short look at the section Notable personnel over at the article and let me know your opinion on the appropriateness of including such a (huge) list. My view is that the entire section (list and all) should be removed. All of those people are listed somewhere on the website of the organization itself and my view is that such a list has no place in an encyclopedic article. My view is also that the list simply provides gross and inappropriate advertisement for the organization, which is completely and entirely inappropriate for any encyclopedia and also for WikiPedia (as encyclopedic as it claims to be). If you agree with me, can you express your opinion over on the Talk page of that article ( Talk:Hudson Institute) and bring some friends along with you if you can, to help squash this madness. I will defer to your opinion and those of other accomplished contributors if this kind of madness is deemed to be appropriate for WikiPedia (as I tend to always do anyway). My comments on this matter are already on the Talk page. Thanks for any help in this matter. -- L.Smithfield ( talk) 10:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
"...advances Judeo-Christian values" is one of the most common ways they describe themselves in many places, but even though that is also covered by secondary sources it does all derive from their self-published description, is that all good for being in the lead? I feel like it's all good if I just cite a source but it is a bit of an odd one now that I think about it. MasterTriangle12 ( talk) 06:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello Llll5032!
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there! Just here to say: I love this kind of competing to achieve the best copy edit in this article. Well, not exactly competing, but I guess you know what I mean. Have fun! ;) Boscaswell talk 06:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Gottfried, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intelligencer.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
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.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
Thank you for being a voice of reason on Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism, directing discussion back to P&G instead of fighting to push a point of view. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |
It's becoming clear to me that this article's supposed topic is barely present in literature, and its valuable content belongs on Criticism_of_Israel#Criticism_of_Israel_and_antisemitism (which has a broader and more real scope that can receive lots of the information on the weaponization article that doesn't belong there). Do you agree with proposing a merge there? I ask because I've never proposed a merge before, and I don't know about the process. Zanahary ( talk) 02:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)