|
FYI, I've removed the "mph" escape velocity entries from the planets. As per my edit comment, the idea is to standardize the tables - currently, they use km/s and mi/s. Adding mph would require adding km/h as well, and would eventually crowd the table as all of the relevant data jumps from two entries to four entries. -- Ckatz chat spy 02:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
"Sceptical" is the correct spelling in British English, in which this article is written. See WP:ENGVAR for more details. Thanks for your many good edits, but please be careful to respect the dialect an article is written in. -- John ( talk) 03:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Bigdan201. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as " edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Dietrich-rongorongo-grouping-singleglyphs1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Bigdan201. If you uploaded a non-free file that you would like to have deleted there are a few things you can do. The easiest is probably adding {{ db-author}} per WP:G7 to the top of the file's page. You should only do this, however, if you are the only major contributor to the file's page (i.e., another editor has not updated any other versions of the original file) and the file is not being used in any articles.
Just for reference, even though you may upload a file, you do not own the file in a Wikipedia sense; so, if someone else feels it still can be used, then you need to discuss it with them or discuss it at WP:FFD. In this particular case, the non-free files you uploaded were not being used in any articles, so they are what is called an " orphan". Orphaned non-free files are eventually tag for deletion and then deleted in about a week after tagging as long as they remained orphaned. This is pretty much automatic process inolving bots and adminsitrators, so you as the uploader do not really need to do anything if you do not object to the file being deleted.
There are other reasons for which files are deleted as explained in WP:FCSD. If any of them apply, then you may tag the file accordingly. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Rongorongo-dietrich-polaris-hokupa-ihuku-immovablestar-standingabovethebow.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Bigdan201. FYI: I've responded on the talk page here. Paul August ☎ 14:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Bigdan201. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hefe Heetroc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:10, 19 March 2018 (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, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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.Woodroar ( talk) 16:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Rongorongo-dietrich-orion-adze-northsouth-reverseboustrophedon.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Rongorongo-dietrich-orion-adze-northsouth-reverseboustrophedon.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Bigdan201. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Rongorongo-dietrich-arcturus-standingabovebow-tekivakukuluakauihuku-genericmodifier.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Also:
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The file File:Rongorongo-dietrich-venus-meremere-maoriwarclub.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 7 April 2020 (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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 11:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Rongorongo-dietrich-orion-adze-northsouth-reverseboustrophedon.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Decipherment of rongorongo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Syllabic and Tapu ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Please note that 3RR is not just for violating the 3RR/24hr rule, but for edit-warring in general. I'm not templating you because you're a regular, so please take this as a formal 3RR warning.
The fact that you've bought into a fringe 'theory' is not evidence that it belongs on WP. — kwami ( talk) 06:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Big Dan, I have reverted your changes. Please be aware that opinions such as this don't belong on Wikipedia. It is an encylopedia, not a place for people to express their opinions. Please see and follow WP:MEDRS Petersmillard ( talk) 11:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
This is currently in the hands of an administrator, who will no doubt be in touch. They have suggested that we suspend the current discussion, which is going nowhere, and do not revert/edit the section in contention until a new Rfc in the proper form resolves this long-running dispute. Neither of us will necessarily get exactly what we want - but I'm sure you will agree we have no alternative at this stage to following standard procedure. Sincere best wishes -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 16:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to
Circumcision and HIV, please ensure that the external site is not
violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as
YouTube or
Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing.
If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. That Salem News PDF link is also a likely copyright violation - beware Alexbrn ( talk) 18:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision and HIV; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
It might be possible to get your account renamed to match your signature. See Wikipedia:Changing username for the process. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Roman numerals shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Roman numerals. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NebY ( talk) 23:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Roman numerals. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. .
The personal attack in question is this. Kahastok talk 14:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Roman numerals. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. The further personal attack in question is here. You may have made the attack in those terms because you misunderstood "publish" to mean "print" without considering either the the specifics of the Roman book trade or the broader meaning of "publish", but it was still completely unacceptable. More generally, you might enjoy WP:DEADHORSE or at least find it of some help in your increasingly fraught experience of Wikipedia. NebY ( talk) 15:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
you invented garbage to discredit and misrepresent meis a gross personal attack. As yet, no-one's replied to that latest post at Talk:Roman numerals, so you can still revert it before stepping away. NebY ( talk) 16:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
taken as an attack, and that wasn't intended[2] is not an adequate retraction of
you invented garbage to discredit and misrepresent me. Likewise, regarding
in my mind, I dropped the stick in September 2020, and haven't picked it up since, whatever's in your mind, you have edited Roman numerals and Talk:Roman numerals every month since September 2020, 115 times altogether. NebY ( talk) 18:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You've been warned before. Your fringe POV edit-war has gone on more than long enough. Keep it up and I'll request to have you blocked. — kwami ( talk) 16:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Are you also having problems with Kwami's bull-in-a-china-shop editing style? Talk to me about it. See also Talk:Enochian. Let's support each other. Skyerise ( talk) 16:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Come round when you can... Skyerise ( talk) 13:24, 9 February 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 climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 14:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
While the fringe noticeboard is the right place to notify about relevant current events on Wikipedia, I would advise to first search and read its archives instead of extending the community's time with old arguments regulars are already very familiar with. WP is also not the place for uncertainty propaganda about science and presenting a false balance between scientific and conflicting views, as if they were equally valid and all rested on strong evidence. WP articles reporting about a scientific consensus, like that climate change is recognized to be anthropogenic by relevant experts, is not "FRINGE abuse". Climate change denial is also not "an unpopular scientific view", it's not even the "scientific view". The concerns expressed by other editors about WP-competence to edit in the area is due to evidence in your comments just above theirs, not personal attacks... WP:PA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence".
An example is "Climate change is a theory, not a fact", it just makes no sense. Do you understand the difference between a theory, a scientific theory and a hypothesis? In the case of climate change or global warming, the hypothesis that the planet heats up was long confirmed. Other hypotheses linking dynamics to climate in relation to aerosols and other forcings were also tested. Various hypotheses advanced to explain change with natural cycles have also confirmed that while known cycles do affect climate, they do not account for the observed trend. Then climate science rests on various disciplines and a number of working scientific theories. The scientific consensus is that human activity is a main contributor. For Wikipedia, that is enough for it to be considered a fact until that consensus changes. It's an encyclopedia, a tertiary source that reports about the state of science, but does not run or do the science (not a scientific journal). And must not confuse science with politics when it is well defined. But don't take my word for it, look at the sources cited by WP articles including scientific consensus on climate change. If to you those sources are all false propaganda, WP is also not to entertain grandiose conspiracy theories. However, there are reliable sources that describe disinformation campaigns to deny that climate change occurs or that it would be possible to mitigate it, the sources cited in climate change denial are a good starting point.
The reason I posted this here instead of at FTN is that there's no need to waste more time there. It's also a warning that is best posted here per WP:ASPERSIONS. It doesn't concern WP or FTN, but your use of WP to campaign. — Paleo Neonate – 07:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
While the fringe noticeboard is the right place to notify about relevant current events on Wikipedia, I would advise to first search and read its archives instead of extending the community's time with old arguments regulars are already very familiar with.Keep in mind that I brought up climate change in passing to make a point, I hadn't realized it would get completely derailed. All I did was respond to others.
WP is also not the place for uncertainty propaganda about science and presenting a false balance between scientific and conflicting views, as if they were equally valid and all rested on strong evidence.In other words, science has become an irrational religion, and I'm a blaspheming heretic for questioning its predictions.
The concerns expressed by other editors about WP-competence to edit in the area is due to evidence in your comments just above theirs, not personal attacks...In other words, personal attacks are allowed, just so long as they're based on evidence? There are editors I've encountered on other articles who I could call incompetent, incapable of reading comprehension or critical thinking, as well as being passive-aggressive douchebags. Surely I'd be blocked for saying those things, even though I could make a strong case for it.
Do you understand the difference between a theory, a scientific theory and a hypothesis?I understand just fine, which is why I called it a theory, not a fact. The climate getting warmer, the greenhouse effect, our output of co2, those are facts. The complex models that draw this together, and claim that it's largely anthropogenic and a threat to our way of life, is a theory with a fair amount of uncertainty. The climate is a complex system with many variables, not all of which are accounted for, which leads a minority of scientists to theorize that natural processes are more significant, and that the situation will right itself without any significant changes to our way of life.
The scientific consensus is that human activity is a main contributor. For Wikipedia, that is enough for it to be considered a fact until that consensus changes.I believe that any and all controversial topics (and this certainly is one) should give representation to as many views as possible. Otherwise, you can end up with one-sided, biased propaganda.
And must not confuse science with politics when it is well defined.I'm not the one doing that. The boundary between the two has been very muddled irl, which can compromise the scientific process.
If to you those sources are all false propaganda, WP is also not to entertain grandiose conspiracy theories.I didn't say that, I just introduced the possibility that the consensus may be wrong, and the minority view correct. The fact that this is not allowed at all tells me that science is compromised by a dogmatic reading of its results.
disinformation campaignsyou mean heresy? Xcalibur ( talk) 23:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Since these are not dogmatic positions, if there was considerable evidence contradicting them it would no longer be the scientific consensus for scientists in those fields. To claim that this is false would be entering the domain of conspiracy theories.This assumes that science operates flawlessly and cannot make mistakes. It is entirely possible for scientists to arrive at the wrong consensus, especially when the scientific process itself can be subverted by money, politics, and ideology. There's no reason to assume that the dissenting minority of climate scientists aren't just as scientific, or that questioning the consensus is a "conspiracy theory", another Newspeak term for anything the establishment disapproves of (note how Russian collusion in the 2016 election is never derided as a conspiracy theory, even though it literally is). Xcalibur ( talk) 20:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
as you did in your edit summary here. Doug Weller talk 07:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure I noticed another one but couldn't find it again, I won't waste my time looking. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You need to get consensus on the talk page, since all of your edits have been rejected by the rest of the community. You don't need to revert 3 times a day to be blocked. Your 5-year history of edit-warring is plenty. We're also considering a topic ban (no edits at all to RR articles). — kwami ( talk) 19:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
You are now intentionally adding bullshit to Rongorongo. That is vandalism. I know you're pissed because you can't get anyone else to drink the Kool-Aid, but this has got to stop. — kwami ( talk) 02:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
You've violated 3RR. I suggest you revert yourself. If you don't, then in the morning I will file a 3RR complaint, and request a topic ban to prevent you from ever editing rongorongo articles again. There have been 3 people besides myself who have independently suggested you be topic-banned, so I suspect there's a good chance that would happen. Especially after 5 years of your playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
I shouldn't need to template the talk page of an established editor such as yourself, but I will need to show that I warned you before filing the 3RR complaint, and this is the easiest way to do that:
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — kwami ( talk) 06:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
You reverted 4 times in 24 hrs -- that is indeed a violation of 3RR.I don't see this, are you sure you're not misreading the times/dates? I thought I was within 3rr, even if you count the name-drop, which to me is a separate proposal from the sections. I'm aware that you don't need to violate 3rr to get in trouble for edit-warring. I reiterate that I was trying out various compromises, with most edits differing in some way, so it wasn't purely tug-of-war.
5 yearsThat's when it began, although I've tried for compromises since then (like reducing D's section to a single screen-length, or 1/4 of the original). I also took a long wikibreak for 1 1/2 years, with shorter breaks as well, so it's not like I was active that whole time-frame.
tldrit's hard to avoid this when you use a gish-gallop style of argument, and when we're discussing the finer points of theories about rongorongo, which is a rather complex topic. I'm aware that I can be wordy at times, and I've made efforts to be more concise. However, you focused the entire discussion on the merits of the theory, which is not even relevant to whether it should be included or not! All that matters is RS and DUEWEIGHT considerations. I responded to all points as best I could, then get blamed for bludgeoning, and also accused of being "unresponsive" by De Laat? I don't think it's primarily my fault.
tired of repeating themselves.That's because we tend to talk past each other, especially when you ignore my points. For example:
EB is not an expert ... pseudo-scholarshipThat's the thing, you have your own definition of expertise & RS, based on your cult-worship of Guy, Sproat, et al. Don't get me wrong, I respect them, but I don't even need them to weigh in (in fact, it seems like the field is moribund, based on what you said about the Yahoo! group being inactive). All I need are primary & secondary RS in the form of reputable journals, which I have. The concerns you've raised about D & EB being in communication, EB being an expert on Polynesia rather than ancient scripts, etc. are valid concerns. But scholarly journals decided that this was acceptable and published them, therefore so should WP.
De Laat's thesis isn't even stable.Maybe not, but I did in fact draw from the Horley review back when I wrote the section; it documents the self-published claims, which is why I put them there. How can you say I'm not following RS when you haven't read the RS? Anyway, yes there are issues with De Laat, but I didn't want Francis Mortimer's efforts to go to waste, and figured I could salvage something out of it. Per DUEWEIGHT, I reduced it to half a page, and it's a combination of myself, you, and Francis' writing.
For DL's current thesis, there is no review for us to go on.That's why I addressed it in a single line at the end and didn't elaborate (primary RS are allowed to an extent).
EB collaborated with the author in her coverage.Already addressed this above. If it's good enough for the literature, it's good enough for WP. And she's not a co-author, because they wrote separate pieces in separate journals.
remember, I'm the one who up to 5 years ago insisted we retain your coverage in the face of unanimous oppositionA false narrative. You were amenable to the idea that RR is not writing, but a notation system, but as soon as you started skimming EB, you decided you didn't like it for some reason (I think the linchpin of misunderstanding was thinking D couldn't find matches with Rapa nui astronomy, and that drawing from elsewhere was mass-comparison; wrong on both counts). Other than that, there were a few people who complained at the very beginning, but it was just typical concern over adding new content (I resolved one objection by re-uploading the illustrations as free to use, which they were when I cropped them correctly (except for one)).
10 yearsI thought I was the first person to suggest D? Or are you referring to other proposals, like the Korean editor whose contributions were way too long?
craft a draft for discussionI did in fact put a copy of the content in a talk subpage, where all this could've been done. Instead, you got it deleted.
NOTABILITYOnce again, you ignore me. This may surprise you, but I don't need to demonstrate notability at all! Notability is only for articles, not for adding content to articles. Again, if I have primary/secondary RS, then I should be able to add it, especially when it's in scholarly journals. I answered most of these other points already, but I'll address another:
Von Däniken–level pseudo-scholarshipI don't know who Von Däniken is, but if he's in the scholarly literature, we can add a section on it based on whatever is there. Anyway, your judgment doesn't matter, the judgment of reputable journals does matter, and they approved D. It seems fine to me, as I said you seemed to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the material. Actual pseudo-scholarship would be the claim that Indus Valley Seal Script is somehow connected with rongorongo, even though they're separated by about 3000 years (!) and 1000 miles. Obviously, any similarities are just coincidence and/or convergence of design. I've actually seen crackpots spout this nonsense, which no reputable journal would ever publish -- we should only mention this to refute it as an absurdity, pending critical sources. But Dietrich has no obvious problems.
unanimous opposition to your edits is not "consensus"Another editor was supportive of my side, and I already addressed the issues with Austronesier and De Laat, so it's ambiguous. Xcalibur ( talk) 09:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
failing to find many matches in Rapa Nui ... he resorted to mass comparisoncompletely wrong, this nonsense never should've been added. D did find matches with Rapa Nui astronomy! In fact, pretty much all known Rapa Nui star-names fit right into the theory. It's just that there's a serious paucity of Rapa-nui star-names, we don't have enough to go on. That, combined with D's belief that rongorongo did not originate on Easter Island, justifies consulting other Polynesian cultures. As I explained to you, the Polynesian islands had a great deal of overlap and cultural exchange, with many common, pan-Polynesian concepts throughout, so that star-names would not be isolated to one island/culture; thus, no mass-comparison. It's not mass-comparison if the units you're comparing are all related, like Romance languages are related to Latin, or Polynesian cultures to each other. Again, this shouldn't be relevant, but I thought I'd make one more attempt in good faith. Xcalibur ( talk) 15:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
You reverted yourself the other day, but have now picked up your edit-war again. Adding just a *little* bullshit to the article is not appropriate, and I assume you're competent enough to know that. If you want to make a change, I suggest you draft it on talk and get consensus for it *before* you add it.
PS. "Consensus" doesn't mean everyone *disagrees* with you, it means ppl *agree* with you. Pardon me if I don't need to spell that out for you, but you've justified previous edits on the opposite. — kwami ( talk) 20:25, 19 September 2022 (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) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
How is it possible for you to make this edit? You've been here for 16 years! You know better. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 03:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay in replying, but what I have to say is very serious. I have looked at your contribution history and the history of this talk page. I'm amazed that you haven't been blocked yet. You have many warnings for various forms of disruptive editing and behavior. Not good. In light of that, I won't hesitate to recommend that you receive a long block if I see anymore dubious editing.
My immediate concerns relate to the edit above, and some of what I write here also applies to the edit mentioned in the next section.
You have been warned many, many, MANY!!! times for many such offenses, but you still do it. That's not good. You are not showing a positive learning curve, and we expect that. More experience here should mean greater knowledge and trustworthiness as an editor. I don't see that when I see some of your edits and your overall editing patterns. This isn't some glitch, but a pattern of disruptive editing. You are not a net positive here.
I hope you will take this to heart, otherwise, your next faux pas will be dealt with much more seriously, and your clean block log will be sullied. Try to avoid that.
I'll ping some other editors from your talk page history who have dealt with you in the past so we can all keep you under stricter observation. (They should also see the next section.): PaleoNeonate, Kwamikagami, Doug Weller, NebY, Johnuniq, Bon courage, Petersmillard, Paul August, Marchjuly, Nikkimaria. There are more, but this should be enough. Your talk page history reveals a pattern of disruption from you for a long time. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
This isn't some glitch, but a pattern of disruptive editing. You are not a net positive here.I think that's because I've tried to use WP for what it's intended for, sharing knowledge. I can't get into this whole game where you use policies to get your way and control articles, and have to agree with right-think, or get severely punished for wrong-think; the claim made below that I should be indef blocked for a couple one-off controversial edits is an example of the latter. If you want to block me, that's up to you, I wouldn't advise it, but I won't kowtow to anyone either. Let it be known that most every academic/scholar I've conversed with has a very low opinion of WP; perhaps that's because of systemic problems with the culture here, rather than with myself. Xcalibur ( talk) 01:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
And this one. Don't add your own commentary to articles. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
What sources did you use for the two edits mentioned above? Doug Weller talk 18:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
However, just because one lab origin story is false, doesn't mean they all are, and there is still much ambiguity regarding COVID-19." to COVID-19 misinformation.
A few observations:
I can totally understand an indef block. I see no reason for you to be here. What good are you doing that can't be done by editors who don't constantly create problems? You have been warned many times to no avail. That's an unforgivable sin. Warnings should move you to better behavior, but they haven't. Instead, you fight back, make excuses, and reveal you haven't even read the sources.
"Russian interference" is not the same as the "Russian collusion claim." The latter is a strawman. Equating the two is the current conspiracy theory conflation that is sweeping Trumpland. It is not from RS. Mueller didn't consider criminal "conspiracy" and non-criminal "collusion" to be synonyms, and he explicitly discussed the differences between the words when stating he would only try to prove conspiracy, not collusion. Yet, his investigation documented a big heap of various types of collusion. He concluded that he couldn't prove conspiracy, turned over all the evidence of obstruction to Congress, and stopped there. That doesn't mean the Russians didn't interfere or that Trump didn't aid and abet their efforts. They couldn't own a better useful idiot than Trump, and the Russian people openly claim they elected him. Trump and the GOP can deny what happened, but the Russians know. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 02:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
What sources did you use for the two edits mentioned above?I could dig up sources for those statements, including sources that go further than I did. However, it would be rather pointless, because I don't insist upon those edits. Obviously the prevailing opinion is against them, and I'm willing to drop the matter.
The indef block would not be "for a couple one-off, controversial tweaks." They are just the log that broke the camel's back after all your disruption in spite of numerous warnings.That's not what that editor said, though. He recommended an indef block only for those edits, when I haven't been blocked before. Keep in mind, there's an observation bias in effect here, in which the conflicts I've gotten into draw much more attention than all my productive edits.
That's OR and not based on RS. Even if true, don't do that.That's fair enough.
You make some statements that reveal that you don't have the required competence to vet sources for reliability.There's a difference between beliefs vs competence. I've noticed that certain people assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid and/or evil, which is not necessarily the case. In fact, this is the attitude of bigotry in its original sense.
Instead, you fight back, make excuses, and reveal you haven't even read the sources.Again, I'm willing to retract the edits that started this, and I didn't see them as significant at the time. And to reiterate, I'll admit if I take things too far, eg my digest above of the disagreements I've gotten into.
"Russian interference" is not the same as the "Russian collusion claim." The latter is a strawman. Equating the two is the current conspiracy theory conflation that is sweeping Trumpland.The two seem to get conflated alot. It also seems like an academic difference, the real issue is: is it significant, or not? To me, it seems like Russia is a scapegoat for the more likely explanation of 2016, which is that half of this country actually follows Trump and believes in his ideals and version of reality.
useful idiotYou say this, yet he made it all the way to the White House in the face of massive opposition, representing the radical new movement of right-wing populism. I'm not saying Trump is a scholarly intellect like Sowell or Chomsky, I don't get that from him at all, but there's no way he pulled all this off without being a very clever, cunning game-player.
What sources did you use for the two edits mentioned above? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
A conspiracy to label critics as conspiracy theorists ... But mainstream outlets from the New York Times to the Washington Post are now treating the lab leak hypothesis as a worthy question, one to be answered with a serious investigation ... scientists who said that far more transparency was necessary to determine the truth of SARS-CoV-2’s origins.
At times both sides are guilty of doing what the worst conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones do around events like Oklahoma, September 11 and Sandy Hook. They find a single, sinister explanation that confirms a pre-existing view. The drive to impeach Mr Trump for being illegitimately elected before the evidence has been presented has clear echoes of Trump's own disgraceful "birtherism" conspiracy against Mr Obama.
At Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign), you continue to make contributions to a thread that has been closed for archiving. Doing so is disruptive. If you need to raise additional issues, please start a new thread instead. Thank you. -- Jayron 32 12:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dronebogus ( talk) 10:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are topic banned from topics related to gender and sexuality, broadly construed. This topic ban will be in effect for 12 months.
You have been sanctioned for disruptive editing as outlined in this ANI thread.
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/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. 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. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 19:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. signed,
Rosguill
talk 21:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
|
FYI, I've removed the "mph" escape velocity entries from the planets. As per my edit comment, the idea is to standardize the tables - currently, they use km/s and mi/s. Adding mph would require adding km/h as well, and would eventually crowd the table as all of the relevant data jumps from two entries to four entries. -- Ckatz chat spy 02:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
"Sceptical" is the correct spelling in British English, in which this article is written. See WP:ENGVAR for more details. Thanks for your many good edits, but please be careful to respect the dialect an article is written in. -- John ( talk) 03:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Bigdan201. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as " edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Dietrich-rongorongo-grouping-singleglyphs1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Bigdan201. If you uploaded a non-free file that you would like to have deleted there are a few things you can do. The easiest is probably adding {{ db-author}} per WP:G7 to the top of the file's page. You should only do this, however, if you are the only major contributor to the file's page (i.e., another editor has not updated any other versions of the original file) and the file is not being used in any articles.
Just for reference, even though you may upload a file, you do not own the file in a Wikipedia sense; so, if someone else feels it still can be used, then you need to discuss it with them or discuss it at WP:FFD. In this particular case, the non-free files you uploaded were not being used in any articles, so they are what is called an " orphan". Orphaned non-free files are eventually tag for deletion and then deleted in about a week after tagging as long as they remained orphaned. This is pretty much automatic process inolving bots and adminsitrators, so you as the uploader do not really need to do anything if you do not object to the file being deleted.
There are other reasons for which files are deleted as explained in WP:FCSD. If any of them apply, then you may tag the file accordingly. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Rongorongo-dietrich-polaris-hokupa-ihuku-immovablestar-standingabovethebow.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Bigdan201. FYI: I've responded on the talk page here. Paul August ☎ 14:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Bigdan201. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hefe Heetroc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:10, 19 March 2018 (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, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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.Woodroar ( talk) 16:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Rongorongo-dietrich-orion-adze-northsouth-reverseboustrophedon.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Rongorongo-dietrich-orion-adze-northsouth-reverseboustrophedon.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Bigdan201. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Rongorongo-dietrich-arcturus-standingabovebow-tekivakukuluakauihuku-genericmodifier.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Also:
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The file File:Rongorongo-dietrich-venus-meremere-maoriwarclub.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 7 April 2020 (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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 11:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Rongorongo-dietrich-orion-adze-northsouth-reverseboustrophedon.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Decipherment of rongorongo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Syllabic and Tapu ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Please note that 3RR is not just for violating the 3RR/24hr rule, but for edit-warring in general. I'm not templating you because you're a regular, so please take this as a formal 3RR warning.
The fact that you've bought into a fringe 'theory' is not evidence that it belongs on WP. — kwami ( talk) 06:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Big Dan, I have reverted your changes. Please be aware that opinions such as this don't belong on Wikipedia. It is an encylopedia, not a place for people to express their opinions. Please see and follow WP:MEDRS Petersmillard ( talk) 11:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
This is currently in the hands of an administrator, who will no doubt be in touch. They have suggested that we suspend the current discussion, which is going nowhere, and do not revert/edit the section in contention until a new Rfc in the proper form resolves this long-running dispute. Neither of us will necessarily get exactly what we want - but I'm sure you will agree we have no alternative at this stage to following standard procedure. Sincere best wishes -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 16:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to
Circumcision and HIV, please ensure that the external site is not
violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as
YouTube or
Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing.
If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. That Salem News PDF link is also a likely copyright violation - beware Alexbrn ( talk) 18:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision and HIV; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
It might be possible to get your account renamed to match your signature. See Wikipedia:Changing username for the process. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Roman numerals shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Roman numerals. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NebY ( talk) 23:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Roman numerals. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. .
The personal attack in question is this. Kahastok talk 14:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Roman numerals. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. The further personal attack in question is here. You may have made the attack in those terms because you misunderstood "publish" to mean "print" without considering either the the specifics of the Roman book trade or the broader meaning of "publish", but it was still completely unacceptable. More generally, you might enjoy WP:DEADHORSE or at least find it of some help in your increasingly fraught experience of Wikipedia. NebY ( talk) 15:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
you invented garbage to discredit and misrepresent meis a gross personal attack. As yet, no-one's replied to that latest post at Talk:Roman numerals, so you can still revert it before stepping away. NebY ( talk) 16:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
taken as an attack, and that wasn't intended[2] is not an adequate retraction of
you invented garbage to discredit and misrepresent me. Likewise, regarding
in my mind, I dropped the stick in September 2020, and haven't picked it up since, whatever's in your mind, you have edited Roman numerals and Talk:Roman numerals every month since September 2020, 115 times altogether. NebY ( talk) 18:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You've been warned before. Your fringe POV edit-war has gone on more than long enough. Keep it up and I'll request to have you blocked. — kwami ( talk) 16:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Are you also having problems with Kwami's bull-in-a-china-shop editing style? Talk to me about it. See also Talk:Enochian. Let's support each other. Skyerise ( talk) 16:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Come round when you can... Skyerise ( talk) 13:24, 9 February 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 climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 14:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
While the fringe noticeboard is the right place to notify about relevant current events on Wikipedia, I would advise to first search and read its archives instead of extending the community's time with old arguments regulars are already very familiar with. WP is also not the place for uncertainty propaganda about science and presenting a false balance between scientific and conflicting views, as if they were equally valid and all rested on strong evidence. WP articles reporting about a scientific consensus, like that climate change is recognized to be anthropogenic by relevant experts, is not "FRINGE abuse". Climate change denial is also not "an unpopular scientific view", it's not even the "scientific view". The concerns expressed by other editors about WP-competence to edit in the area is due to evidence in your comments just above theirs, not personal attacks... WP:PA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence".
An example is "Climate change is a theory, not a fact", it just makes no sense. Do you understand the difference between a theory, a scientific theory and a hypothesis? In the case of climate change or global warming, the hypothesis that the planet heats up was long confirmed. Other hypotheses linking dynamics to climate in relation to aerosols and other forcings were also tested. Various hypotheses advanced to explain change with natural cycles have also confirmed that while known cycles do affect climate, they do not account for the observed trend. Then climate science rests on various disciplines and a number of working scientific theories. The scientific consensus is that human activity is a main contributor. For Wikipedia, that is enough for it to be considered a fact until that consensus changes. It's an encyclopedia, a tertiary source that reports about the state of science, but does not run or do the science (not a scientific journal). And must not confuse science with politics when it is well defined. But don't take my word for it, look at the sources cited by WP articles including scientific consensus on climate change. If to you those sources are all false propaganda, WP is also not to entertain grandiose conspiracy theories. However, there are reliable sources that describe disinformation campaigns to deny that climate change occurs or that it would be possible to mitigate it, the sources cited in climate change denial are a good starting point.
The reason I posted this here instead of at FTN is that there's no need to waste more time there. It's also a warning that is best posted here per WP:ASPERSIONS. It doesn't concern WP or FTN, but your use of WP to campaign. — Paleo Neonate – 07:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
While the fringe noticeboard is the right place to notify about relevant current events on Wikipedia, I would advise to first search and read its archives instead of extending the community's time with old arguments regulars are already very familiar with.Keep in mind that I brought up climate change in passing to make a point, I hadn't realized it would get completely derailed. All I did was respond to others.
WP is also not the place for uncertainty propaganda about science and presenting a false balance between scientific and conflicting views, as if they were equally valid and all rested on strong evidence.In other words, science has become an irrational religion, and I'm a blaspheming heretic for questioning its predictions.
The concerns expressed by other editors about WP-competence to edit in the area is due to evidence in your comments just above theirs, not personal attacks...In other words, personal attacks are allowed, just so long as they're based on evidence? There are editors I've encountered on other articles who I could call incompetent, incapable of reading comprehension or critical thinking, as well as being passive-aggressive douchebags. Surely I'd be blocked for saying those things, even though I could make a strong case for it.
Do you understand the difference between a theory, a scientific theory and a hypothesis?I understand just fine, which is why I called it a theory, not a fact. The climate getting warmer, the greenhouse effect, our output of co2, those are facts. The complex models that draw this together, and claim that it's largely anthropogenic and a threat to our way of life, is a theory with a fair amount of uncertainty. The climate is a complex system with many variables, not all of which are accounted for, which leads a minority of scientists to theorize that natural processes are more significant, and that the situation will right itself without any significant changes to our way of life.
The scientific consensus is that human activity is a main contributor. For Wikipedia, that is enough for it to be considered a fact until that consensus changes.I believe that any and all controversial topics (and this certainly is one) should give representation to as many views as possible. Otherwise, you can end up with one-sided, biased propaganda.
And must not confuse science with politics when it is well defined.I'm not the one doing that. The boundary between the two has been very muddled irl, which can compromise the scientific process.
If to you those sources are all false propaganda, WP is also not to entertain grandiose conspiracy theories.I didn't say that, I just introduced the possibility that the consensus may be wrong, and the minority view correct. The fact that this is not allowed at all tells me that science is compromised by a dogmatic reading of its results.
disinformation campaignsyou mean heresy? Xcalibur ( talk) 23:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Since these are not dogmatic positions, if there was considerable evidence contradicting them it would no longer be the scientific consensus for scientists in those fields. To claim that this is false would be entering the domain of conspiracy theories.This assumes that science operates flawlessly and cannot make mistakes. It is entirely possible for scientists to arrive at the wrong consensus, especially when the scientific process itself can be subverted by money, politics, and ideology. There's no reason to assume that the dissenting minority of climate scientists aren't just as scientific, or that questioning the consensus is a "conspiracy theory", another Newspeak term for anything the establishment disapproves of (note how Russian collusion in the 2016 election is never derided as a conspiracy theory, even though it literally is). Xcalibur ( talk) 20:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
as you did in your edit summary here. Doug Weller talk 07:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure I noticed another one but couldn't find it again, I won't waste my time looking. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You need to get consensus on the talk page, since all of your edits have been rejected by the rest of the community. You don't need to revert 3 times a day to be blocked. Your 5-year history of edit-warring is plenty. We're also considering a topic ban (no edits at all to RR articles). — kwami ( talk) 19:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
You are now intentionally adding bullshit to Rongorongo. That is vandalism. I know you're pissed because you can't get anyone else to drink the Kool-Aid, but this has got to stop. — kwami ( talk) 02:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
You've violated 3RR. I suggest you revert yourself. If you don't, then in the morning I will file a 3RR complaint, and request a topic ban to prevent you from ever editing rongorongo articles again. There have been 3 people besides myself who have independently suggested you be topic-banned, so I suspect there's a good chance that would happen. Especially after 5 years of your playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
I shouldn't need to template the talk page of an established editor such as yourself, but I will need to show that I warned you before filing the 3RR complaint, and this is the easiest way to do that:
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — kwami ( talk) 06:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
You reverted 4 times in 24 hrs -- that is indeed a violation of 3RR.I don't see this, are you sure you're not misreading the times/dates? I thought I was within 3rr, even if you count the name-drop, which to me is a separate proposal from the sections. I'm aware that you don't need to violate 3rr to get in trouble for edit-warring. I reiterate that I was trying out various compromises, with most edits differing in some way, so it wasn't purely tug-of-war.
5 yearsThat's when it began, although I've tried for compromises since then (like reducing D's section to a single screen-length, or 1/4 of the original). I also took a long wikibreak for 1 1/2 years, with shorter breaks as well, so it's not like I was active that whole time-frame.
tldrit's hard to avoid this when you use a gish-gallop style of argument, and when we're discussing the finer points of theories about rongorongo, which is a rather complex topic. I'm aware that I can be wordy at times, and I've made efforts to be more concise. However, you focused the entire discussion on the merits of the theory, which is not even relevant to whether it should be included or not! All that matters is RS and DUEWEIGHT considerations. I responded to all points as best I could, then get blamed for bludgeoning, and also accused of being "unresponsive" by De Laat? I don't think it's primarily my fault.
tired of repeating themselves.That's because we tend to talk past each other, especially when you ignore my points. For example:
EB is not an expert ... pseudo-scholarshipThat's the thing, you have your own definition of expertise & RS, based on your cult-worship of Guy, Sproat, et al. Don't get me wrong, I respect them, but I don't even need them to weigh in (in fact, it seems like the field is moribund, based on what you said about the Yahoo! group being inactive). All I need are primary & secondary RS in the form of reputable journals, which I have. The concerns you've raised about D & EB being in communication, EB being an expert on Polynesia rather than ancient scripts, etc. are valid concerns. But scholarly journals decided that this was acceptable and published them, therefore so should WP.
De Laat's thesis isn't even stable.Maybe not, but I did in fact draw from the Horley review back when I wrote the section; it documents the self-published claims, which is why I put them there. How can you say I'm not following RS when you haven't read the RS? Anyway, yes there are issues with De Laat, but I didn't want Francis Mortimer's efforts to go to waste, and figured I could salvage something out of it. Per DUEWEIGHT, I reduced it to half a page, and it's a combination of myself, you, and Francis' writing.
For DL's current thesis, there is no review for us to go on.That's why I addressed it in a single line at the end and didn't elaborate (primary RS are allowed to an extent).
EB collaborated with the author in her coverage.Already addressed this above. If it's good enough for the literature, it's good enough for WP. And she's not a co-author, because they wrote separate pieces in separate journals.
remember, I'm the one who up to 5 years ago insisted we retain your coverage in the face of unanimous oppositionA false narrative. You were amenable to the idea that RR is not writing, but a notation system, but as soon as you started skimming EB, you decided you didn't like it for some reason (I think the linchpin of misunderstanding was thinking D couldn't find matches with Rapa nui astronomy, and that drawing from elsewhere was mass-comparison; wrong on both counts). Other than that, there were a few people who complained at the very beginning, but it was just typical concern over adding new content (I resolved one objection by re-uploading the illustrations as free to use, which they were when I cropped them correctly (except for one)).
10 yearsI thought I was the first person to suggest D? Or are you referring to other proposals, like the Korean editor whose contributions were way too long?
craft a draft for discussionI did in fact put a copy of the content in a talk subpage, where all this could've been done. Instead, you got it deleted.
NOTABILITYOnce again, you ignore me. This may surprise you, but I don't need to demonstrate notability at all! Notability is only for articles, not for adding content to articles. Again, if I have primary/secondary RS, then I should be able to add it, especially when it's in scholarly journals. I answered most of these other points already, but I'll address another:
Von Däniken–level pseudo-scholarshipI don't know who Von Däniken is, but if he's in the scholarly literature, we can add a section on it based on whatever is there. Anyway, your judgment doesn't matter, the judgment of reputable journals does matter, and they approved D. It seems fine to me, as I said you seemed to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the material. Actual pseudo-scholarship would be the claim that Indus Valley Seal Script is somehow connected with rongorongo, even though they're separated by about 3000 years (!) and 1000 miles. Obviously, any similarities are just coincidence and/or convergence of design. I've actually seen crackpots spout this nonsense, which no reputable journal would ever publish -- we should only mention this to refute it as an absurdity, pending critical sources. But Dietrich has no obvious problems.
unanimous opposition to your edits is not "consensus"Another editor was supportive of my side, and I already addressed the issues with Austronesier and De Laat, so it's ambiguous. Xcalibur ( talk) 09:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
failing to find many matches in Rapa Nui ... he resorted to mass comparisoncompletely wrong, this nonsense never should've been added. D did find matches with Rapa Nui astronomy! In fact, pretty much all known Rapa Nui star-names fit right into the theory. It's just that there's a serious paucity of Rapa-nui star-names, we don't have enough to go on. That, combined with D's belief that rongorongo did not originate on Easter Island, justifies consulting other Polynesian cultures. As I explained to you, the Polynesian islands had a great deal of overlap and cultural exchange, with many common, pan-Polynesian concepts throughout, so that star-names would not be isolated to one island/culture; thus, no mass-comparison. It's not mass-comparison if the units you're comparing are all related, like Romance languages are related to Latin, or Polynesian cultures to each other. Again, this shouldn't be relevant, but I thought I'd make one more attempt in good faith. Xcalibur ( talk) 15:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
You reverted yourself the other day, but have now picked up your edit-war again. Adding just a *little* bullshit to the article is not appropriate, and I assume you're competent enough to know that. If you want to make a change, I suggest you draft it on talk and get consensus for it *before* you add it.
PS. "Consensus" doesn't mean everyone *disagrees* with you, it means ppl *agree* with you. Pardon me if I don't need to spell that out for you, but you've justified previous edits on the opposite. — kwami ( talk) 20:25, 19 September 2022 (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) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
How is it possible for you to make this edit? You've been here for 16 years! You know better. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 03:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay in replying, but what I have to say is very serious. I have looked at your contribution history and the history of this talk page. I'm amazed that you haven't been blocked yet. You have many warnings for various forms of disruptive editing and behavior. Not good. In light of that, I won't hesitate to recommend that you receive a long block if I see anymore dubious editing.
My immediate concerns relate to the edit above, and some of what I write here also applies to the edit mentioned in the next section.
You have been warned many, many, MANY!!! times for many such offenses, but you still do it. That's not good. You are not showing a positive learning curve, and we expect that. More experience here should mean greater knowledge and trustworthiness as an editor. I don't see that when I see some of your edits and your overall editing patterns. This isn't some glitch, but a pattern of disruptive editing. You are not a net positive here.
I hope you will take this to heart, otherwise, your next faux pas will be dealt with much more seriously, and your clean block log will be sullied. Try to avoid that.
I'll ping some other editors from your talk page history who have dealt with you in the past so we can all keep you under stricter observation. (They should also see the next section.): PaleoNeonate, Kwamikagami, Doug Weller, NebY, Johnuniq, Bon courage, Petersmillard, Paul August, Marchjuly, Nikkimaria. There are more, but this should be enough. Your talk page history reveals a pattern of disruption from you for a long time. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
This isn't some glitch, but a pattern of disruptive editing. You are not a net positive here.I think that's because I've tried to use WP for what it's intended for, sharing knowledge. I can't get into this whole game where you use policies to get your way and control articles, and have to agree with right-think, or get severely punished for wrong-think; the claim made below that I should be indef blocked for a couple one-off controversial edits is an example of the latter. If you want to block me, that's up to you, I wouldn't advise it, but I won't kowtow to anyone either. Let it be known that most every academic/scholar I've conversed with has a very low opinion of WP; perhaps that's because of systemic problems with the culture here, rather than with myself. Xcalibur ( talk) 01:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
And this one. Don't add your own commentary to articles. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
What sources did you use for the two edits mentioned above? Doug Weller talk 18:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
However, just because one lab origin story is false, doesn't mean they all are, and there is still much ambiguity regarding COVID-19." to COVID-19 misinformation.
A few observations:
I can totally understand an indef block. I see no reason for you to be here. What good are you doing that can't be done by editors who don't constantly create problems? You have been warned many times to no avail. That's an unforgivable sin. Warnings should move you to better behavior, but they haven't. Instead, you fight back, make excuses, and reveal you haven't even read the sources.
"Russian interference" is not the same as the "Russian collusion claim." The latter is a strawman. Equating the two is the current conspiracy theory conflation that is sweeping Trumpland. It is not from RS. Mueller didn't consider criminal "conspiracy" and non-criminal "collusion" to be synonyms, and he explicitly discussed the differences between the words when stating he would only try to prove conspiracy, not collusion. Yet, his investigation documented a big heap of various types of collusion. He concluded that he couldn't prove conspiracy, turned over all the evidence of obstruction to Congress, and stopped there. That doesn't mean the Russians didn't interfere or that Trump didn't aid and abet their efforts. They couldn't own a better useful idiot than Trump, and the Russian people openly claim they elected him. Trump and the GOP can deny what happened, but the Russians know. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 02:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
What sources did you use for the two edits mentioned above?I could dig up sources for those statements, including sources that go further than I did. However, it would be rather pointless, because I don't insist upon those edits. Obviously the prevailing opinion is against them, and I'm willing to drop the matter.
The indef block would not be "for a couple one-off, controversial tweaks." They are just the log that broke the camel's back after all your disruption in spite of numerous warnings.That's not what that editor said, though. He recommended an indef block only for those edits, when I haven't been blocked before. Keep in mind, there's an observation bias in effect here, in which the conflicts I've gotten into draw much more attention than all my productive edits.
That's OR and not based on RS. Even if true, don't do that.That's fair enough.
You make some statements that reveal that you don't have the required competence to vet sources for reliability.There's a difference between beliefs vs competence. I've noticed that certain people assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid and/or evil, which is not necessarily the case. In fact, this is the attitude of bigotry in its original sense.
Instead, you fight back, make excuses, and reveal you haven't even read the sources.Again, I'm willing to retract the edits that started this, and I didn't see them as significant at the time. And to reiterate, I'll admit if I take things too far, eg my digest above of the disagreements I've gotten into.
"Russian interference" is not the same as the "Russian collusion claim." The latter is a strawman. Equating the two is the current conspiracy theory conflation that is sweeping Trumpland.The two seem to get conflated alot. It also seems like an academic difference, the real issue is: is it significant, or not? To me, it seems like Russia is a scapegoat for the more likely explanation of 2016, which is that half of this country actually follows Trump and believes in his ideals and version of reality.
useful idiotYou say this, yet he made it all the way to the White House in the face of massive opposition, representing the radical new movement of right-wing populism. I'm not saying Trump is a scholarly intellect like Sowell or Chomsky, I don't get that from him at all, but there's no way he pulled all this off without being a very clever, cunning game-player.
What sources did you use for the two edits mentioned above? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
A conspiracy to label critics as conspiracy theorists ... But mainstream outlets from the New York Times to the Washington Post are now treating the lab leak hypothesis as a worthy question, one to be answered with a serious investigation ... scientists who said that far more transparency was necessary to determine the truth of SARS-CoV-2’s origins.
At times both sides are guilty of doing what the worst conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones do around events like Oklahoma, September 11 and Sandy Hook. They find a single, sinister explanation that confirms a pre-existing view. The drive to impeach Mr Trump for being illegitimately elected before the evidence has been presented has clear echoes of Trump's own disgraceful "birtherism" conspiracy against Mr Obama.
At Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign), you continue to make contributions to a thread that has been closed for archiving. Doing so is disruptive. If you need to raise additional issues, please start a new thread instead. Thank you. -- Jayron 32 12:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dronebogus ( talk) 10:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are topic banned from topics related to gender and sexuality, broadly construed. This topic ban will be in effect for 12 months.
You have been sanctioned for disruptive editing as outlined in this ANI thread.
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/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. 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. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 19:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. signed,
Rosguill
talk 21:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)