Hello, PhotogenicScientist! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for
your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place
{{helpme}} on your
talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to
sign your name on talk pages by clicking
or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "
adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a
WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click
here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the
edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing!
Doug Weller
talk 18:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC) |
---|
|
|
An IP editor no more, I now have a permanent talk page! PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 17:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 18:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
If you persist in attacking people on Wikipedia, you will be invited to explain your behavior to the admins. Do NOT attack me further on Wikipedia Yu have been warned. SoftwareThing ( talk) 15:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi PhotogenicScientist, I'm Dr vulpes. I'm a real human being here on wikipedia who works to help new editors. If you have any questions please feel free to reach out I'm more than happy to help. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 09:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Blaze Wolf. I noticed that in this edit to Anti-fascism, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I want to personally send my gratitude for settling the situation in the Talk:Funk page. If there was any way I could send you flowers I would do it in a heartbeat. StephenCezar15 ( talk) 23:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
I found a way to send you flowers. I appreciate you ^_^ StephenCezar15 ( talk) 23:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC) |
There are two sources cited in that paragraph. You ignored the first one - (here https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-laptop.html). Read the first paragraph.
If you self-revert, I won't report you for making more than one revert to the article in a 24-hour period. Wes sideman ( talk) 14:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello PhotogenicScientist.
You made these two edits to violate the 24-hour BRD page restriction pursuant to Discretionary Sanctions: inserting "nearly", which was reverted and then [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&diff=next&oldid=1118581189 reinserting "nearly" after it had been reverted by @ Muboshgu:
Separately, with these two edits, you also violated the same restriction: substituting "appeared to" for "purportedly" and repeating the same edit minutes later, after it was challenged.
You've also made, by my count, six reverts in roughly the past 24 hours -- far over 3RR.
Your interactions on the talk page have not been as collegial as one would expect. I'm afraid that without some sign this will not continue, it needs to be reported to AE. That's generally a big drain on editor time and attention. I am posting this here as a courtesy in case you wish to consider your options.
If you'd like to propose some alternative, such as reversing the violations and taking a week off from the page, for example, please suggest what you think would be appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
You just violated the 24-hour BRD restriction with this edit, reinstating an edit that had been reverted without waiting 24 hours. Nor did you discuss the edit on the talk page, as is required. We had a discussion of this sanction in another thread on this page not too long ago (immediately above). You need to self-revert immediately. I may report you without further warning. This behavior is not acceptable. If it's too much of a burden for you to observe these restrictions, there are many other articles to work on where this is not a factor. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
You forgot to sign your name at the 'new' RFC. GoodDay ( talk) 14:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Feoffer ( talk) 18:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
That ANI report is going nowhere. PS - You're always relaxed & certainly can concentrate on any page you like, IMHO. GoodDay ( talk) 22:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I believe that WP:UNBLOCKABLES may be relevant to some of your concerns. jp× g 13:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if you would mind moving your (valid and valuable) contribution at talk:Stampede to Talk:Crowd collapses and crushes#Stampede categories: rename, replace, something else?, please? I suggest it would be best to keep the discussion at one place.
(And yes, I recognise the WP:RGW problem: it was the reason I stopped removing stampede cats.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 15:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
If a section name needs to be changed, it is very difficult to hunt down all the links to the original name. So putting an anchor with the old name means that they still work. (But I'm having trouble in this case, never did one with quotes before.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 16:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles 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. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Hu Nhu has given you a Sugar cookie! Sugar cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Sugar cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
From a bit of a distance, I've been observing the Francis Drake article. Much credit to important improvements to what has been a very troubled article are due to your skill and knowledge as an editor.
Hu Nhu ( talk) 02:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I ran across your lament [1] after noticing the user doing the same thing here [2].
First, thank you for continuing to edit in the face of this discouragement.
Second, as you can see in the user edit history, we aren't the only two who have run into this. I don't know how the discipline process works. Can you report this to someone?
DenverCoder9 ( talk) 20:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I saw that you removed the label 'Holocaust deniers' from Mahmoud Abbas's entry. I recommend you read the entry on his book The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism, I would be very surprised if there is a person who would not define it as Holocaust denial. In fact, the book is defined in Wikipedia as Category:Holocaust-denying books. Purple table ( talk) 20:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
It appears that you are engaging in personal attacks, wikilawyering, and bludgeoning at the Trump BLP. Please stop before this ends up wih an AE discussion. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
This destroys context. The new text is not what was subsequently objected to. I hope you'll edit your edit per WP:REDACT. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I rest my case. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Photogenic, you are making things a lot worse with this revision. In the rare instance of such a revision you need to strikethoug and date the strikethough with five tildes so that context is preserved, i.e. show the time:19:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC) That way, readers can understand the subsesquent comments in the thread. Please do so now.19:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
<del>...</del>
and <ins>...</ins>
. Like so: "@ Mandruss talk about destroying context. It was you, after all, who reminded me to follow WP:REDACT when editing a comment after it gets a reply. Could you amend your new addition with the {ins} template? PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 04:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Anyway, per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures, closure reviewafter I replied to your comment about the article size. It looks like I ignored the reminder. Unless someone looks at the timestamps real close. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 04:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute– even for uninvolved editors
I feel like I've asked you this already, but if I did it apparently wasn't on this page. Are you, PhotogenicScientist, in fact scientist and supermodel Symmetra (pictured at right here)? E Eng 00:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
two peer-reviewed psychological studies, both demonstrating that humor improves cognition. But I don't see the links to them that you mention. I'd really like those, please. (Ping me so I don't miss them.) E Eng 00:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death of Anatoly Klyan, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Anatoly Klyan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Re: "Why bring it up as a reason to impose a harsher sanction than the current behavior warrants?" – The main reason I can think of for the hungry appetite to get rid of EEng despite his long-term productivity and several years without incident is that he's one of the shepherds of the MoS, and the most defensive against adding new hobgoblins to it. Innumerable people are unhappy with one quibble or another in MoS (or, very often, its lack of one that they want to impose to wield against others), and all of us who work to shield it from willy-nilly changes by random editors to suit personal (and especially wikiprojects') style peccadilloes have targets on our backs and always have. There is no editor on the system who agrees with every line item in MoS, and no line-item in MoS has agreement from every editor, meanwhile the entire nature of writing style is very personal and emotional to a lot of people, so they get angrier about that guideline than about any other rule on the system, always over some tiny nit-pick no one should care much about. MoS got put under WP:CTOP (back then, WP:AC/DS) for good reason. There's always a circling warband of obsessive battlegrounders, since the earliest days. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure you believe that you are being very clever in your disruptive editing at the Israel Hamas talk page today and yesterday. Guess what, you are not. I suggest you stop with your antics, if you believe there are problems with the table then make another one as I already advised yesterday. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Selfstudier ( talk) 15:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
[ [5]] changes User Cessaun's " would like some Support arguments to address my point's" to "I would like a Support !vote to adress the points I have made", that is not your comment. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I would like to understand what you would do to improve the consensus system at Trump, something well beyond vague generalities. There have been few objections since its inception, and those were essentially "It prevents me from getting what I want." Minorities lose, and that's true in life as much as at Wikipedia (absent special protections and affirmative action).
I really think your options are properly to take your objections to Arbcom or drop them per WP:STICK. You're not getting a lot of support for them after weeks or months, which is the essence of STICK as I understand it. While I don't understand Arbcom's structure and bureaucracy well enough to say exactly how to go about it, I think this would be somewhere under their purview. And I don't think you're going to persuade editors who have worked with the system for some seven years, have also worked a lot at articles that lack such a system, and believe the system to be superior to any alternative, which is why it has survived and even flourished for that long. Quite a number of admins are well aware of the system and have voiced no objection that I've seen.
(By the way, I didn't say you're irrational, I said your specific, isolated comment was irrational. There's a distinct difference as codified in policy. In any event, "get[ting] [myself] very far with [you]" isn't necessarily my goal here, insofar as it would mean changing your mind as opposed to your behavior.) ― Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
...cynicism and apathy are healthy responses to Wikipedia editing, particularly in AP2;Ain't that the truth. It's a bit depressing. But it's the same truth I arrived at after, oh, 2 months of AP2 editing. I've had much more pleasant adventures in other areas, on articles like Gentian liqueur or Norwegian armed forces in exile.
Sorry mate. It is difficult, and at times impossible, to knock sense into the clueless. You're gonna have to work around the Verywell ban. Please don't let this unfortunate incident deter you from contributing! There are a lot of morons on Wikipedia, but also a lot of cool people who know what this project is really about. I hope you're having a nice day. Take care, Manifestation ( talk) 18:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, PhotogenicScientist! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for
your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place
{{helpme}} on your
talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to
sign your name on talk pages by clicking
or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "
adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a
WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click
here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the
edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing!
Doug Weller
talk 18:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC) |
---|
|
|
An IP editor no more, I now have a permanent talk page! PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 17:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 18:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
If you persist in attacking people on Wikipedia, you will be invited to explain your behavior to the admins. Do NOT attack me further on Wikipedia Yu have been warned. SoftwareThing ( talk) 15:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi PhotogenicScientist, I'm Dr vulpes. I'm a real human being here on wikipedia who works to help new editors. If you have any questions please feel free to reach out I'm more than happy to help. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 09:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Blaze Wolf. I noticed that in this edit to Anti-fascism, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I want to personally send my gratitude for settling the situation in the Talk:Funk page. If there was any way I could send you flowers I would do it in a heartbeat. StephenCezar15 ( talk) 23:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
I found a way to send you flowers. I appreciate you ^_^ StephenCezar15 ( talk) 23:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC) |
There are two sources cited in that paragraph. You ignored the first one - (here https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-laptop.html). Read the first paragraph.
If you self-revert, I won't report you for making more than one revert to the article in a 24-hour period. Wes sideman ( talk) 14:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello PhotogenicScientist.
You made these two edits to violate the 24-hour BRD page restriction pursuant to Discretionary Sanctions: inserting "nearly", which was reverted and then [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&diff=next&oldid=1118581189 reinserting "nearly" after it had been reverted by @ Muboshgu:
Separately, with these two edits, you also violated the same restriction: substituting "appeared to" for "purportedly" and repeating the same edit minutes later, after it was challenged.
You've also made, by my count, six reverts in roughly the past 24 hours -- far over 3RR.
Your interactions on the talk page have not been as collegial as one would expect. I'm afraid that without some sign this will not continue, it needs to be reported to AE. That's generally a big drain on editor time and attention. I am posting this here as a courtesy in case you wish to consider your options.
If you'd like to propose some alternative, such as reversing the violations and taking a week off from the page, for example, please suggest what you think would be appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
You just violated the 24-hour BRD restriction with this edit, reinstating an edit that had been reverted without waiting 24 hours. Nor did you discuss the edit on the talk page, as is required. We had a discussion of this sanction in another thread on this page not too long ago (immediately above). You need to self-revert immediately. I may report you without further warning. This behavior is not acceptable. If it's too much of a burden for you to observe these restrictions, there are many other articles to work on where this is not a factor. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
You forgot to sign your name at the 'new' RFC. GoodDay ( talk) 14:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Feoffer ( talk) 18:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
That ANI report is going nowhere. PS - You're always relaxed & certainly can concentrate on any page you like, IMHO. GoodDay ( talk) 22:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I believe that WP:UNBLOCKABLES may be relevant to some of your concerns. jp× g 13:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if you would mind moving your (valid and valuable) contribution at talk:Stampede to Talk:Crowd collapses and crushes#Stampede categories: rename, replace, something else?, please? I suggest it would be best to keep the discussion at one place.
(And yes, I recognise the WP:RGW problem: it was the reason I stopped removing stampede cats.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 15:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
If a section name needs to be changed, it is very difficult to hunt down all the links to the original name. So putting an anchor with the old name means that they still work. (But I'm having trouble in this case, never did one with quotes before.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 16:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles 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. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Hu Nhu has given you a Sugar cookie! Sugar cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Sugar cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
From a bit of a distance, I've been observing the Francis Drake article. Much credit to important improvements to what has been a very troubled article are due to your skill and knowledge as an editor.
Hu Nhu ( talk) 02:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I ran across your lament [1] after noticing the user doing the same thing here [2].
First, thank you for continuing to edit in the face of this discouragement.
Second, as you can see in the user edit history, we aren't the only two who have run into this. I don't know how the discipline process works. Can you report this to someone?
DenverCoder9 ( talk) 20:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I saw that you removed the label 'Holocaust deniers' from Mahmoud Abbas's entry. I recommend you read the entry on his book The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism, I would be very surprised if there is a person who would not define it as Holocaust denial. In fact, the book is defined in Wikipedia as Category:Holocaust-denying books. Purple table ( talk) 20:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
It appears that you are engaging in personal attacks, wikilawyering, and bludgeoning at the Trump BLP. Please stop before this ends up wih an AE discussion. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
This destroys context. The new text is not what was subsequently objected to. I hope you'll edit your edit per WP:REDACT. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I rest my case. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Photogenic, you are making things a lot worse with this revision. In the rare instance of such a revision you need to strikethoug and date the strikethough with five tildes so that context is preserved, i.e. show the time:19:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC) That way, readers can understand the subsesquent comments in the thread. Please do so now.19:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
<del>...</del>
and <ins>...</ins>
. Like so: "@ Mandruss talk about destroying context. It was you, after all, who reminded me to follow WP:REDACT when editing a comment after it gets a reply. Could you amend your new addition with the {ins} template? PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 04:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Anyway, per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures, closure reviewafter I replied to your comment about the article size. It looks like I ignored the reminder. Unless someone looks at the timestamps real close. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 04:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute– even for uninvolved editors
I feel like I've asked you this already, but if I did it apparently wasn't on this page. Are you, PhotogenicScientist, in fact scientist and supermodel Symmetra (pictured at right here)? E Eng 00:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
two peer-reviewed psychological studies, both demonstrating that humor improves cognition. But I don't see the links to them that you mention. I'd really like those, please. (Ping me so I don't miss them.) E Eng 00:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death of Anatoly Klyan, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Anatoly Klyan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Re: "Why bring it up as a reason to impose a harsher sanction than the current behavior warrants?" – The main reason I can think of for the hungry appetite to get rid of EEng despite his long-term productivity and several years without incident is that he's one of the shepherds of the MoS, and the most defensive against adding new hobgoblins to it. Innumerable people are unhappy with one quibble or another in MoS (or, very often, its lack of one that they want to impose to wield against others), and all of us who work to shield it from willy-nilly changes by random editors to suit personal (and especially wikiprojects') style peccadilloes have targets on our backs and always have. There is no editor on the system who agrees with every line item in MoS, and no line-item in MoS has agreement from every editor, meanwhile the entire nature of writing style is very personal and emotional to a lot of people, so they get angrier about that guideline than about any other rule on the system, always over some tiny nit-pick no one should care much about. MoS got put under WP:CTOP (back then, WP:AC/DS) for good reason. There's always a circling warband of obsessive battlegrounders, since the earliest days. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure you believe that you are being very clever in your disruptive editing at the Israel Hamas talk page today and yesterday. Guess what, you are not. I suggest you stop with your antics, if you believe there are problems with the table then make another one as I already advised yesterday. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Selfstudier ( talk) 15:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
[ [5]] changes User Cessaun's " would like some Support arguments to address my point's" to "I would like a Support !vote to adress the points I have made", that is not your comment. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I would like to understand what you would do to improve the consensus system at Trump, something well beyond vague generalities. There have been few objections since its inception, and those were essentially "It prevents me from getting what I want." Minorities lose, and that's true in life as much as at Wikipedia (absent special protections and affirmative action).
I really think your options are properly to take your objections to Arbcom or drop them per WP:STICK. You're not getting a lot of support for them after weeks or months, which is the essence of STICK as I understand it. While I don't understand Arbcom's structure and bureaucracy well enough to say exactly how to go about it, I think this would be somewhere under their purview. And I don't think you're going to persuade editors who have worked with the system for some seven years, have also worked a lot at articles that lack such a system, and believe the system to be superior to any alternative, which is why it has survived and even flourished for that long. Quite a number of admins are well aware of the system and have voiced no objection that I've seen.
(By the way, I didn't say you're irrational, I said your specific, isolated comment was irrational. There's a distinct difference as codified in policy. In any event, "get[ting] [myself] very far with [you]" isn't necessarily my goal here, insofar as it would mean changing your mind as opposed to your behavior.) ― Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
...cynicism and apathy are healthy responses to Wikipedia editing, particularly in AP2;Ain't that the truth. It's a bit depressing. But it's the same truth I arrived at after, oh, 2 months of AP2 editing. I've had much more pleasant adventures in other areas, on articles like Gentian liqueur or Norwegian armed forces in exile.
Sorry mate. It is difficult, and at times impossible, to knock sense into the clueless. You're gonna have to work around the Verywell ban. Please don't let this unfortunate incident deter you from contributing! There are a lot of morons on Wikipedia, but also a lot of cool people who know what this project is really about. I hope you're having a nice day. Take care, Manifestation ( talk) 18:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)