This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
Starship.paint,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mann Mann (
talk) 05:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year! | |
Hello Starship.paint: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary
blisters. |
An article that been involved with ( George Pell) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article ( Name to be decided). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. _ MB190417_ ( talk) 14:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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 until the discussion has finished.
Oaktree b ( talk) 16:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Adrian Adonis with rose.jpg. 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. -- Minorax«¦ talk¦» 04:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
On 14 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to media outlet WLOS, surveillance footage appears to contradict the initial police account of the shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer at his home in Murphy, North Carolina? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
What was this about? I was responding to TFD's assertion as to what "we believed". There's no problem presenting a contrary possibility on the talk page. It's not article text. Maybe the rhetorical device was too indirect, certainly it appears for Ernie, but I would not have expected such a response from you. The point was that there are large swaths of text on that page that do not follow the sources. There is no source that verifies the existance of a laptop, e.g. I'm only bugging you about this because I have no doubt that your comment will empower those who continue to push such unverified text. Cheers SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I meant to ping you on this edit, but, clearly, failed. Sorry about that!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
As I see it, SPECIFICO's poll is, essentially, a request for an early closure (and scrapping) of your poll. I don't really see why that needs to be up top, but, given that you started the poll, I think, absent some consensus otherwise, you should have say as to where it goes.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you all for notifying me of your issues, @ Jerome Frank Disciple, SPECIFICO, and Space4Time3Continuum2x: Unfortunately, I am rather busy at this time to edit much, and defer to the judgment of other editors on such issues. starship .paint ( exalt) 23:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The notability is in this case not about the number of sources, but about whether it will be a news event only, or something with WP:SUSTAINED coverage. If the latter is lacking, then it isn't a notable subject, no matter how many good sources you have. Fram ( talk) 12:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Gaah. I've gotten so used to the auto-sign feature of the new reply tool (and many other newer scripts), I find I'm often forgetting to manually add my signature when I need to. Thanks for covering for me. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
The Helping Hand Barnstar | ||
Thanks for the user talk page help! Springee ( talk) 02:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC) |
I've added a nom on In the news - not totally sure about the blurbs; any thoughts/want to tweak? Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Jason Chee (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 02:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Shooting of Aderrien Murry at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mhhossein talk 07:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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 until the discussion has finished.
Oaktree b ( talk) 02:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
On 15 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shooting of Aderrien Murry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that police in Indianola, Mississippi, shot an unarmed 11-year-old African-American boy after responding to his 9-1-1 call for help at his home? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shooting of Aderrien Murry. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Shooting of Aderrien Murry), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Z1720 ( talk) 00:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 8,536 views (711.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2023 – nice work! |
GalliumBot ( talk • contribs) (he/ it) 03:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I have seen that you removed this primary source from the r/place article. Now, I know secondary sources are preferred, but in this case I believe that the primary source can be kept. If you were to check the secondary source from "the guillotine" part, you can see that it used one similar Reddit post as its source ( this one). Also, though used less, in some cases primary sources can still be used on Wikipedia (see WP:PRIMARY). Of course, if a secondary source covering this appears, we can replace the primary one. Thank you! Alin2808 ( talk) 12:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive | |
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
Hello Starship.
You've violated the 24-BRD page restriction at Donald Trump by repeating your addition of content concerning the details of Trump's sexual abuse of E. Jean Carroll. The sequence is
Please self-revert you reinstatement of that content and use the article talk page if necessary. This wording is UNDUE and unencyclopedic detail for the main Trump page and it comes off as rather salacious, irrelevant, and weird when the central fact is that the judge found that her rape statement was reasonable and that Trump continued to defame her.
Thanks
SPECIFICO
talk 13:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that User:Jerome Frank Disciple retired after suffering a number of things, including accusations and incivility by User:SPECIFICO. I wanted to raise concerns because I believe User:SPECIFICO pattern of behavior often results in editors getting discouraged/abandoning.
You seem both experienced and familiar with SPECIFICO, so you seemed like the right person to go to in helping.
I believe he may be engaged in WP:BRD misuse or WP:BRRR. I'm not sure: I'm not very experienced, so there may be a different way to interpret the pattern.
1. Excessive reverts of good edits
2. Quality of talk page discussion
3. Bad-faith and excessive warnings on user talk pages
NPOV-pushing can be more subjective, so I'm trying to focus solely on the meta-pattern of behavior. More specifically:
1. At times he has been an extremely frequent reverter for a number of significant pages, including hot-topic issues like Hunter Biden laptop controversy, Donald Trump.
2. These reverts seem excessive not just by their quantity, but because they are not thought out or are willfully ignorant of the specifics: e.g. [2] he reverted an edit that was supported by reliable statements because there were additional sources that were not reliable; he could have simply removed the unreliable source. He reverts an edit here [3] because it is a "primary source"; however, the primary source is justifying the statement "[Source] stated [statement]". The fact that he makes frequent reference to them suggests that he is not unfamiliar with them; when it misapplies them, it looks less like a misunderstanding and more like intentional misuse.
3. He posts an excessive number of talk-page warnings, many of which seem designed to intimidate, especially new users, and makes serious false accusations "by mistake" In the last month alone: [4] [5] [6]
4. He makes frequent reference to WP policies as justification in situations where they do not apply.
5. He has an extremely active and direct style. This is normally good, but when a reasonable fraction of edits are non-constructive, it can overwhelm normal discourse. When his directness is factored in, it can emotionally drain editors.
6. A long-time editor redited because of his accusations [7] and incivility [8]
Put together, it begins to look like not the intended use of BRD:
1. He makes an excessive number of reverts, not all of which are well-considered, in order to force discussion onto the talk page.
2. His reverts are often based on "no consensus" and/or "mistaken" application of WP rules, without opening talk page discussions.
3. On the talk page, he does not always engage in the best, substantive discussion, but seems to try to holds off the achievement of what he sees as "consensus". Sometimes he is constructive, but frequently he does not refute central points.
4. He makes frequent reference to the WP:BRP cycle to "educate" users, e.g.: [9]
5. In pursuit of ad-hominem, he posts an unreasonable number of warnings and accusations on other user's talk pages.
A good edit cycle means discussion. However, when this style is excessively and selectively applied, it begins to look like WP:BRD misuse.
I'm not sure how to put this all together: perhaps you have a better interpretation of what is going on.
Four days after this user joined Wikipedia, he ended up on ANI for edit warring. [10] He has been topic-banned and wiki-banned repeatedly. However, as soon as bans expire, he seems to act the same way as before. Editing Wikipedia is usually a pleasant experience; today it was not, and I think many editors feel the same way after interacting with him. It's too bad the process allows this to happen.
Frankly, I found it exhausting, so I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 22:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
this is being referred to as SPECIFICO seeking revenge for a sanction imposed against herself, and it is hard to avoid that conclusion ... SPECIFICO's conduct loathsome ... reward sanction-gaming. However, admin Newyorkbrad did not take any action towards SPECIFICO. While this action wasn't good, it is not necessarily worth a sanction on its own.
I support your proposal here: ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC_on_Module:Find_sources_-_replace_New_York_Times_with_Associated_Press) but I'm unable to comment as I'm blocked. I'm not T-Banned from the topic though. Feel free to copy over my indication of support as a member of the community if you so wish. I support it for the same reasons as you have identified in your vote of support below the proposal. Jack4576 ( talk) 08:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Starship.paint, Tamzin, and Jack4576: Starship, just saw this as I reviewed the RfC at Village Pump. Posting at VP appears to fall within Jack's block from W space pages. I don't understand their point about not being banned from "the topic" - whatever topic that may be? Topic of references? Am I missing something, because this appears to be a violation of their sanction? SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the closing. Could you please go ahead and configure the list of deprecated sources accordingly since I, being the discussion initiator, do not feel it'd be right for me to do so? - The Gnome ( talk) 13:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:TWL, or something. Levivich ( talk) 16:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
The Death Barnstar | ||
For your efforts contributing to the page Palestinian genocide accusation. Awarded by Cdjp1 ( talk) 12:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC) |
You can't (effectively) edit that page directly. Its entire contents are built every few minutes on-the-fly by a bot, so changes made to it will quickly be erased. If you need to fix something in an RM listing, that has to be done at the RM at the talk page of the page proposed to be moved/renamed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I missed the whole thing because I'm at a reading group with friends, but want to quickly note some things before I return to it. Frankly it got me scared to see I was at AN again, though quickly dissipated since by the time I saw it the thread was already closed.
1) I appreciated your support and don't think you have anything against me. I think we disagree on a few things but I've seen you around and generally trust your judgement as an editor. I found the near unanimous support touching and a sign that regardless of what people thought about my original case, people agreed my editing has improved and I wouldn't be an issue from now on. 2) nothing I said was disingenuous. I spent over a month drafting that appeal and part of that length of time was trying to balance the pragmatic/cynical advice to confess to everything with my principles that I will not admit to something I didn't do. I meant every word I said in that appeal. I said it a lot more tactfully than in the past, and very intentionally tried not to be rash or run my mouth off and generally carry myself with the decorum expected of me. I was under the impression that's part of what the community wanted from me. I'll note I have a reputation of being honest to a fault (for better or worse according to my critics and supporters lol) 3) the following is a hill I will die on: "you are biased against anti-trans groups and activists, therefore you are a danger to any article vaguely related to trans people" - was a grossly disproportionate response. My work in GENSEX was not a monolith and it was hurtful a specific subset of it (and I emphasize, specifically regarding hate groups and quacks) was generalized to all of it. Apples to oranges. I would not have appealed early in the first place if the ban had originally been a lighter/more targeted sanction on editing regarding anti-trans groups. All I ask is you try and put yourself in my shoes and consider how the scope of the ban relative to the charges felt. 4) like I said in my rant, and my recent appeal, and my earlier appeal(s) - I'm in no rush to edit about anti-trans groups again. I want to write about queer history again, the collateral damage of my original case per point 3. It's a purely factual statement that all my articles have had a long time consensus they're written according to NPOV, RS, and FRINGE. Also a factual statement that SPAs repeatedly said they're not, and have been refuted by consensus. I have no reason or motivation to edit them because as I've repeatedly said and fully believe, I have faith in the Wikipedia community to steward and improve them without my input. 5) like I said, I've had my lips stapled shut for months. Sure, it was a rant, but frankly I think anyone banned is entitled to a rant when unbanned to let it out of their system before editing again. In my opinion it's much better, for both Wikipedia and the individual editor, to vent honestly and openly and decompress before editing than it is to bottle it up and not be honest about the psychological effects of the ban. 6) for my curiosity, what parts of my rant did you consider factually incorrect? You quoted a few things, but I'm not sure what parts you actually objected to.
Best regards (on my phone and I've yet to update my sig so I think the new username won't show yet lol), TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 04:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I am not a danger to every article and discussion vaguely queer(asking the tban to end) was downright weird because I never was a danger to
every article and discussion vaguely queer, and the jury was hung on whether I was even a danger to
every article about anti-trans activists. The original ANI close noted my commitment to addressing the issues raised (such as battleground behavior and RS), and in subsequent discussions I've always noted that many criticisms were true and tried to present hard evidence I've been working on them. Regardless, I want to emphasize, I want to return to the non-controversial GENSEX articles for a while. There's a long todo list I've already got (translate Trans history in Brazil, fix up LGBT rights in New York, finish Tri-Ess, start adding in the images I uploaded to commons, etc) where I can edit in near guaranteed peace from PROFRINGE battleground behaviors from others. I'm even staying away from the articles like Gays Against Groomers where my work was overwhelmingly well-recieved (by editors, if not the group or their fans lol). Other editors can focus on anti-trans activism - I just want to relax and write about queer history since it's hurt like hell to be cut off from that.
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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I believe it was improper to close that discussion at 4-3 and have reopened it. p b p 14:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
On 12 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nakba denial, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nakba denial is a form of historical negationism pertaining to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nakba denial. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Nakba denial), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Aoidh ( talk) 00:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I now avoid vital rankings completely, but would urge you to renominate Nuper rosarum flores and Missa Pange lingua. Simply put, Nuper rosarum is the most important work by the most important European composer of the entire 14th century. Missa Pange lingua is the most famous work by the most important composer of the entire Renaissance... At the moment, early music coverage on the list is highly skewed towards later works. Aza24 (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Please don't present patterns of the likely nationality, religion, or ethnicity of other editors when discussing their responses to an RFC. It's never constructive and can end poorly. There's really no reason to compile information on editors to present at an RFC in any situation. If you have evidence rather than hunches about possible canvassing or other disruption present your evidence in the right venue. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
On 12 February 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Kelvin Kiptum, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Bagumba ( talk) 10:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Uh starship.paint, you accidentally archived the William T. Anderson debate on the VA project, not the Tarana Burke discussion. SailorGardevoir ( talk) 01:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al Jazeera.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Diff for context
Apologies if you were already aware :) FortunateSons ( talk) 14:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
Starship.paint,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mann Mann (
talk) 05:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year! | |
Hello Starship.paint: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary
blisters. |
An article that been involved with ( George Pell) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article ( Name to be decided). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. _ MB190417_ ( talk) 14:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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 until the discussion has finished.
Oaktree b ( talk) 16:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Adrian Adonis with rose.jpg. 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. -- Minorax«¦ talk¦» 04:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
On 14 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to media outlet WLOS, surveillance footage appears to contradict the initial police account of the shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer at his home in Murphy, North Carolina? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
What was this about? I was responding to TFD's assertion as to what "we believed". There's no problem presenting a contrary possibility on the talk page. It's not article text. Maybe the rhetorical device was too indirect, certainly it appears for Ernie, but I would not have expected such a response from you. The point was that there are large swaths of text on that page that do not follow the sources. There is no source that verifies the existance of a laptop, e.g. I'm only bugging you about this because I have no doubt that your comment will empower those who continue to push such unverified text. Cheers SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I meant to ping you on this edit, but, clearly, failed. Sorry about that!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
As I see it, SPECIFICO's poll is, essentially, a request for an early closure (and scrapping) of your poll. I don't really see why that needs to be up top, but, given that you started the poll, I think, absent some consensus otherwise, you should have say as to where it goes.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you all for notifying me of your issues, @ Jerome Frank Disciple, SPECIFICO, and Space4Time3Continuum2x: Unfortunately, I am rather busy at this time to edit much, and defer to the judgment of other editors on such issues. starship .paint ( exalt) 23:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The notability is in this case not about the number of sources, but about whether it will be a news event only, or something with WP:SUSTAINED coverage. If the latter is lacking, then it isn't a notable subject, no matter how many good sources you have. Fram ( talk) 12:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Gaah. I've gotten so used to the auto-sign feature of the new reply tool (and many other newer scripts), I find I'm often forgetting to manually add my signature when I need to. Thanks for covering for me. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
The Helping Hand Barnstar | ||
Thanks for the user talk page help! Springee ( talk) 02:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC) |
I've added a nom on In the news - not totally sure about the blurbs; any thoughts/want to tweak? Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Jason Chee (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 02:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Shooting of Aderrien Murry at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mhhossein talk 07:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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 until the discussion has finished.
Oaktree b ( talk) 02:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
On 15 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shooting of Aderrien Murry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that police in Indianola, Mississippi, shot an unarmed 11-year-old African-American boy after responding to his 9-1-1 call for help at his home? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shooting of Aderrien Murry. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Shooting of Aderrien Murry), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Z1720 ( talk) 00:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 8,536 views (711.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2023 – nice work! |
GalliumBot ( talk • contribs) (he/ it) 03:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I have seen that you removed this primary source from the r/place article. Now, I know secondary sources are preferred, but in this case I believe that the primary source can be kept. If you were to check the secondary source from "the guillotine" part, you can see that it used one similar Reddit post as its source ( this one). Also, though used less, in some cases primary sources can still be used on Wikipedia (see WP:PRIMARY). Of course, if a secondary source covering this appears, we can replace the primary one. Thank you! Alin2808 ( talk) 12:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive | |
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
Hello Starship.
You've violated the 24-BRD page restriction at Donald Trump by repeating your addition of content concerning the details of Trump's sexual abuse of E. Jean Carroll. The sequence is
Please self-revert you reinstatement of that content and use the article talk page if necessary. This wording is UNDUE and unencyclopedic detail for the main Trump page and it comes off as rather salacious, irrelevant, and weird when the central fact is that the judge found that her rape statement was reasonable and that Trump continued to defame her.
Thanks
SPECIFICO
talk 13:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that User:Jerome Frank Disciple retired after suffering a number of things, including accusations and incivility by User:SPECIFICO. I wanted to raise concerns because I believe User:SPECIFICO pattern of behavior often results in editors getting discouraged/abandoning.
You seem both experienced and familiar with SPECIFICO, so you seemed like the right person to go to in helping.
I believe he may be engaged in WP:BRD misuse or WP:BRRR. I'm not sure: I'm not very experienced, so there may be a different way to interpret the pattern.
1. Excessive reverts of good edits
2. Quality of talk page discussion
3. Bad-faith and excessive warnings on user talk pages
NPOV-pushing can be more subjective, so I'm trying to focus solely on the meta-pattern of behavior. More specifically:
1. At times he has been an extremely frequent reverter for a number of significant pages, including hot-topic issues like Hunter Biden laptop controversy, Donald Trump.
2. These reverts seem excessive not just by their quantity, but because they are not thought out or are willfully ignorant of the specifics: e.g. [2] he reverted an edit that was supported by reliable statements because there were additional sources that were not reliable; he could have simply removed the unreliable source. He reverts an edit here [3] because it is a "primary source"; however, the primary source is justifying the statement "[Source] stated [statement]". The fact that he makes frequent reference to them suggests that he is not unfamiliar with them; when it misapplies them, it looks less like a misunderstanding and more like intentional misuse.
3. He posts an excessive number of talk-page warnings, many of which seem designed to intimidate, especially new users, and makes serious false accusations "by mistake" In the last month alone: [4] [5] [6]
4. He makes frequent reference to WP policies as justification in situations where they do not apply.
5. He has an extremely active and direct style. This is normally good, but when a reasonable fraction of edits are non-constructive, it can overwhelm normal discourse. When his directness is factored in, it can emotionally drain editors.
6. A long-time editor redited because of his accusations [7] and incivility [8]
Put together, it begins to look like not the intended use of BRD:
1. He makes an excessive number of reverts, not all of which are well-considered, in order to force discussion onto the talk page.
2. His reverts are often based on "no consensus" and/or "mistaken" application of WP rules, without opening talk page discussions.
3. On the talk page, he does not always engage in the best, substantive discussion, but seems to try to holds off the achievement of what he sees as "consensus". Sometimes he is constructive, but frequently he does not refute central points.
4. He makes frequent reference to the WP:BRP cycle to "educate" users, e.g.: [9]
5. In pursuit of ad-hominem, he posts an unreasonable number of warnings and accusations on other user's talk pages.
A good edit cycle means discussion. However, when this style is excessively and selectively applied, it begins to look like WP:BRD misuse.
I'm not sure how to put this all together: perhaps you have a better interpretation of what is going on.
Four days after this user joined Wikipedia, he ended up on ANI for edit warring. [10] He has been topic-banned and wiki-banned repeatedly. However, as soon as bans expire, he seems to act the same way as before. Editing Wikipedia is usually a pleasant experience; today it was not, and I think many editors feel the same way after interacting with him. It's too bad the process allows this to happen.
Frankly, I found it exhausting, so I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 22:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
this is being referred to as SPECIFICO seeking revenge for a sanction imposed against herself, and it is hard to avoid that conclusion ... SPECIFICO's conduct loathsome ... reward sanction-gaming. However, admin Newyorkbrad did not take any action towards SPECIFICO. While this action wasn't good, it is not necessarily worth a sanction on its own.
I support your proposal here: ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC_on_Module:Find_sources_-_replace_New_York_Times_with_Associated_Press) but I'm unable to comment as I'm blocked. I'm not T-Banned from the topic though. Feel free to copy over my indication of support as a member of the community if you so wish. I support it for the same reasons as you have identified in your vote of support below the proposal. Jack4576 ( talk) 08:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Starship.paint, Tamzin, and Jack4576: Starship, just saw this as I reviewed the RfC at Village Pump. Posting at VP appears to fall within Jack's block from W space pages. I don't understand their point about not being banned from "the topic" - whatever topic that may be? Topic of references? Am I missing something, because this appears to be a violation of their sanction? SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the closing. Could you please go ahead and configure the list of deprecated sources accordingly since I, being the discussion initiator, do not feel it'd be right for me to do so? - The Gnome ( talk) 13:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:TWL, or something. Levivich ( talk) 16:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
The Death Barnstar | ||
For your efforts contributing to the page Palestinian genocide accusation. Awarded by Cdjp1 ( talk) 12:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC) |
You can't (effectively) edit that page directly. Its entire contents are built every few minutes on-the-fly by a bot, so changes made to it will quickly be erased. If you need to fix something in an RM listing, that has to be done at the RM at the talk page of the page proposed to be moved/renamed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I missed the whole thing because I'm at a reading group with friends, but want to quickly note some things before I return to it. Frankly it got me scared to see I was at AN again, though quickly dissipated since by the time I saw it the thread was already closed.
1) I appreciated your support and don't think you have anything against me. I think we disagree on a few things but I've seen you around and generally trust your judgement as an editor. I found the near unanimous support touching and a sign that regardless of what people thought about my original case, people agreed my editing has improved and I wouldn't be an issue from now on. 2) nothing I said was disingenuous. I spent over a month drafting that appeal and part of that length of time was trying to balance the pragmatic/cynical advice to confess to everything with my principles that I will not admit to something I didn't do. I meant every word I said in that appeal. I said it a lot more tactfully than in the past, and very intentionally tried not to be rash or run my mouth off and generally carry myself with the decorum expected of me. I was under the impression that's part of what the community wanted from me. I'll note I have a reputation of being honest to a fault (for better or worse according to my critics and supporters lol) 3) the following is a hill I will die on: "you are biased against anti-trans groups and activists, therefore you are a danger to any article vaguely related to trans people" - was a grossly disproportionate response. My work in GENSEX was not a monolith and it was hurtful a specific subset of it (and I emphasize, specifically regarding hate groups and quacks) was generalized to all of it. Apples to oranges. I would not have appealed early in the first place if the ban had originally been a lighter/more targeted sanction on editing regarding anti-trans groups. All I ask is you try and put yourself in my shoes and consider how the scope of the ban relative to the charges felt. 4) like I said in my rant, and my recent appeal, and my earlier appeal(s) - I'm in no rush to edit about anti-trans groups again. I want to write about queer history again, the collateral damage of my original case per point 3. It's a purely factual statement that all my articles have had a long time consensus they're written according to NPOV, RS, and FRINGE. Also a factual statement that SPAs repeatedly said they're not, and have been refuted by consensus. I have no reason or motivation to edit them because as I've repeatedly said and fully believe, I have faith in the Wikipedia community to steward and improve them without my input. 5) like I said, I've had my lips stapled shut for months. Sure, it was a rant, but frankly I think anyone banned is entitled to a rant when unbanned to let it out of their system before editing again. In my opinion it's much better, for both Wikipedia and the individual editor, to vent honestly and openly and decompress before editing than it is to bottle it up and not be honest about the psychological effects of the ban. 6) for my curiosity, what parts of my rant did you consider factually incorrect? You quoted a few things, but I'm not sure what parts you actually objected to.
Best regards (on my phone and I've yet to update my sig so I think the new username won't show yet lol), TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 04:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I am not a danger to every article and discussion vaguely queer(asking the tban to end) was downright weird because I never was a danger to
every article and discussion vaguely queer, and the jury was hung on whether I was even a danger to
every article about anti-trans activists. The original ANI close noted my commitment to addressing the issues raised (such as battleground behavior and RS), and in subsequent discussions I've always noted that many criticisms were true and tried to present hard evidence I've been working on them. Regardless, I want to emphasize, I want to return to the non-controversial GENSEX articles for a while. There's a long todo list I've already got (translate Trans history in Brazil, fix up LGBT rights in New York, finish Tri-Ess, start adding in the images I uploaded to commons, etc) where I can edit in near guaranteed peace from PROFRINGE battleground behaviors from others. I'm even staying away from the articles like Gays Against Groomers where my work was overwhelmingly well-recieved (by editors, if not the group or their fans lol). Other editors can focus on anti-trans activism - I just want to relax and write about queer history since it's hurt like hell to be cut off from that.
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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I believe it was improper to close that discussion at 4-3 and have reopened it. p b p 14:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
On 12 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nakba denial, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nakba denial is a form of historical negationism pertaining to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nakba denial. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Nakba denial), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Aoidh ( talk) 00:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I now avoid vital rankings completely, but would urge you to renominate Nuper rosarum flores and Missa Pange lingua. Simply put, Nuper rosarum is the most important work by the most important European composer of the entire 14th century. Missa Pange lingua is the most famous work by the most important composer of the entire Renaissance... At the moment, early music coverage on the list is highly skewed towards later works. Aza24 (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Please don't present patterns of the likely nationality, religion, or ethnicity of other editors when discussing their responses to an RFC. It's never constructive and can end poorly. There's really no reason to compile information on editors to present at an RFC in any situation. If you have evidence rather than hunches about possible canvassing or other disruption present your evidence in the right venue. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
On 12 February 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Kelvin Kiptum, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Bagumba ( talk) 10:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Uh starship.paint, you accidentally archived the William T. Anderson debate on the VA project, not the Tarana Burke discussion. SailorGardevoir ( talk) 01:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al Jazeera.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Diff for context
Apologies if you were already aware :) FortunateSons ( talk) 14:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)