Please feel free to post any comments or messages for Thucydides411 below:
First of all it is siege and not "seige" equipment. Secondly whoever wrote that Hannibal didn't have the siege equipment to assault Rome lacks some basic knowledge about warfare in this time. Siege equipment was constructed right on the spot. Naturally it could be done much faster if essential (metal)parts were transported with the army, but that accounts for the buildup speed and by no means for the ability to do so (instead of metal leather or ropes could be used, etc., naturally often decreasing efficiency). Hannibal (as Bagnall points out) wasn't able to stay on the same spot for a long time and so he couldn't construct sufficient siege equipment to take well fortified positions, but like all other commanders (for example ALL Roman commanders) of his age he didn't carry the heavy wooden equipment for hundreds of miles from one place to another. So could you kindly correct this or provide a source for any army of this time hauling along giant siege ballistae and siege towers on their march. Greetings Wandalstouring 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the spelling error, but if that were the problem, you could have just corrected it. Secondly, you spelled "Greetings" wrong. You might like to look at the section "Aftermath" in the Battle of Cannae article. This is where I got the siege equipment statement from. If that's in error, then you should correct it. -- Thucydides411 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for joining up and participating in the Juan Cole mediation page. If you haven't already, I'd recommend reading a bit from the (lengthy) Juan Cole talk page and the evolving discussions on the mediation page, just to see what points have and haven't been covered. With respect to mediation, it might be best not to re-open a can of worms that have been brought up and argued before, but instead to focus that very relevant restlessness that you presumably feel (along with several others including myself) in ways that directly answer current and particular problems on the table for debate on the mediation page.
Right now the specific foreground issues appear to be questions of whether Cole's blog is a RS, whether Karsh's "protocols of zion" quote is biographical or notable (or whether it is less), and how exactly to present them in an article without compromising a tone of neutrality if at all possible. Those are easier to nail down than what someone's motives are, so if you disagree with the content those are the conversations I'd suggest you take a look at and contribute to.
Also, the mediation page is supposed to have a moderator setting things in order and looking for a solution, but he's been gone for a few weeks now and many are waiting for his return before posting at all. As it is right now, he will have lots of catching up to do and things to sort out, and likely will be disappointed with how chaotic the page already is in it's present state, all the more reason to stay on topic. Just some points to consider. Abbenm 06:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The mediation is not dead, please to not try to force the outcome of it by unilaterally editing it to reflect your POV. Isarig 05:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thucydides, I personally agree with your views on the Karsh comments, but it appears the mediation has not been declared dead yet. According to the rules, such as they are, we must wait until the process has come to some sort of conclusion. Wachholder0 19:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Over the past 4 days you have removed that material 7 times and have been reverted by 3 different editors; the consensus is clearly against you here. I'm going to look into adding Cole's response to make it more balanced. - Merzbow 22:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I see you have met the editors who hover over the Juan Cole article. I was thinking that, if you wish to have the offensive and potentially libelous material removed, the best way would be to argue in the mediation and talk pages that it is a blatant violation of WP:BLP. Consider the following:
Writing style
Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material
Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.
Biased or malicious content
Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association.
I believe the now infamous "Karsh quote" violates these aspects of WP:BLP. I believe you acted in good faith to remove edits you saw as bias & libelous and thus did not violate 3RR. Anyway, these may be helpful points to address if you wish to continue your struggle. Godspeed through Texas, Wachholder0 15:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Heimstern Läufer 05:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thucydides411 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did not edit any section more than thrice in 24 hours. I edited two separate sections, the first of which is the subject of a long-standing dispute. For the second section, I provided quotes supporting my position, as the argument was over a factual detail. This block, especially coming after I had for a time ceased activity on the article, is political.
Decline reason:
Merzbow is right. The reverts don't have to be identical, nor to the same section. Any time you revert more than three edits within 24 hours that are not explicit vandalism, you are violating 3RR, and are liable to get blocked. The more you revert, the harsher the blocks get. This is intended to help editors cool their heads and avoid edit wars. So, calm down and wait out your block. You can survive for one day.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Also Sie sagen, dass irgendwelche drei reverts in 24 Stunden können mir blockieren, ungeachtet wie begründet sie sind? Und was soll mann machen, wenn es drei bestimmte Redakteure gibt, die als Gruppe den gleichen Text wiedereinsetzen werden? Muss mann in diesem Fall alles akzeptieren, was sie im Artikel sehen wünschen, denn das ist soweit die Geschichte dieses Artikels? - Thucydides411 22:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Test-Feed-icon.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion involving you at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
No script was involved. You are more than welcome to nominate for deletion any articles you see unfit to stay. -- Merovingian ( T, C, L) 18:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, please continue discussion and allow time, there is no hurry. A citation is not a gold badge for inclusion - WP:SYNTH and such like are policy. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there some connection between your account an User:Darouet? Off2riorob ( talk) 22:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday I resurrected the "Criticism" section of this article, adding several new entries and renaming it. Yet the editors who invited me to do this, are now moving to, once again, eliminate it. I notice you seem to favor a more balanced approach; your input would be appreciated. Thank you. Apostle12 ( talk) 19:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User talk:Ndickinson1. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cindy( talk to me) 23:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Thucydides, some concerns have been expressed about the involvement of a government official in suggesting language for this article. I notice you expressed similar concerns on the talk page. We've had the same problem with multinationals being invited to supply drafts for articles about themselves.
The issue of NDAA and what happened there is being discussed at COIN here in case you have any interest in commenting. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " White privilege". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I was looking for someone who might become a DRN volunteer to take on the current listing involving the Copernican principle and was looking through the members of WikiProject Astronomy and saw where you say you're a astronomy grad student. I recall that you've been involved in a couple of DRN matters in the past and know how it works. If you don't have a conflict of interest with any of the many listed participants in that dispute, I wonder if you might become a volunteer and take it on? Even if everyone doesn't weigh in, I'm thinking that this is one that might ought to be answered because at least a couple of the primary disputants have weighed in, and because it is at least indirectly a referral from ArbCom. See also this. I'm strongly suspicious that we're seeing some cheesy fringe here, but I don't have the technical expertise to determine whether the proffered material (best seen all in one spot in this edit) is a relevant response to what was already in the article or is OR by an amateur who is misunderstanding the sources. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC) PS: Plus, we'd love to have you as a volunteer, in general. — TM
Assuming this was a mistake... be careful. Cavarrone ( talk) 22:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest you reveal your Suburban Express COI before undertaking further edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.115 ( talk) 17:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Thucydides411! Thank you for
your contributions. I am
TheOriginalSoni and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on
my talk page. You can also check out
Wikipedia:Questions or type {{
helpme}}
at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 18:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iraq War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hussein Kamel ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Iraq War. 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.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. ( Hohum @) 17:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
While I would like to refrain from editing while we discuss, you simply can't expect another user to wait days on end to receive a reply. This process has already dragged on quite a long time mainly because you decided to address rather small details of my very large edits one by one, ignoring the format I laid out to speed up the dispute resolution. At the rate we are currently going the dispute will take a year or so to be resolved.
CJK ( talk) 00:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Please feel free to edit or comment on my new essay on children's nonfiction as sources for various subjects. I read your comments a few months ago in Talk:United States Bill of Rights#Personal point of view - historically incorrect: Inflamatory. Nick Levinson ( talk) 18:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - Darouet ( talk) 20:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Concerning my revert, the problem was not browser rendering; it was a server-side error that stated the mark-up was broken. However, it seems to have been a glitch; I see no such error now. Meanwhile thanks for the improvements. Strebe ( talk) 01:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you discussed editing the white privilege page. There is currently an open discussion on that page which you may be able to contribute to. Ancholm ( talk) 13:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we could put in the infobox "Israeli victory (according to IDF)" like here. Or something like that.-- Wlglunight93 ( talk) 09:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Anzac Day. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
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 breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
In 1945, the British Labour Party, led by Clement Attlee, was elected to office based on a radical socialist programme. Nor am I relying on a "textbook for children" - the source is a reliable source used by at least two well respected federal government departments, and quoted extensively by one. The message here is though, don't edit-war. Removing a valid source because you don't like it is unnaceptable. Discuss the matter. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 00:22, 4 May 2015 (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) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Darouet has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{ subst:Kittynap}}
For creating the very great article Phaleas of Chalcedon! Darouet ( talk) 00:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darouet ( talk) 04:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm a Palestinian and Palestinian are not an ethnic but nationality.-- HailesG ( talk) 20:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Thucydides411. 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)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
In light of your recent comment at AE, and the fact that we've only interacted for the first time a couple days ago (I think), I got to ask - has someone recently been in contact with you off-wiki in regards to the AE report or your edits in this topic area? Your comments are a part of a pattern by some users, which read like they've been fed scripted information by someone. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
You've now streaked past the post on any claim to be sitting in judgement. You're actively engaged using wp as your court. You've also disregarded the fact that VM has told you that there was a counter-faction to EEML. Certainly, those activities are possibly still going on, but on which side? Will you please respond to whether anyone has contacted you offwiki? It should be simple to answer. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 00:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I think Thucydides411 is who he says he is. In fact part of the reason why he was the one I came to ask about this issue was because, as I said, he seemed like a decent honest sort. Yeah, that prior has unfortunately been adjusted a bit, but I still believe that to be basically the case. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Did you notice that you violated 1RR restriction for this page today already twice? My very best wishes ( talk) 01:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an obvious violation of 1RR rule twice during eight hours. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I am telling this because you continued violating 1RR on this page even after my post above. For example, this your series of edits (I do not count the bot) and this edit are another violation. My very best wishes ( talk) 23:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi 411. You've violated 1 RR with your recent removal of content at Russian Interference. Please self-revert. SPECIFICO talk 05:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Julian Assange shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Just to note - I made one revert. You made three. Four actually in a bit over 24 hours. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:WORDS. You are recurrently using florid and WP:POV language such as this, which contravenes WP:CLAIM. I think you need to cool down on the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and stay aware of the fact that this project is WP:NOTNEWS, and that editors do not write as if they were journalists. I suggested to you a while ago that you are going to end up painting yourself into a corner by diving into the deep end. This was advice offered in good faith, despite your not believing that to be my motivation. I stand by that advice, and am offering it again. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | ||
The Anti-Flame Barnstar is awarded for users that have kept cool in conflicts, as well as resolving them. James J. Lambden ( talk) 03:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
The Civility Barnstar | ||
For keeping an even temperament and maintaining civility during disagreements. I'm not sure how you do it but it makes wikipedia a better place. Darouet ( talk) 05:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
That thing you keep reinstating is a talk page violation, as an experienced editor such as yourself should know. I could have deleted it or hatted it but I chose the weakest of the permitted alternatives to remove it. Do as you choose, your actions are on the record. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
"Do as you choose, your actions are on the record."You can leave out these crude attempts at intimidation in your future communication with me. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 23:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
You made an edit changing the lede. I reverted it. DS requires you to achieve consensus on talk prior to any repetition of the edit that I challenged by revert. You failed to do so. Please undo your violation and let's go to talk. I've stated the basis of my revert. You may respond on talk and I will engage there with others. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
A complaint has been lodged at WP:AE that pertains to you here --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 08:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. —
Coffee //
have a cup //
beans // 01:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Moved to WP:AE. Sandstein 08:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: As Steve Quinn has made a post at the appeal, I'd just like to address their point. I'm not able to edit at AE, so I'm not sure if there's some way of adding this into my appeal. In any case, this is what I'd like to say:
@ Coffee: Could you at least address any of the points that I made in my appeal? The frustrating thing about these proceedings is that nobody has explained why new interpretations of policy should be applied retroactively (in a situation in which many experienced editors have themselves expressed confusion about what the DS restrictions imply), and why that policy should be applied only to a single editor, when that editor's behavior was in no way unusual for the page. I feel that some attempt should have been made originally to address these points, and at the very least, they should be addressed in the appeal. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 09:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: To your point that, "To do that, the appeal would have to show that the edits at issue were not in fact violations of the restriction - i.e., that they were not reinstatements of edits challenged via reversion," I'd just like to point out that what you're asking is impossible in this situation. You yourself write that you do not understand what the restrictions actually mean ("I find the restriction at issue (too) difficult to understand and apply"), and we know that several experienced admins disagree with the interpretation I was blocked under. So what am I supposed to prove? That those admins are more correct than the admin that blocked me?
I'm also really shocked that you don't seem to think it's relevant that this block was given completely arbitrarily to me, rather than to the dozen or so other editors who were shown, in the proceedings, to have violated the exact same restriction (assuming the new interpretation of the DS restrictions is the correct one). This just makes a mockery of the idea that arbitration enforcement is carried out in some sort of fair manner. You also dismissed my entire first two points without actually addressing any of the substance of the arguments. The fact that I acted in good faith, following the policy advice of admins, has bearing on whether a sanction is warranted. If I acted in good faith, then a block is punitive, not preventative.
As far as I can see, the original sanction was given without actually addressing any of these points - the arbitrariness of singling out one editor, almost at random, out of a dozen to sanction, and the question of good faith in following policy advice from admins. Yet now you're saying that these issues cannot be addressed in the appeal, meaning that the sanction will stand without any of the obvious questions being answered. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@
Laser brain: I don't think you even read my appeal, or that you paid any close attention to the original case, for that matter. I provided evidence that according to the interpretation that admins had given us of the DS restrictions, I did not reinstate an edit challenged by reversion. MelanieN directly told us, "removal of longstanding material actually counts as an 'edit', which under the DS can be reverted and should then not be removed again without consensus."
Under that interpretation, the original removal was an "edit," and my restoration of that material was the first "revert." The user that removed that material again was then in breach of DS restrictions. That was the interpretation of MelanieN and NeilN, and it's the interpretation that all of us on the page were using. You take a completely opposite view from those admins on what the DS restrictions mean - one which is opposite from what everyone working at that page assumed they meant. How you can then say that the restrictions are not difficult to understand is beyond me. If they're so simple to understand, then there wouldn't be so many admins and editors confused about what constitutes an edit and what constitutes and revert, and what "long-standing" means.
This is not even to mention the fact that none of you have addressed the complete arbitrariness of this decision, and why you've ignored all requests by editors who commented in the original case to look into the behavior of all involved editors (most of whom reinstated challenged edits, as proven by the evidence provided in the case). Frankly, I don't even mind not editing for a week. What I mind is that the admins each have their own differing interpretation of policy, enforce their personal interpretations completely arbitrarily, and feel no need to explain their decision-making. I don't see why I should spend any of my time contributing to a project where the admins behave so disrespectfully towards the contributors. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 20:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@
NeilN: I can't edit at the arbitration proceedings (my block is Wikipedia-wide), but I can respond here. First of all, thanks for taking the time to respond to my appeal.
Here is what Coffee says about why I was blocked:
"Thucydides411 (talk · contribs) reinstated two edits that had been challenged without first obtaining consensus, thereby violating the page restriction."( [8])
Coffee's interpretation here is that when I reverted SPECIFICO's removal of text relating to Clapper, I was reinstating challenged material. This is in direct contradiction to what MelanieN told us:
"Actually, according to several discussions at my talk page where more experienced admins explained and interpreted the DS process: 1, 2 removal of longstanding material actually counts as an 'edit', which under the DS can be reverted and should then not be removed again without consensus."( [9])
Here, MelanieN was echoing your comment that:
" Anythingyouwant, I do not interpret the DS wording that way. The removal of longstanding content is the edit that can be challenged via reversion."( [10])
You further clarified that:
"I think the wording carefully specifies "reinstating any edits that have been challenged" instead of "reinstating any additions that have been challenged" for this very reason."( [11])
Awilley agreed with your interpretation of DS:
"I agree with NeilN's interpretation. The wording is meant to favor the status quo and stabilize the article, and it's main function IMO is to get people to follow WP:BRDby preventing them from making a Bold edit and then immediately reverting the Revert (gaming the 1RR)."( [12])
Later in that discussion, you defined "longstanding" for heavily edited articles like Donald Trump as 4-6 weeks:
"And editors will want you to define what "longstanding" means. For me, it depends on the article. For an article as highly edited and intensely watched as Donald Trump I'm generally using a time period of 4-6 weeks."( [13])
So, to recap, MelanieN told the editors at 2016 United States election interference by Russia that whenever an editor removes longstanding content from an article, that is an (not a revert), and when another editor restores that longstanding material, that is a revert, which challenges the removal. DS restrictions then prevent that material from being removed again until consensus has been reached to do so. MelanieN linked us to a discussion where you and a number of other admins worked this interpretation of DS out.
When
Coffee says that I restored an edit that had been challenged by reversion, they are referring to my restoration of longstanding material.
Coffee is using the definition that DS prevents reinstatement of additions, whereas the interpretation that you gave on
MelanieN's talk page (and which she relayed to us) was that removal of longstanding text is an edit that can be challenged by reversion. I assumed your definition was correct when I challenged the removal of longstanding material. Again,
Coffee's interpretation, that I "reinstated two edits that had been challenged without first obtaining consensus,"
is in direct contradiction with how you,
MelanieN and
Awilley defined "challenge," "edit" and "reinstate" in your discussion of DS.
In the appeal, Darouet clearly documents the series of edits and reverts in question: [14]. This series of diffs shows clearly that I was acting in accordance with the interpretation of DS that you, MelanieN and Awilley elaborated.
I acted in good faith, according to what I thought were clear policy guidelines handed down by admins. If those policy directives were wrong, that's fine, but I simply think it's punitive to receive a block.
Sandstein has said that sanctioning an editor who follows admin advice on policy is fine, because admins aren't bound by what other admins say: "any one (or several) administrator's interpretation of a specific restriction is not binding on other admins, the only binding guidance is that of ArbCom."
(
[15]) I respectfully disagree. I don't think that's a fair way to hand out sanctions, and it's inherently punitive (rather than preventative) to sanction editors for following admin advice on policy. -
Thucydides411 (
talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
It's jaw-dropping to see Thucydides putting words into the mouths of @ MelanieN:, @ Coffee:, @ Awilley: or misappropriate and misapply their words entirely out of context. This has been pointed out to Thucydides very many times by many different users. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: I was wondering if you could remove SPECIFICO's comment from my appeal. SPECIFICO makes a lot of claims about my editing (e.g., "longstanding disruptive editing in a American Politics"), but doesn't provide any diffs. As far as I can see, SPECIFICO's contribution is just a series of unsubstantiated claims and accusations. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 02:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
There are two separate editing restrictions in place for that article, both independent of each other.
Any edit means any edit, whether addition of new material, the tweaking of long-standing existing material, or the removal of long-standing existing material. The meaning of "long-standing" changes from article to article. As with Donald Trump, I would take it to mean 4-6 weeks for this article. One this challenge has happened, no editor should be re-doing the addition/tweaking/deletion without obtaining consensus.
This is the more prosaic WP:1RR. It is somewhat superfluous given the above, but is useful to stop individual editors from edit warring over new material. Scenario:
It can also work out this way:
WP:1RR is there to tell you that even if the "consensus required" restriction is violated, Editor B still can't edit war. It also keeps things under control if there's a dispute about what is "long-standing". -- NeilN talk to me 00:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@
Coffee: "So, are you saying there wasn't a violation or that because he misinterpreted the letter of the restriction, and of other administrator's views on the restriction, there can't be a violation?"
I don't think I misinterpreted MelanieN's views on DS. Here's what she said:
"Actually, according to several discussions at my talk page where more experienced admins explained and interpreted the DS process: 1, 2 removal of longstanding material actually counts as an 'edit', which under the DS can be reverted and should then not be removed again without consensus."( [16])
I restored longstanding material to the page, which MelanieN says above is in line with DS.
As to what "longstanding" means, you write that
"As these edits weren't able to stand for even 40 days without being challenged, I can only see the stated misinterpretation by Thucydides411 to be an attempt to do just that."
But in the discussion that MelanieN pointed us to NeilN specifically defined "longstanding" as 4-6 weeks:
"And editors will want you to define what "longstanding" means. For me, it depends on the article. For an article as highly edited and intensely watched as Donald Trump I'm generally using a time period of 4-6 weeks."( [17])
The material that was deleted had been in the article for more than 5 weeks, so it meet's NeilN's definition of "longstanding."
You can take a different view of what "longstanding" means, and what constitutes an "edit" vs. a "revert." But I was trying to edit according to the policies that MelanieN and NeilN had spelled out for us. I'd actually like some clarity on what the DS restrictions exactly mean, and it would be extremely helpful to get some definitive guidance. But to be sanctioned based on an interpretation of DS that I had been explicitly told by an admin on the talk page was wrong (see the quote by MelanieN above) seems wrong. I'd like to abide by policy, but I'd like for that policy to be predictable, rather than dependent on which admin I'm talking to. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 02:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
"For an article as highly edited and intensely watched as Donald Trump I'm generally using a time period of 4-6 weeks"). After JFG challenged SPECIFICO's edit, SPECIFICO should have gone to seek consensus for the edit on the talk page. After they removed it a second time, which was a clear violation of the DS rules that MelanieN had explained to us, I reverted what I saw as SPECIFICO's clear DS violation.
"well articulated"comment: [23]. Several editors (myself included) urged SPECIFICO to bring any concerns they might have to the BLP noticeboard, where uninvolved editors could give their opinions.
@ Awilley: @ NeilN: @ MelanieN: This discussion needs to be on a public page. I have commented here only to have another editor erase my comments, and now I see myself disparaged by an editor who continues, despite repeated requests to desist, to misrepresent my view and other editors' views on this matter. Any further discussion should reside at ARCA where we can have the benefit of the appropriate attention to this site-wide matter of importatnce. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Coffee: From your latest post at AE, it seems that you weren't aware of the editing history when you handed down my sanction. How is it that one admin can hand down a sanction after only a cursory glance at a case, but several other admins who look into the case in detail and disagree with your ruling cannot overturn it?
I'm also quite stunned that you can look at the editing history and come to the conclusion that Darouet, JFG and I were gaming the system. If you look at the editing history, and the talk page discussion that goes along with it, you'll see that a few editors were combing through the article and deleting any material that suggested something other than the official US government narrative, and then giving extremely flimsy and cursory justifications on the talk page. A number of editors, including myself and the two others you said were gaming the system, explained in detail why we thought the deletions were wrong. For example, we explained in detail why mention of Clapper's false Senate testimony is not a BLP violation (he's a public figure, the fact that he gave false testimony has been widely reported on, and the article did not state in the voice of Wikipedia that Clapper's testimony was false, but rather attributed that claim). I'd be much more inclined to say that the editors who removed that material on flimsy grounds, and then have systematically tried to get the editors who disagreed with them on the content question blocked, are the ones gaming DS. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 00:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@
Sandstein: You wrote that, "I find the restriction at issue (too) difficult to understand and apply."
So when are you going to overturn my sanction? That's the only principled course of action left in this case. It's clear from the diff history that I edited in good faith, according to the policy interpretation that
MelanieN and
NeilN laid out. You yourself say that you don't understand the restrictions, and since
MelanieN "violated" these restrictions in exactly the same way as I supposedly did, it's clear she didn't understand them either (at least, her understanding was totally different from
Coffee's). At this point, it's almost sort of a joke that I'm sanctioned - for an offense that you admit to not understanding, whose definition
Coffee,
MelanieN and
NeilN disagree on, that
Laser brain has said was applied unfairly, which half a dozen editors "violated" in the exact same manner as I did, and which has now been deemed so confusing that it's now no longer in force. So when is any admin going to own this mess-up and remove my sanction?
I don't really care about not being allowed to edit for a week. I'll even voluntarily abstain from editing until the end of the week. It's just the fact that I've been sanctioned unfairly, on grounds that nobody quite seems to be able to explain or agree on, that annoys me. Again, the only principled thing to do is to remove the sanction, and I'm just waiting to see if any admin will actually admit that obvious fact. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 03:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: I feel strongly that a ruling should be made on the appeal, rather than just letting the sanction lapse or imposing a general "reset." At this point, I think the appeal has shown that:
If you don't agree with that factual basis, let me know, and why. It's all in the original case and the appeal, and if you'd like, I can provide diffs for any of the above that you disagree with.
At this point, I really have no idea why I'm sanctioned, and I don't know what I can do to avoid future sanction, other than withdrawing from editing contentious subjects entirely. An admin gave us a very clear policy interpretation. I and most editors followed it. But when the AE case came up, suddenly there was a new policy interpretation from a different admin, and of all the editors who violated that interpretation, I alone was sanctioned. Multiple admins commented that the DS restriction at issue was too difficult to understand - no matter.
What's the point of this block? What did I actually do wrong? And don't tell me that I reinstated a challenged edit without consensus - based on the very clear guideline that MelanieN laid down, I was the one challenging an edit that another user had made. This was normal Bold/Revert/Discuss behavior. An editor removed longstanding content. I reverted their removal. I laid out my objection to the removal in great detail on the talk page. That was perfectly in line with what MelanieN told us we should do, and with the policy interpretation that NeilN has given in the AE appeal.
So I'd like a ruling on the AE appeal, and I think it's obvious that anything other than an overturning of the original sanction would be almost comical at this point. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 01:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
"It's fair to assume that not everyone in that group was innocent. You yourself made about 50 edits of that article since January 1st, so you are a major participant."That reads a lot like, "You edited a lot, so you're probably guilty of something." I'm sorry, but I feel a little insulted if that's your reasoning for not responding to the facts of the case, which I've given above. This sanction, and the response of a few admins to the appeal, really is Kafkaesque. Nobody seems to be able to quite explain why I was sanctioned. The only admin who gave anything close to an explanation ( Coffee: that I supposedly restored a contested edit without consensus), takes a completely different view of what "restoring contested material" means from the other admins. According to the interpretation of other admins, I did precisely the opposite: I contested someone else's edit, and they reverted without consensus. Moreover, I was clearly following policy guidelines, given directly by an admin active on the page, in good faith, making the sanction purely punitive. If you agree that I was sanctioned based on a new, post facto interpretation of DS, that the sanction was punitive, and that I was arbitrarily chosen to be sanctioned, then you should add your name to the list of admins who support removing the block, and we can be done with this affair.
Even though another editor who was blocked for violated the restriction has been blocked and unblocked, you're still blocked. Even though the justification for your initial block was not unanimous, you're still blocked. Even though numerous administrators have called the restriction too difficult to understand and apply, you're still blocked. Even though the restrictions have in fact been removed from the article, you're still blocked. Sorry about all that, but at least it will expire soon. I hope you've learned a valuable lesson about how Wikipedia really works. Mr Ernie ( talk) 22:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Your above research into the interpretation of Consensus required has come up a few times in my searches. I just found that there was an Arbcom clarification request which resolved this. [35] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 16:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to discuss UNDUE issues relevant to SPECIFICO's revert of my inclusion of the Ali Watkins article at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Humanengr ( talk) 03:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
video Russian interference with the 2016 election... on election night... 67.233.35.234 ( talk) 18:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I felt that the consensus was there to add the material, so I made the edit. My suggestion would be to perhaps remove your latest comment on Talk. Otherwise, it might go back to "he said, she said" again, which would not be productive. :-).
That said, it was a good summary; thank you for making the effort to get more info added to the article. I enjoyed learning about this scandal, since I'm interested both in politics and in academia. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. BullRangifer ( talk) 07:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Striking after seeing the ban notice below. Be more careful in the future. Edit warring is not good, even if you're right. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 07:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are banned from the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article and its talk page, for 3 months.
You have been sanctioned for edit warring on the talk page and restoring challenged edits without consensus. This occurred only months after receiving a block at AE in February for similar conduct.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 21:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
You have continued to push your point of view that the Russia election interference is "alleged", recently going as far as to make provably false statements to support it. I have lost count of the number of editors who have repeatedly asked you to stop beating a dead horse and rehashing this. It is clear that you do not respect the consensus that was reached long ago in this matter because you keep bring it up.
Consider yourself warned that if you continue disrupting discussions in this fashion, I will raise the issue at Arbitration Enforcement with the recommendation that you be topic banned.- Mr X 17:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Steve Bannon Boasts About His Love of Thucydides for All the Wrong Reasons.
It's just a curious thing I found and it made me think of you. I haven't even read it, but thought you might find it funny. Have a good day. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you to a point on the JAR report, but SPECIFICO has decided to completely revert my edits [36]. DN ( talk) 03:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
I will look into it right away. Thank you for being patient. DN ( talk) 20:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC) |
My thinking is that the cite is either in the body, or that is just got moved around somewhere in the paragraph. Just give me a few moments to check. DN ( talk) 21:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Darknipples: Even if the citation exists somewhere in the article, the sentence has to be rephrased with clear attribution. Right now, the sentence sounds like it's coming from Wikipedia's authoritative voice, which would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Nevertheless, if there isn't a citation for the sentence, it has to be rephrased to something that is actually supportable by the references (e.g., the sentence that I wrote). - Thucydides411 ( talk) 21:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Is this old edit by a logged-out user something you want to keep, or something that you just didn't notice? You've edited the page several times since then, so I thought I'd ask instead of reverting. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
What is the point of this [37] when you know from the Talk page discussion [38] that you participated in that there is no consensus to include? That's not going to persist, and it's just edit warring. Geogene ( talk) 00:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Article talk pages are for disusing the article and how to improve it, not other edds, please stop. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Thucydides411. - Mr X 19:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Per this discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, you are banned from all edits and pages related to US-Russia relations for three months. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes the question of Russian interference in US elections. GoldenRing ( talk) 12:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Thucydides411. 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)
Happy Holidays | |
Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
Sorry for not responding to your last comment, but I explained everything already several times, and do not want to be blamed of bludgeoning the process or WP:TE. Happy editing, My very best wishes ( talk) 05:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
That whole thing could have been avoided had you simply provided the exact URL you found that phrase at. Simply saying "it's in the source" when it isn't actually at the cited URL is not helpful. Please be mindful of this in the future. — Huntster ( t @ c) 22:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
When others take the time to articulate a reasoned concern, it would be much more constructive to step back and consider their message.My reasoned concern is that you're stalking me. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 15:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Thuc! You asked about my "involvement" at the Trump articles and that's a fair question. It's true I rarely take admin actions at those articles where I am involved (my exceptions: to protect pages, to revdel certain edits, and to block obvious vandals and socks). What I normally do, if I observe a problem like a violation of the DS, is to warn the person and make sure they understand the rules. That's what I would have done in this case except that there were FOUR violations in quick succession. It was clear the person didn't understand or didn't intend to follow the rules, and I felt a block was necessary to stop the behavior. Hopefully they will learn from the explanations they are now getting, and not do it again. -- MelanieN ( talk) 06:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.
You need to use the article talk page. Coming fresh off your TBAN edit warring is not going to end well for you. Especially in your tag team.
SPECIFICO
talk 07:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Due notificiation, as I mentioned a diff directed at you by VM at AE, specifically this. The AE is about Eastern Europe/BLP - which Alliance for Securing Democracy would seem to fall under due to be an organization aimed at countering Russia. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Thucydides411. 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)
Hi Thucydides411,
What do you think about starting an RfC at the article? Something like this perhaps:
title: "== RfC about neutrality of article =="
topic: hist
statement: "Should the material added by Snooganssnoogans since October 13, 2017 be forked to another article dealing with criticism of the higher casualty estimates?" Jrheller1 ( talk) 04:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- MrClog ( talk) 19:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The ping isn't necessary. I'm watching that page. Geogene ( talk) 00:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Thucydides411,
I created an RFC discussion at the WikiLeaks talk page here.
Except, I wouldn't try telling other editors where they can comment and where they can not. - FlightTime ( open channel) 01:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Interested to know a few things you referred to in your revert summaries: why you considered my edit vandalism, what lewd language you are referring to, and for what reason you think “convicted felon” is not relevant enough to belong in the first sentence of the article. Thanks. Ponydepression ( talk) 22:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I don't want to annoy editors who have that article in their watchlist with this boring debate. Everything can be called opinion/point of view, when do we present a point of view as a fact in Wikivoice? When there is no disagreement or no contrary POV. Yet you didn't provide any reliable sources that disagree with what Cheney said. Also POVs are not removed from Wikipedia if they are from reliable sources, all point of views should be presented in Wikipedia but attribution is required.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 23:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I notice that you use this term quite a bit and am curious about what you mean by it. I suspect you're referring to the myriad Trump-Russia investigations. Is that correct? If not, what do you mean? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 19:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
... noch ein Argument für Dich: http://the-pen.co/this-is-a-copncerted-attack-on-press-freedom -- 93.211.223.124 ( talk) 03:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
You wrote:
Regarding your first sentence, I don't recall what I wrote about this. Would you please refresh my memory? What did I write that inspired the above?
Regarding your last sentence, that isn't a factor at all for me. My objections are purely related to factual accuracy and his denials of proven facts. That renders anyone, regardless of their standing on the left/right spectrum, an unreliable source, at least for certain issues, even if not for others.
I know that The Nation (which I practically never read, even though I'm definitely left of center) is considered slightly left of center, but Cohen has been taking pro-Putin and anti-American-Russia-policy positions for several years, including supporting the American "deep state" conspiracy theory. He's very much against the conclusions of American intelligence agencies, instead choosing to believe Russian intelligence. He also seems to think that admitting that America has interfered in foreign elections for many years (it certainly has) makes Russian interference in America's elections okay, and only a minor blip at that. That ends up making him a defender of the narrative put forth by Putin and Trump.
Help me understand this, because I was not aware of him until very recently. Where does he really stand on all these issues?
Also, regarding Putin, I don't see it useful to place him on the old American/Capitalist vs Russia/Communist spectrum as he's just another corrupt right-wing nationalist autocrat now. That makes Putin and Trump natural allies. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 16:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
"Regarding your first sentence, I don't recall what I wrote about this."Sure, I'll refresh your memory:
" He's on the same side as Trump, Putin, Hannity, Limbaugh, Bongino, and Alex Jones"( [42]). Trump, Putin, Hannity, Limbaugh, Bongino and Alex Jones are all considered right-wing figures. I don't see how they are on the "same side" as a left-leaning Princeton professor who gives a generally left-wing critique of Russia hawks in American politics.
"Regarding your last sentence, that isn't a factor at all for me. My objections are purely related to factual accuracy and his denials of proven facts."That proposition is undermined by your frequent political statements (e.g., calling Putin and Trump "natural allies," calling Trump a "spider," carelessly smearing Stephen Cohen as somehow similar to Alex Jones). If you don't want to give the impression of politically motivated editing, then don't make such statements. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 23:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
"I have never called Trump a "spider" in a literal or pejorative sense": Calling someone a spider sounds pretty pejorative to me. I understand, of course, that you were not literally calling him a spider. Figuratively calling someone a spider is definitively a highly negative characterization.
"I listed him among those people because they take the same position on the "deep state" and the Russiagate/Intelgate/Spygate matters, or am I wrong?"Please quote exactly what Stephen Cohen has said, and tell me how it is at all reasonable to compare those statements to those of Alex Jones.
"If he's been considered left-wing, maybe it's possible for him to be left-wing on some matters, and right-wing on these matters. Is that possible?"Do you consider Noam Chomsky's views on Russiagate to be right-wing? There are a number of left-wing commentators who are critical of Russiagate (Chomsky, Greenwald and Taibbi, to name a few). - Thucydides411 ( talk) 01:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
"Keep in mind that my comments and personal beliefs are different than my editing". Now, you're here asking me to provide more insight into Stephen Cohen. Shouldn't you have looked into his writings a bit more yourself before smearing him as being somehow similar to Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh?
Regarding /info/en/?search=July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike and the presence of armed insurgents in the 'Collateral Murder' video, you claim this article "says there had been insurgents in the area earlier in the day. Stop with the original research."
Please learn to read a little more thoroughly. It in fact says:
"In the first strike, the crews of two Apaches directed 30 mm cannon fire at a group of ten Iraqi men, including some armed men, standing where insurgents earlier that day had shot at an American Humvee with small arms fire."
And later (with references):
"In the video on the morning of July 12, 2007, the crews of two United States Army AH-64 Apache helicopters observe a gathering of men near a section of Baghdad in the path of advancing U.S. ground troops, some armed with AKMs and RPGs."
Now please go ahead and unrevert your reversion at Julian Assange!
Rosenkreutzer ( talk) 10:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Thucydides411,
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 16:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm Sorry for getting mad at you over the Iraq War in 2013.
CJK ( talk) 22:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello- the image (File:China administrative claimed included.svg) that appears on the China page has an incorrect Hanyu Pinyin form (Gùizhōu should be Guìzhōu). I don't know how to edit .svg files- do you have any idea how I can do this? What software would I use to edit an .svg??? Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 23:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Geographyinitiative: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've uploaded a corrected version of the file. The most straightforward way to fix small labeling problems like this in an SVG file is to open it up with a text editor. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 11:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Thucydides411,
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Thucydides411,
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I've already said all that is useful to say at DS, so I'd appreciate not being pinged further. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
You should respond to my pings at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Unsourced claims about a living person being involved in a criminal conspiracy.
Making seemingly false accusations against two editors and then not providing evidence is wrong and cowardly. Please do the right thing. Either present your evidence or retract your accusations. As I wrote there, I will happily retract anything I've gotten wrong, so explain it to us there. We are waiting. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy ( help!) 10:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
You are coming close to a topic ban from Russian interference in the 2016 US election (yes, another one). Please see my comment here. Bishonen | tålk 17:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC).
Please actually discuss your reversions at
Talk:Tedros Adhanom instead of simply edit-warring out data you don't like.
WP:BRD-NOT specifically states BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.
I have given you over 8 hours to engage in a discussion I began at the talk page, you have simply refused to participate. This type of behavior is tiresome. —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans // 07:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Darouet: It is just that in WP:AAGF it is mentioned "When involved in a discussion, it is best to think very carefully before citing WP:AGF.". Which is why I added a reference to it. And yes, there were two reverts back to back without an explanation in the discussion. I will assume that it was a mistake and that it will not happen again. May I remind you that @ Thucydides411: was very prompt to ask me to revert my attempt at creating a sub section citing the controversy around Tedros, making his explanation about the fact that he's not always online a bit fishy. But then again, it was a mistake obviously. I also want to note that Thucydides411 did not respect WP:AGF when they wrote what I perceived as a threat of retaliation because of my edit. I had just learned about BRD and that's what I was attempting. If it was in fact a threat, please don't do it again, as I will be forced to take action on it. PhysiqueUL09 ( talk) 19:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
A community discussion has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (
COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described
here.
Doug Weller talk 09:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You wrote: "The fact that the people who wrote that analysis didn't know this basic fact about China tells you something about the reliability of the rest of their analysis".
When it was you that messed-up the dates, by what I think was not reading the report on your part. Why are you like that?
PhysiqueUL09 (
talk) 22:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry for the editing of that other page. I can rephrase this better, I think it's a bit of a language barrier from my part. I only want to know if you have read the report I sent before replying by assuming that they didn't know the dates of the Chinese national holiday. I thought that editing in wikipedia implied reading the references that other people sent before commenting on them. I am still new to this, can you help me understand? PhysiqueUL09 ( talk) 23:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
In the Talk:Huawei I replied to your suggestion that the controversies surrounding the company were overpowering the page. Since it is a larger geopolitical issue involving many different incidents in many different countries it may be better to confine it to its own page. However, I am not sure about the editorial precedence for this. If you think it is justified then that would result in the Huawei article at least being cleaned up. If this controversial items were moved to an 'event' page do you have any suggestions for a title? Also, another idea is to merge a lot of it into Criticism of Huawei which seems to cover the items you are referring to. If the controversial items are removed I could add some more business related facts to the article to fill it out more. --Ian Korman 06:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanKorman ( talk • contribs)
Thank you for continuing to keep the WIV page under control and free of NPOV/FRINGE/etc. conspiracy theories. There are a lot of us out here who really appreciate your work (and patience...). If I was involved on that Talk page, I would have brought things to ANI or at least NPOV or FRINGE long ago, considering how egregiously NOTHERE and RGW some comments are. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@ JoelleJay:, @ Thucydides411: "For example, biomedical information in an article about a chemical substance or a form of alternative medicine requires sources that satisfy the high standard of WP:MEDRS. Some editors try to prevent the inclusion of information on non-medical aspects such as history, statistics or legality by insisting that only medical publications, or even only medical reviews, can be used in the article. (This was even easier before MEDRS was corrected to state its scope as biomedical information in all articles, as opposed to all information in biomedical articles.)" [50] and /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling#Manipulating_an_admin_into_helping PhysiqueUL09 ( talk) 17:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- PhysiqueUL09 ( talk) 20:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted to come in here and offer you a proper apology for my behaviour on the WIV talk page. I realized yesterday that my perception of these interactions were altered. I thank you for your patience and I hope that in time you can forgive me. I also noticed that you seem to be interested in physics. It would be my pleasure to provide help related to nuclear/radiation physics if you ever need it. I again want to apologize and thank you for your patience. PhysiqueUL09 ( talk) 17:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
You saw I reverted you, no doubt. I'll repeat: there is no need to link a mass of material to a clearly partisan website verifying that these people protested, when one single reliable source attests to it. Adding the WSJ piece, an op-ed by a right-wing character, does not make those links any more valuable, and I just find it odd that you make these edits, which just look like spam to me. So besides that source obviously being partisan, unnecessary, and in triplicate, it's also in the lead that you made this edit, burdening the reader's load. Not good article writing, sorry. Drmies ( talk) 14:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Flaughtin ( talk) 15:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, you may be blocked from editing. This is nothing but disruptive. The author is a professor, the book is published by a university press. If you want to take issue with that, take it to WP:RSN. Drmies ( talk) 00:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"Dubious"_citations_from_an_academic's_book_and_article Drmies ( talk) 15:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Flaughtin ( talk) 21:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Please try your scare tactics on someone else, POV pusher. -- Calton | Talk 18:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
I appreciate your relentless work to prevent wholesale blanking of various articles as a result of deprecated sources. Your efforts do not go unnoticed, and you are not alone! Albertaont ( talk) 04:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC) |
Ive only opted to edit into a talk page three times in my life, the second being the useful idiots page, this the third. And I ended up on a whim clicking on your username and got lost in the wiki subcultural world on your talk page for a pleasant moment. Pointless courtesy hello. Thats all :) 199.66.13.72 ( talk) 21:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Flaughtin ( talk) 23:18, 30 October 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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or 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.
Djm-leighpark ( talk) 00:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey. Thank you for your considered statements over the last couple weeks at Talk:United States Electoral College. I wanted to expand on a string of Congressional reform addressing state mal-apportionment in federal elections. I noted previously, efforts to curb state majority abuses included three Acts of Congress passing both House and Senate in an effort to shape political communities that resembled the underlying populations geographically, socially, and ideologically (the culturally-related basket of religion, ethnic practice, and politics): contiguity (1842), and compactness (1872), including equal population (1911) (but only for a few sessions at a time, and never enforced).
If we expand the observation from listing Acts of Congress to exploring who was sponsoring them, the topic takes on an interesting aspect of US political intellectual history. The 1842 legislation was sponsored by Jacksonian Democrats, the 1872 by Lincoln Republicans, and the 1911 by Republican and Democratic Progressives. Wiki-fencing on Talk pages notwithstanding, I understand the impulse to the National Popular Vote generally to be aligned with that intellectual tradition. To take another page from the same democratizing impulse, if the states abuse their Constitutional duty to elect US Senators by their legislatures for thirty consecutive years as they did in the Gilded Age, then the American people will pass a Constitutional Amendment taking the abused trust away from the bad actors subverting their democratic republic.
So it is, that if the states do not refrain from the egregious anti-democratic practice of winner-take-all selection of their presidential electors, I expect that in due time the American people will take away the state legislature role in choosing a president, in one way or another. I will regret the loss of political community that might follow uniform standards for redistricting by equal population, contiguous boundaries, compact shapes, and respecting political boundaries aligned with the state geography. But the voting people are sovereign, at the very least, even if the non-voting populations of the voters' neighbors who are immigrants, young, and transients are left out of the national equation the future.
But whenever a persistent political majority takes form of the same opinion, it must be allowed to prevail, or we lose the American experiment that the London Economist last week noted is the political reason that Americans respect themselves and why others around the globe in turn respect them. - TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 16:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
" Reverting these additions again, because they're a BLP violation and therefore can't be left in while user behavioral issues are addressed." Could you elaborate on how there is a BLP violation? CowHouse ( talk) 14:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Shi initially considered if the virus could have come from her lab. She told Scientific American that she "had not slept a wink for days" until test results came back which confirmed that none of the genetic sequences matched any viruses from bat caves that her team had sampled.At the moment, the page doesn't mentioned the reason why Shi said the virus has nothing to do with her lab. There is only her uninformative response that "my time must be spent on more important matters". How is it a BLP violation to say she asked herself whether it was possible until test results showed that it wasn't? I think it's fine to include as long as it is clear to readers that she only asked herself "could they have come from our lab?" at a time when very little was known about the virus, and before the scientific community knew enough to refute a lab origin. CowHouse ( talk) 16:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
If coronaviruses were the culprit, she remembers thinking, “Could they have come from our lab?”[...]
Shi instructed her group to repeat the tests and, at the same time, sent the samples to another facility to sequence the full viral genomes. Meanwhile she frantically went through her own lab’s records from the past few years to check for any mishandling of experimental materials, especially during disposal. Shi breathed a sigh of relief when the results came back: none of the sequences matched those of the viruses her team had sampled from bat caves. “That really took a load off my mind,” she says. “I had not slept a wink for days.”If you believe it makes a substantial difference we could include the exact quote "Could they have come from our lab?" instead of "Shi initially considered if the virus could have come from her lab", but I'm not sure what inferences you're talking about. CowHouse ( talk) 16:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Your comment on whether MEDRS are mandatory before editing a claim implying the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy/fringe idea is requested by this Diff in this page, please take a look. Forich ( talk) 02:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. See Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Please reach consensus first before removing any well-sourced content. Normchou 💬 15:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Unexplained removal of content, yet you're accusing me of not giving valid reasons for my edits? Here are just some of the changes you made with your revert:
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to engage in subtle vandalism by making unexplained changes to information, you may be blocked from editing. Normchou 💬 13:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Normchou 💬 19:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Once again we got caught in the tale as old as time where a few rabidly active editors who insist on “reliability of sources” over actual reported facts squat a page and feign ignorance to exhaust any opposition. Thank you for not leaving me alone in trying to actually find proper sources and question the mainstream heavily Western biased narrative. I hope we can do so on other articles as well to help set a precedent for being a more neutral encyclopedia. Deku link ( talk) 19:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Deku link ( talk) 19:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I've opened up an RS discussion on Xinhua's usage for Id Kah Mosque since the dispute resolution concluded to take the issue there instead. Felt like informing you and the others involved, although it appears they already beat me to the punch in responding to the discussion. Deku link ( talk) 22:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ruling Party BLP violations. Thank you. I mentioned you as I asked for a partial block of Ruling party due to their continually adding back information only sourced to Wikileaks and you, like me, looked for other sources but found none. Nil Einne ( talk) 08:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
You accidentally added a cloud emoji to Nil Einne's post at AN/I. At least I hope it was an accident; if not, please pay a visit to WP:TALK. I think you'll want to remove it. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 15:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I've written a brief userpage essay on my opinions on RSP. Since this has been a subject both of us have discussed heavily recently and a moratorium is even being proposed on RSP discussions, I thought it might be of some interest to you. [57] Paragon Deku ( talk) 03:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Why did you undo the change I made to the Shi_Zhengli article? The article is misleading, it implies Daszak is an independent source whereas he's is Shi Zhengli's close colleague and client. He subcontacts work to her. See https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ -- Zeth
— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 22:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:17, 17 June 2021 (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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.
My very best wishes ( talk) 17:57, 2 July 2021 (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 edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, 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.
ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 03:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
You responded to me here, but that topic has been closed.
You said: You're arguing below (in the Caixin section) that we should have some sort of blanket ban on Chinese sources because they're possibly subject to the Chinese government, but here, you're arguing that we should take factual claims (mostly about China) made by a group set up by the Australian government and funded by US weapons manufacturers, the US State Department and the Australian Ministry of Defence at face value. I can't square that circle. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The answer is simple: Where an organization gets its funding doesn't really matter for factual reliability, what does matter is what policies and practices the organization implements with that funding, and what regulations it is subject to, among other things. Some organizations that get funding from their government are reliable (e.g. the BBC) while others are not (e.g. RT), so a model that focuses on funding to determine reliability is just plain using the wrong variable and will give wrong answers.
To construct another example: Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. Lets say he also hires a PR firm to promote himself. The Post's coverage of him is most likely reliable because of its institutional structure (journalistic firewalls and the like), while the PR firm's is not (because it's there to spin things to make him look at good as possible). The relevant variable isn't funding, but rather it's institutional practices and purpose.
Some other points:
1. You're mistaken if you think I'm arguing for a blanket ban on Chinese sources. I'm not.
2. Chinese news sources are subject to government management of their content based on political considerations, and domestic topics aren't free from that management (e.g. [58]). I actually linked in my Caixin comment to some of the directives all Chinese news organizations get from their government. There's also a extensive general censorship regime in place in China. Those facts are extremely relevant and need to be acknowledged and carefully considered when using mainland Chinese sources. - GretLomborg ( talk) 21:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
expert and timely advice for Australia's strategic and defence leaders.If you just glance at ASPI's list of publications, most of them are reports on how Australia and the US can militarily and diplomatically counter China, or reports accusing China of human rights abuses. I just think it would be absurd to pretend that this is some sort of neutral observer, akin to an independent public broadcaster.
RFA has inflated the death toll by factors of 9 to 50x:" I vaguely recall already arguing about that specific article, so I'm not going to waste much time on this again. That article didn't "
propagate[...] a conspiracy theory", but rather it was an early-ish journalistic reporting on what people were saying on social media when things were much more unclear. You're committing an error of anachronism if you expect such an article from 2020.03.27 to reflect a scientific study from 24 February 2021, almost a year later. If journalism was that good, why bother with the study? Obviously any Wikipedia article should not source death statistics from the former, but should use something like the latter instead. About all that particular RFA article would be good for now is for statements about skepticism of official results (which, to emphasize, is what it was actually reporting on).
Yet you haven't actually provided and examples of Caixin's supposed unreliability": why would I have? You should read that discussion again, and pay attention to the context of my comments. You'll see I offered no opinion on Caixin and only responded to someone else's proposal of a general rule for mainland sources. I did provide examples of the stuff I was actually talking about.
In this case, Caixin accurately reported on an issue in China, but a whole host of news organizations we normally consider reliable took that reporting out of context and propagated a conspiracy theory that we now know, based on scientific research into the death toll in China, to be false.: I addressed the "conspiracy theory" misrepresentation above, but I'll only emphasize here that Wikipedia shouldn't be using early 2020 news reports from any source for COVID death statistics, because better sources exist (e.g. the BMJ article you linked). The problem with news reports is that they have to be timely, that timeliness requirement often introduces error because they don't have the luxury of waiting until everything has been perfectly worked out. That doesn't mean an error like that makes a newspaper unreliable, it just means they're a different kind of source with different strengths and limitations. - GretLomborg ( talk) 04:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Wuhan resident surnamed Zhangand
resident of Hubei province. The first article is filled with lines such as,
Some social media posts have estimated, and is provocatively titled,
Estimates Show Wuhan Death Toll Far Higher Than Official Figure. This is not just good-faith, early journalistic work that turned out to be inaccurate. It's incredibly irresponsible misinformation about a pandemic, based on completely unreliable sourcing such as social media rumors. If the shoe were on the other foot and Chinese state media had written an article like this about the death toll in the US, I have no doubt you (and I) would label it disinformation.
Your comment here verges on WP:NPA [59]. I did not question the trustworthiness of Chinese scientists because of their nationality. Please address the matter of Chinese government censorship on Chinese scientists on COVID-19 research. In case you haven't read it yet, here is the AP Report about the censorship. LondonIP ( talk) 19:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
COVID-19 Barnstar | ||
Thank you for all your contributions to COVID-19 related articles. Wonderful additions to Zero-COVID. Moxy- 03:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC) |
I have received a few pings from you recently and am sorry not to have checked back yet. It's on my TODO, although I also have limited interest in constantly reading that page... Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 03:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
This revert [65] is concerning on multiple levels. You were reverting three different edits. Which are you describing as "editorializing"? One? All three? Or are there three different justifications for your reversions of the three edits you reverted? If so, why not describe them? Furthermore, the version you restored fails WP:V. Lastly, your revert message describes "obvious editorializing". That fails to describe specifically what you consider "editorializing". Lastly, the phrase "obvious editorializing" is itself concerning as WP:EDITORIALIZING mentions "obviously" as a word to be cautious with. Adoring nanny ( talk) 17:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I removed these random stats as they are meaningless without portion stats population.. ie 4000 infections is what percerntage of the population of an area...is 4000 good number or bad...in its current form the data has no scale for evaluation.-- Moxy- 17:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Zero_COVID. Moxy- 01:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't want you to get the wrong idea about my position on UPA, OUN, UVV. In my view, personally, I find their participation in genocide disgusting, revolting, etc. But wiki prohibits you or I from voicing our personal views in any article. Therefore, to keep with WP:NPOV, we have to describe them as the sources do. I don't want the article to get deleted. I feel that if you added their role in the Holocaust to the article it would be perfectly acceptable, and it might even make the article better. So I hope you do add it. I mean what do you have to lose right? If the article stays, then you've put in what you feel is important. If the article is deleted, then you've lost nothing. So I really hope you do. I'd like to see additions, I'm sure they'd be great. Best regards BetsyRMadison ( talk) 19:36, 27 April 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 Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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. |
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:03, 26 September 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 Falun Gong. 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.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Thucydides411! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:00, 30 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) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The Systemic Bias Barnstar | ||
I haven't run into you much lately, but here's some belated recognition for your efforts to help Wikipedia follow NPOV, even in contentious topic areas affected by systemic bias. Your well-reasoned arguments and hard work examining sources are an asset to the encyclopedia. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 20:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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:
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.
Longhornsg ( talk) 21:49, 23 October 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) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Please feel free to post any comments or messages for Thucydides411 below:
First of all it is siege and not "seige" equipment. Secondly whoever wrote that Hannibal didn't have the siege equipment to assault Rome lacks some basic knowledge about warfare in this time. Siege equipment was constructed right on the spot. Naturally it could be done much faster if essential (metal)parts were transported with the army, but that accounts for the buildup speed and by no means for the ability to do so (instead of metal leather or ropes could be used, etc., naturally often decreasing efficiency). Hannibal (as Bagnall points out) wasn't able to stay on the same spot for a long time and so he couldn't construct sufficient siege equipment to take well fortified positions, but like all other commanders (for example ALL Roman commanders) of his age he didn't carry the heavy wooden equipment for hundreds of miles from one place to another. So could you kindly correct this or provide a source for any army of this time hauling along giant siege ballistae and siege towers on their march. Greetings Wandalstouring 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the spelling error, but if that were the problem, you could have just corrected it. Secondly, you spelled "Greetings" wrong. You might like to look at the section "Aftermath" in the Battle of Cannae article. This is where I got the siege equipment statement from. If that's in error, then you should correct it. -- Thucydides411 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for joining up and participating in the Juan Cole mediation page. If you haven't already, I'd recommend reading a bit from the (lengthy) Juan Cole talk page and the evolving discussions on the mediation page, just to see what points have and haven't been covered. With respect to mediation, it might be best not to re-open a can of worms that have been brought up and argued before, but instead to focus that very relevant restlessness that you presumably feel (along with several others including myself) in ways that directly answer current and particular problems on the table for debate on the mediation page.
Right now the specific foreground issues appear to be questions of whether Cole's blog is a RS, whether Karsh's "protocols of zion" quote is biographical or notable (or whether it is less), and how exactly to present them in an article without compromising a tone of neutrality if at all possible. Those are easier to nail down than what someone's motives are, so if you disagree with the content those are the conversations I'd suggest you take a look at and contribute to.
Also, the mediation page is supposed to have a moderator setting things in order and looking for a solution, but he's been gone for a few weeks now and many are waiting for his return before posting at all. As it is right now, he will have lots of catching up to do and things to sort out, and likely will be disappointed with how chaotic the page already is in it's present state, all the more reason to stay on topic. Just some points to consider. Abbenm 06:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The mediation is not dead, please to not try to force the outcome of it by unilaterally editing it to reflect your POV. Isarig 05:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thucydides, I personally agree with your views on the Karsh comments, but it appears the mediation has not been declared dead yet. According to the rules, such as they are, we must wait until the process has come to some sort of conclusion. Wachholder0 19:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Over the past 4 days you have removed that material 7 times and have been reverted by 3 different editors; the consensus is clearly against you here. I'm going to look into adding Cole's response to make it more balanced. - Merzbow 22:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I see you have met the editors who hover over the Juan Cole article. I was thinking that, if you wish to have the offensive and potentially libelous material removed, the best way would be to argue in the mediation and talk pages that it is a blatant violation of WP:BLP. Consider the following:
Writing style
Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material
Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.
Biased or malicious content
Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association.
I believe the now infamous "Karsh quote" violates these aspects of WP:BLP. I believe you acted in good faith to remove edits you saw as bias & libelous and thus did not violate 3RR. Anyway, these may be helpful points to address if you wish to continue your struggle. Godspeed through Texas, Wachholder0 15:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Heimstern Läufer 05:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thucydides411 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did not edit any section more than thrice in 24 hours. I edited two separate sections, the first of which is the subject of a long-standing dispute. For the second section, I provided quotes supporting my position, as the argument was over a factual detail. This block, especially coming after I had for a time ceased activity on the article, is political.
Decline reason:
Merzbow is right. The reverts don't have to be identical, nor to the same section. Any time you revert more than three edits within 24 hours that are not explicit vandalism, you are violating 3RR, and are liable to get blocked. The more you revert, the harsher the blocks get. This is intended to help editors cool their heads and avoid edit wars. So, calm down and wait out your block. You can survive for one day.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Also Sie sagen, dass irgendwelche drei reverts in 24 Stunden können mir blockieren, ungeachtet wie begründet sie sind? Und was soll mann machen, wenn es drei bestimmte Redakteure gibt, die als Gruppe den gleichen Text wiedereinsetzen werden? Muss mann in diesem Fall alles akzeptieren, was sie im Artikel sehen wünschen, denn das ist soweit die Geschichte dieses Artikels? - Thucydides411 22:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Test-Feed-icon.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion involving you at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
No script was involved. You are more than welcome to nominate for deletion any articles you see unfit to stay. -- Merovingian ( T, C, L) 18:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, please continue discussion and allow time, there is no hurry. A citation is not a gold badge for inclusion - WP:SYNTH and such like are policy. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there some connection between your account an User:Darouet? Off2riorob ( talk) 22:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday I resurrected the "Criticism" section of this article, adding several new entries and renaming it. Yet the editors who invited me to do this, are now moving to, once again, eliminate it. I notice you seem to favor a more balanced approach; your input would be appreciated. Thank you. Apostle12 ( talk) 19:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User talk:Ndickinson1. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cindy( talk to me) 23:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Thucydides, some concerns have been expressed about the involvement of a government official in suggesting language for this article. I notice you expressed similar concerns on the talk page. We've had the same problem with multinationals being invited to supply drafts for articles about themselves.
The issue of NDAA and what happened there is being discussed at COIN here in case you have any interest in commenting. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " White privilege". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I was looking for someone who might become a DRN volunteer to take on the current listing involving the Copernican principle and was looking through the members of WikiProject Astronomy and saw where you say you're a astronomy grad student. I recall that you've been involved in a couple of DRN matters in the past and know how it works. If you don't have a conflict of interest with any of the many listed participants in that dispute, I wonder if you might become a volunteer and take it on? Even if everyone doesn't weigh in, I'm thinking that this is one that might ought to be answered because at least a couple of the primary disputants have weighed in, and because it is at least indirectly a referral from ArbCom. See also this. I'm strongly suspicious that we're seeing some cheesy fringe here, but I don't have the technical expertise to determine whether the proffered material (best seen all in one spot in this edit) is a relevant response to what was already in the article or is OR by an amateur who is misunderstanding the sources. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC) PS: Plus, we'd love to have you as a volunteer, in general. — TM
Assuming this was a mistake... be careful. Cavarrone ( talk) 22:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest you reveal your Suburban Express COI before undertaking further edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.115 ( talk) 17:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Thucydides411! Thank you for
your contributions. I am
TheOriginalSoni and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on
my talk page. You can also check out
Wikipedia:Questions or type {{
helpme}}
at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 18:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iraq War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hussein Kamel ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Iraq War. 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.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. ( Hohum @) 17:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
While I would like to refrain from editing while we discuss, you simply can't expect another user to wait days on end to receive a reply. This process has already dragged on quite a long time mainly because you decided to address rather small details of my very large edits one by one, ignoring the format I laid out to speed up the dispute resolution. At the rate we are currently going the dispute will take a year or so to be resolved.
CJK ( talk) 00:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Please feel free to edit or comment on my new essay on children's nonfiction as sources for various subjects. I read your comments a few months ago in Talk:United States Bill of Rights#Personal point of view - historically incorrect: Inflamatory. Nick Levinson ( talk) 18:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - Darouet ( talk) 20:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Concerning my revert, the problem was not browser rendering; it was a server-side error that stated the mark-up was broken. However, it seems to have been a glitch; I see no such error now. Meanwhile thanks for the improvements. Strebe ( talk) 01:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you discussed editing the white privilege page. There is currently an open discussion on that page which you may be able to contribute to. Ancholm ( talk) 13:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we could put in the infobox "Israeli victory (according to IDF)" like here. Or something like that.-- Wlglunight93 ( talk) 09:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Anzac Day. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
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 breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
In 1945, the British Labour Party, led by Clement Attlee, was elected to office based on a radical socialist programme. Nor am I relying on a "textbook for children" - the source is a reliable source used by at least two well respected federal government departments, and quoted extensively by one. The message here is though, don't edit-war. Removing a valid source because you don't like it is unnaceptable. Discuss the matter. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 00:22, 4 May 2015 (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) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Darouet has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{ subst:Kittynap}}
For creating the very great article Phaleas of Chalcedon! Darouet ( talk) 00:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darouet ( talk) 04:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm a Palestinian and Palestinian are not an ethnic but nationality.-- HailesG ( talk) 20:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Thucydides411. 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)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
In light of your recent comment at AE, and the fact that we've only interacted for the first time a couple days ago (I think), I got to ask - has someone recently been in contact with you off-wiki in regards to the AE report or your edits in this topic area? Your comments are a part of a pattern by some users, which read like they've been fed scripted information by someone. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
You've now streaked past the post on any claim to be sitting in judgement. You're actively engaged using wp as your court. You've also disregarded the fact that VM has told you that there was a counter-faction to EEML. Certainly, those activities are possibly still going on, but on which side? Will you please respond to whether anyone has contacted you offwiki? It should be simple to answer. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 00:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I think Thucydides411 is who he says he is. In fact part of the reason why he was the one I came to ask about this issue was because, as I said, he seemed like a decent honest sort. Yeah, that prior has unfortunately been adjusted a bit, but I still believe that to be basically the case. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Did you notice that you violated 1RR restriction for this page today already twice? My very best wishes ( talk) 01:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an obvious violation of 1RR rule twice during eight hours. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I am telling this because you continued violating 1RR on this page even after my post above. For example, this your series of edits (I do not count the bot) and this edit are another violation. My very best wishes ( talk) 23:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi 411. You've violated 1 RR with your recent removal of content at Russian Interference. Please self-revert. SPECIFICO talk 05:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Julian Assange shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Just to note - I made one revert. You made three. Four actually in a bit over 24 hours. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:WORDS. You are recurrently using florid and WP:POV language such as this, which contravenes WP:CLAIM. I think you need to cool down on the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and stay aware of the fact that this project is WP:NOTNEWS, and that editors do not write as if they were journalists. I suggested to you a while ago that you are going to end up painting yourself into a corner by diving into the deep end. This was advice offered in good faith, despite your not believing that to be my motivation. I stand by that advice, and am offering it again. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | ||
The Anti-Flame Barnstar is awarded for users that have kept cool in conflicts, as well as resolving them. James J. Lambden ( talk) 03:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
The Civility Barnstar | ||
For keeping an even temperament and maintaining civility during disagreements. I'm not sure how you do it but it makes wikipedia a better place. Darouet ( talk) 05:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
That thing you keep reinstating is a talk page violation, as an experienced editor such as yourself should know. I could have deleted it or hatted it but I chose the weakest of the permitted alternatives to remove it. Do as you choose, your actions are on the record. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
"Do as you choose, your actions are on the record."You can leave out these crude attempts at intimidation in your future communication with me. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 23:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
You made an edit changing the lede. I reverted it. DS requires you to achieve consensus on talk prior to any repetition of the edit that I challenged by revert. You failed to do so. Please undo your violation and let's go to talk. I've stated the basis of my revert. You may respond on talk and I will engage there with others. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
A complaint has been lodged at WP:AE that pertains to you here --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 08:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. —
Coffee //
have a cup //
beans // 01:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Moved to WP:AE. Sandstein 08:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: As Steve Quinn has made a post at the appeal, I'd just like to address their point. I'm not able to edit at AE, so I'm not sure if there's some way of adding this into my appeal. In any case, this is what I'd like to say:
@ Coffee: Could you at least address any of the points that I made in my appeal? The frustrating thing about these proceedings is that nobody has explained why new interpretations of policy should be applied retroactively (in a situation in which many experienced editors have themselves expressed confusion about what the DS restrictions imply), and why that policy should be applied only to a single editor, when that editor's behavior was in no way unusual for the page. I feel that some attempt should have been made originally to address these points, and at the very least, they should be addressed in the appeal. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 09:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: To your point that, "To do that, the appeal would have to show that the edits at issue were not in fact violations of the restriction - i.e., that they were not reinstatements of edits challenged via reversion," I'd just like to point out that what you're asking is impossible in this situation. You yourself write that you do not understand what the restrictions actually mean ("I find the restriction at issue (too) difficult to understand and apply"), and we know that several experienced admins disagree with the interpretation I was blocked under. So what am I supposed to prove? That those admins are more correct than the admin that blocked me?
I'm also really shocked that you don't seem to think it's relevant that this block was given completely arbitrarily to me, rather than to the dozen or so other editors who were shown, in the proceedings, to have violated the exact same restriction (assuming the new interpretation of the DS restrictions is the correct one). This just makes a mockery of the idea that arbitration enforcement is carried out in some sort of fair manner. You also dismissed my entire first two points without actually addressing any of the substance of the arguments. The fact that I acted in good faith, following the policy advice of admins, has bearing on whether a sanction is warranted. If I acted in good faith, then a block is punitive, not preventative.
As far as I can see, the original sanction was given without actually addressing any of these points - the arbitrariness of singling out one editor, almost at random, out of a dozen to sanction, and the question of good faith in following policy advice from admins. Yet now you're saying that these issues cannot be addressed in the appeal, meaning that the sanction will stand without any of the obvious questions being answered. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@
Laser brain: I don't think you even read my appeal, or that you paid any close attention to the original case, for that matter. I provided evidence that according to the interpretation that admins had given us of the DS restrictions, I did not reinstate an edit challenged by reversion. MelanieN directly told us, "removal of longstanding material actually counts as an 'edit', which under the DS can be reverted and should then not be removed again without consensus."
Under that interpretation, the original removal was an "edit," and my restoration of that material was the first "revert." The user that removed that material again was then in breach of DS restrictions. That was the interpretation of MelanieN and NeilN, and it's the interpretation that all of us on the page were using. You take a completely opposite view from those admins on what the DS restrictions mean - one which is opposite from what everyone working at that page assumed they meant. How you can then say that the restrictions are not difficult to understand is beyond me. If they're so simple to understand, then there wouldn't be so many admins and editors confused about what constitutes an edit and what constitutes and revert, and what "long-standing" means.
This is not even to mention the fact that none of you have addressed the complete arbitrariness of this decision, and why you've ignored all requests by editors who commented in the original case to look into the behavior of all involved editors (most of whom reinstated challenged edits, as proven by the evidence provided in the case). Frankly, I don't even mind not editing for a week. What I mind is that the admins each have their own differing interpretation of policy, enforce their personal interpretations completely arbitrarily, and feel no need to explain their decision-making. I don't see why I should spend any of my time contributing to a project where the admins behave so disrespectfully towards the contributors. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 20:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@
NeilN: I can't edit at the arbitration proceedings (my block is Wikipedia-wide), but I can respond here. First of all, thanks for taking the time to respond to my appeal.
Here is what Coffee says about why I was blocked:
"Thucydides411 (talk · contribs) reinstated two edits that had been challenged without first obtaining consensus, thereby violating the page restriction."( [8])
Coffee's interpretation here is that when I reverted SPECIFICO's removal of text relating to Clapper, I was reinstating challenged material. This is in direct contradiction to what MelanieN told us:
"Actually, according to several discussions at my talk page where more experienced admins explained and interpreted the DS process: 1, 2 removal of longstanding material actually counts as an 'edit', which under the DS can be reverted and should then not be removed again without consensus."( [9])
Here, MelanieN was echoing your comment that:
" Anythingyouwant, I do not interpret the DS wording that way. The removal of longstanding content is the edit that can be challenged via reversion."( [10])
You further clarified that:
"I think the wording carefully specifies "reinstating any edits that have been challenged" instead of "reinstating any additions that have been challenged" for this very reason."( [11])
Awilley agreed with your interpretation of DS:
"I agree with NeilN's interpretation. The wording is meant to favor the status quo and stabilize the article, and it's main function IMO is to get people to follow WP:BRDby preventing them from making a Bold edit and then immediately reverting the Revert (gaming the 1RR)."( [12])
Later in that discussion, you defined "longstanding" for heavily edited articles like Donald Trump as 4-6 weeks:
"And editors will want you to define what "longstanding" means. For me, it depends on the article. For an article as highly edited and intensely watched as Donald Trump I'm generally using a time period of 4-6 weeks."( [13])
So, to recap, MelanieN told the editors at 2016 United States election interference by Russia that whenever an editor removes longstanding content from an article, that is an (not a revert), and when another editor restores that longstanding material, that is a revert, which challenges the removal. DS restrictions then prevent that material from being removed again until consensus has been reached to do so. MelanieN linked us to a discussion where you and a number of other admins worked this interpretation of DS out.
When
Coffee says that I restored an edit that had been challenged by reversion, they are referring to my restoration of longstanding material.
Coffee is using the definition that DS prevents reinstatement of additions, whereas the interpretation that you gave on
MelanieN's talk page (and which she relayed to us) was that removal of longstanding text is an edit that can be challenged by reversion. I assumed your definition was correct when I challenged the removal of longstanding material. Again,
Coffee's interpretation, that I "reinstated two edits that had been challenged without first obtaining consensus,"
is in direct contradiction with how you,
MelanieN and
Awilley defined "challenge," "edit" and "reinstate" in your discussion of DS.
In the appeal, Darouet clearly documents the series of edits and reverts in question: [14]. This series of diffs shows clearly that I was acting in accordance with the interpretation of DS that you, MelanieN and Awilley elaborated.
I acted in good faith, according to what I thought were clear policy guidelines handed down by admins. If those policy directives were wrong, that's fine, but I simply think it's punitive to receive a block.
Sandstein has said that sanctioning an editor who follows admin advice on policy is fine, because admins aren't bound by what other admins say: "any one (or several) administrator's interpretation of a specific restriction is not binding on other admins, the only binding guidance is that of ArbCom."
(
[15]) I respectfully disagree. I don't think that's a fair way to hand out sanctions, and it's inherently punitive (rather than preventative) to sanction editors for following admin advice on policy. -
Thucydides411 (
talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
It's jaw-dropping to see Thucydides putting words into the mouths of @ MelanieN:, @ Coffee:, @ Awilley: or misappropriate and misapply their words entirely out of context. This has been pointed out to Thucydides very many times by many different users. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: I was wondering if you could remove SPECIFICO's comment from my appeal. SPECIFICO makes a lot of claims about my editing (e.g., "longstanding disruptive editing in a American Politics"), but doesn't provide any diffs. As far as I can see, SPECIFICO's contribution is just a series of unsubstantiated claims and accusations. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 02:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
There are two separate editing restrictions in place for that article, both independent of each other.
Any edit means any edit, whether addition of new material, the tweaking of long-standing existing material, or the removal of long-standing existing material. The meaning of "long-standing" changes from article to article. As with Donald Trump, I would take it to mean 4-6 weeks for this article. One this challenge has happened, no editor should be re-doing the addition/tweaking/deletion without obtaining consensus.
This is the more prosaic WP:1RR. It is somewhat superfluous given the above, but is useful to stop individual editors from edit warring over new material. Scenario:
It can also work out this way:
WP:1RR is there to tell you that even if the "consensus required" restriction is violated, Editor B still can't edit war. It also keeps things under control if there's a dispute about what is "long-standing". -- NeilN talk to me 00:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@
Coffee: "So, are you saying there wasn't a violation or that because he misinterpreted the letter of the restriction, and of other administrator's views on the restriction, there can't be a violation?"
I don't think I misinterpreted MelanieN's views on DS. Here's what she said:
"Actually, according to several discussions at my talk page where more experienced admins explained and interpreted the DS process: 1, 2 removal of longstanding material actually counts as an 'edit', which under the DS can be reverted and should then not be removed again without consensus."( [16])
I restored longstanding material to the page, which MelanieN says above is in line with DS.
As to what "longstanding" means, you write that
"As these edits weren't able to stand for even 40 days without being challenged, I can only see the stated misinterpretation by Thucydides411 to be an attempt to do just that."
But in the discussion that MelanieN pointed us to NeilN specifically defined "longstanding" as 4-6 weeks:
"And editors will want you to define what "longstanding" means. For me, it depends on the article. For an article as highly edited and intensely watched as Donald Trump I'm generally using a time period of 4-6 weeks."( [17])
The material that was deleted had been in the article for more than 5 weeks, so it meet's NeilN's definition of "longstanding."
You can take a different view of what "longstanding" means, and what constitutes an "edit" vs. a "revert." But I was trying to edit according to the policies that MelanieN and NeilN had spelled out for us. I'd actually like some clarity on what the DS restrictions exactly mean, and it would be extremely helpful to get some definitive guidance. But to be sanctioned based on an interpretation of DS that I had been explicitly told by an admin on the talk page was wrong (see the quote by MelanieN above) seems wrong. I'd like to abide by policy, but I'd like for that policy to be predictable, rather than dependent on which admin I'm talking to. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 02:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
"For an article as highly edited and intensely watched as Donald Trump I'm generally using a time period of 4-6 weeks"). After JFG challenged SPECIFICO's edit, SPECIFICO should have gone to seek consensus for the edit on the talk page. After they removed it a second time, which was a clear violation of the DS rules that MelanieN had explained to us, I reverted what I saw as SPECIFICO's clear DS violation.
"well articulated"comment: [23]. Several editors (myself included) urged SPECIFICO to bring any concerns they might have to the BLP noticeboard, where uninvolved editors could give their opinions.
@ Awilley: @ NeilN: @ MelanieN: This discussion needs to be on a public page. I have commented here only to have another editor erase my comments, and now I see myself disparaged by an editor who continues, despite repeated requests to desist, to misrepresent my view and other editors' views on this matter. Any further discussion should reside at ARCA where we can have the benefit of the appropriate attention to this site-wide matter of importatnce. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Coffee: From your latest post at AE, it seems that you weren't aware of the editing history when you handed down my sanction. How is it that one admin can hand down a sanction after only a cursory glance at a case, but several other admins who look into the case in detail and disagree with your ruling cannot overturn it?
I'm also quite stunned that you can look at the editing history and come to the conclusion that Darouet, JFG and I were gaming the system. If you look at the editing history, and the talk page discussion that goes along with it, you'll see that a few editors were combing through the article and deleting any material that suggested something other than the official US government narrative, and then giving extremely flimsy and cursory justifications on the talk page. A number of editors, including myself and the two others you said were gaming the system, explained in detail why we thought the deletions were wrong. For example, we explained in detail why mention of Clapper's false Senate testimony is not a BLP violation (he's a public figure, the fact that he gave false testimony has been widely reported on, and the article did not state in the voice of Wikipedia that Clapper's testimony was false, but rather attributed that claim). I'd be much more inclined to say that the editors who removed that material on flimsy grounds, and then have systematically tried to get the editors who disagreed with them on the content question blocked, are the ones gaming DS. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 00:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@
Sandstein: You wrote that, "I find the restriction at issue (too) difficult to understand and apply."
So when are you going to overturn my sanction? That's the only principled course of action left in this case. It's clear from the diff history that I edited in good faith, according to the policy interpretation that
MelanieN and
NeilN laid out. You yourself say that you don't understand the restrictions, and since
MelanieN "violated" these restrictions in exactly the same way as I supposedly did, it's clear she didn't understand them either (at least, her understanding was totally different from
Coffee's). At this point, it's almost sort of a joke that I'm sanctioned - for an offense that you admit to not understanding, whose definition
Coffee,
MelanieN and
NeilN disagree on, that
Laser brain has said was applied unfairly, which half a dozen editors "violated" in the exact same manner as I did, and which has now been deemed so confusing that it's now no longer in force. So when is any admin going to own this mess-up and remove my sanction?
I don't really care about not being allowed to edit for a week. I'll even voluntarily abstain from editing until the end of the week. It's just the fact that I've been sanctioned unfairly, on grounds that nobody quite seems to be able to explain or agree on, that annoys me. Again, the only principled thing to do is to remove the sanction, and I'm just waiting to see if any admin will actually admit that obvious fact. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 03:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: I feel strongly that a ruling should be made on the appeal, rather than just letting the sanction lapse or imposing a general "reset." At this point, I think the appeal has shown that:
If you don't agree with that factual basis, let me know, and why. It's all in the original case and the appeal, and if you'd like, I can provide diffs for any of the above that you disagree with.
At this point, I really have no idea why I'm sanctioned, and I don't know what I can do to avoid future sanction, other than withdrawing from editing contentious subjects entirely. An admin gave us a very clear policy interpretation. I and most editors followed it. But when the AE case came up, suddenly there was a new policy interpretation from a different admin, and of all the editors who violated that interpretation, I alone was sanctioned. Multiple admins commented that the DS restriction at issue was too difficult to understand - no matter.
What's the point of this block? What did I actually do wrong? And don't tell me that I reinstated a challenged edit without consensus - based on the very clear guideline that MelanieN laid down, I was the one challenging an edit that another user had made. This was normal Bold/Revert/Discuss behavior. An editor removed longstanding content. I reverted their removal. I laid out my objection to the removal in great detail on the talk page. That was perfectly in line with what MelanieN told us we should do, and with the policy interpretation that NeilN has given in the AE appeal.
So I'd like a ruling on the AE appeal, and I think it's obvious that anything other than an overturning of the original sanction would be almost comical at this point. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 01:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
"It's fair to assume that not everyone in that group was innocent. You yourself made about 50 edits of that article since January 1st, so you are a major participant."That reads a lot like, "You edited a lot, so you're probably guilty of something." I'm sorry, but I feel a little insulted if that's your reasoning for not responding to the facts of the case, which I've given above. This sanction, and the response of a few admins to the appeal, really is Kafkaesque. Nobody seems to be able to quite explain why I was sanctioned. The only admin who gave anything close to an explanation ( Coffee: that I supposedly restored a contested edit without consensus), takes a completely different view of what "restoring contested material" means from the other admins. According to the interpretation of other admins, I did precisely the opposite: I contested someone else's edit, and they reverted without consensus. Moreover, I was clearly following policy guidelines, given directly by an admin active on the page, in good faith, making the sanction purely punitive. If you agree that I was sanctioned based on a new, post facto interpretation of DS, that the sanction was punitive, and that I was arbitrarily chosen to be sanctioned, then you should add your name to the list of admins who support removing the block, and we can be done with this affair.
Even though another editor who was blocked for violated the restriction has been blocked and unblocked, you're still blocked. Even though the justification for your initial block was not unanimous, you're still blocked. Even though numerous administrators have called the restriction too difficult to understand and apply, you're still blocked. Even though the restrictions have in fact been removed from the article, you're still blocked. Sorry about all that, but at least it will expire soon. I hope you've learned a valuable lesson about how Wikipedia really works. Mr Ernie ( talk) 22:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Your above research into the interpretation of Consensus required has come up a few times in my searches. I just found that there was an Arbcom clarification request which resolved this. [35] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 16:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to discuss UNDUE issues relevant to SPECIFICO's revert of my inclusion of the Ali Watkins article at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Humanengr ( talk) 03:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
video Russian interference with the 2016 election... on election night... 67.233.35.234 ( talk) 18:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I felt that the consensus was there to add the material, so I made the edit. My suggestion would be to perhaps remove your latest comment on Talk. Otherwise, it might go back to "he said, she said" again, which would not be productive. :-).
That said, it was a good summary; thank you for making the effort to get more info added to the article. I enjoyed learning about this scandal, since I'm interested both in politics and in academia. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. BullRangifer ( talk) 07:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Striking after seeing the ban notice below. Be more careful in the future. Edit warring is not good, even if you're right. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 07:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are banned from the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article and its talk page, for 3 months.
You have been sanctioned for edit warring on the talk page and restoring challenged edits without consensus. This occurred only months after receiving a block at AE in February for similar conduct.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 21:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
You have continued to push your point of view that the Russia election interference is "alleged", recently going as far as to make provably false statements to support it. I have lost count of the number of editors who have repeatedly asked you to stop beating a dead horse and rehashing this. It is clear that you do not respect the consensus that was reached long ago in this matter because you keep bring it up.
Consider yourself warned that if you continue disrupting discussions in this fashion, I will raise the issue at Arbitration Enforcement with the recommendation that you be topic banned.- Mr X 17:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Steve Bannon Boasts About His Love of Thucydides for All the Wrong Reasons.
It's just a curious thing I found and it made me think of you. I haven't even read it, but thought you might find it funny. Have a good day. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you to a point on the JAR report, but SPECIFICO has decided to completely revert my edits [36]. DN ( talk) 03:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
I will look into it right away. Thank you for being patient. DN ( talk) 20:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC) |
My thinking is that the cite is either in the body, or that is just got moved around somewhere in the paragraph. Just give me a few moments to check. DN ( talk) 21:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Darknipples: Even if the citation exists somewhere in the article, the sentence has to be rephrased with clear attribution. Right now, the sentence sounds like it's coming from Wikipedia's authoritative voice, which would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Nevertheless, if there isn't a citation for the sentence, it has to be rephrased to something that is actually supportable by the references (e.g., the sentence that I wrote). - Thucydides411 ( talk) 21:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Is this old edit by a logged-out user something you want to keep, or something that you just didn't notice? You've edited the page several times since then, so I thought I'd ask instead of reverting. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
What is the point of this [37] when you know from the Talk page discussion [38] that you participated in that there is no consensus to include? That's not going to persist, and it's just edit warring. Geogene ( talk) 00:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Article talk pages are for disusing the article and how to improve it, not other edds, please stop. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Thucydides411. - Mr X 19:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Per this discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, you are banned from all edits and pages related to US-Russia relations for three months. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes the question of Russian interference in US elections. GoldenRing ( talk) 12:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Thucydides411. 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)
Happy Holidays | |
Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
Sorry for not responding to your last comment, but I explained everything already several times, and do not want to be blamed of bludgeoning the process or WP:TE. Happy editing, My very best wishes ( talk) 05:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
That whole thing could have been avoided had you simply provided the exact URL you found that phrase at. Simply saying "it's in the source" when it isn't actually at the cited URL is not helpful. Please be mindful of this in the future. — Huntster ( t @ c) 22:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
When others take the time to articulate a reasoned concern, it would be much more constructive to step back and consider their message.My reasoned concern is that you're stalking me. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 15:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Thuc! You asked about my "involvement" at the Trump articles and that's a fair question. It's true I rarely take admin actions at those articles where I am involved (my exceptions: to protect pages, to revdel certain edits, and to block obvious vandals and socks). What I normally do, if I observe a problem like a violation of the DS, is to warn the person and make sure they understand the rules. That's what I would have done in this case except that there were FOUR violations in quick succession. It was clear the person didn't understand or didn't intend to follow the rules, and I felt a block was necessary to stop the behavior. Hopefully they will learn from the explanations they are now getting, and not do it again. -- MelanieN ( talk) 06:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.
You need to use the article talk page. Coming fresh off your TBAN edit warring is not going to end well for you. Especially in your tag team.
SPECIFICO
talk 07:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Due notificiation, as I mentioned a diff directed at you by VM at AE, specifically this. The AE is about Eastern Europe/BLP - which Alliance for Securing Democracy would seem to fall under due to be an organization aimed at countering Russia. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Thucydides411. 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)
Hi Thucydides411,
What do you think about starting an RfC at the article? Something like this perhaps:
title: "== RfC about neutrality of article =="
topic: hist
statement: "Should the material added by Snooganssnoogans since October 13, 2017 be forked to another article dealing with criticism of the higher casualty estimates?" Jrheller1 ( talk) 04:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- MrClog ( talk) 19:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The ping isn't necessary. I'm watching that page. Geogene ( talk) 00:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Thucydides411,
I created an RFC discussion at the WikiLeaks talk page here.
Except, I wouldn't try telling other editors where they can comment and where they can not. - FlightTime ( open channel) 01:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Interested to know a few things you referred to in your revert summaries: why you considered my edit vandalism, what lewd language you are referring to, and for what reason you think “convicted felon” is not relevant enough to belong in the first sentence of the article. Thanks. Ponydepression ( talk) 22:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I don't want to annoy editors who have that article in their watchlist with this boring debate. Everything can be called opinion/point of view, when do we present a point of view as a fact in Wikivoice? When there is no disagreement or no contrary POV. Yet you didn't provide any reliable sources that disagree with what Cheney said. Also POVs are not removed from Wikipedia if they are from reliable sources, all point of views should be presented in Wikipedia but attribution is required.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 23:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I notice that you use this term quite a bit and am curious about what you mean by it. I suspect you're referring to the myriad Trump-Russia investigations. Is that correct? If not, what do you mean? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 19:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
... noch ein Argument für Dich: http://the-pen.co/this-is-a-copncerted-attack-on-press-freedom -- 93.211.223.124 ( talk) 03:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
You wrote:
Regarding your first sentence, I don't recall what I wrote about this. Would you please refresh my memory? What did I write that inspired the above?
Regarding your last sentence, that isn't a factor at all for me. My objections are purely related to factual accuracy and his denials of proven facts. That renders anyone, regardless of their standing on the left/right spectrum, an unreliable source, at least for certain issues, even if not for others.
I know that The Nation (which I practically never read, even though I'm definitely left of center) is considered slightly left of center, but Cohen has been taking pro-Putin and anti-American-Russia-policy positions for several years, including supporting the American "deep state" conspiracy theory. He's very much against the conclusions of American intelligence agencies, instead choosing to believe Russian intelligence. He also seems to think that admitting that America has interfered in foreign elections for many years (it certainly has) makes Russian interference in America's elections okay, and only a minor blip at that. That ends up making him a defender of the narrative put forth by Putin and Trump.
Help me understand this, because I was not aware of him until very recently. Where does he really stand on all these issues?
Also, regarding Putin, I don't see it useful to place him on the old American/Capitalist vs Russia/Communist spectrum as he's just another corrupt right-wing nationalist autocrat now. That makes Putin and Trump natural allies. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 16:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
"Regarding your first sentence, I don't recall what I wrote about this."Sure, I'll refresh your memory:
" He's on the same side as Trump, Putin, Hannity, Limbaugh, Bongino, and Alex Jones"( [42]). Trump, Putin, Hannity, Limbaugh, Bongino and Alex Jones are all considered right-wing figures. I don't see how they are on the "same side" as a left-leaning Princeton professor who gives a generally left-wing critique of Russia hawks in American politics.
"Regarding your last sentence, that isn't a factor at all for me. My objections are purely related to factual accuracy and his denials of proven facts."That proposition is undermined by your frequent political statements (e.g., calling Putin and Trump "natural allies," calling Trump a "spider," carelessly smearing Stephen Cohen as somehow similar to Alex Jones). If you don't want to give the impression of politically motivated editing, then don't make such statements. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 23:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
"I have never called Trump a "spider" in a literal or pejorative sense": Calling someone a spider sounds pretty pejorative to me. I understand, of course, that you were not literally calling him a spider. Figuratively calling someone a spider is definitively a highly negative characterization.
"I listed him among those people because they take the same position on the "deep state" and the Russiagate/Intelgate/Spygate matters, or am I wrong?"Please quote exactly what Stephen Cohen has said, and tell me how it is at all reasonable to compare those statements to those of Alex Jones.
"If he's been considered left-wing, maybe it's possible for him to be left-wing on some matters, and right-wing on these matters. Is that possible?"Do you consider Noam Chomsky's views on Russiagate to be right-wing? There are a number of left-wing commentators who are critical of Russiagate (Chomsky, Greenwald and Taibbi, to name a few). - Thucydides411 ( talk) 01:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
"Keep in mind that my comments and personal beliefs are different than my editing". Now, you're here asking me to provide more insight into Stephen Cohen. Shouldn't you have looked into his writings a bit more yourself before smearing him as being somehow similar to Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh?
Regarding /info/en/?search=July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike and the presence of armed insurgents in the 'Collateral Murder' video, you claim this article "says there had been insurgents in the area earlier in the day. Stop with the original research."
Please learn to read a little more thoroughly. It in fact says:
"In the first strike, the crews of two Apaches directed 30 mm cannon fire at a group of ten Iraqi men, including some armed men, standing where insurgents earlier that day had shot at an American Humvee with small arms fire."
And later (with references):
"In the video on the morning of July 12, 2007, the crews of two United States Army AH-64 Apache helicopters observe a gathering of men near a section of Baghdad in the path of advancing U.S. ground troops, some armed with AKMs and RPGs."
Now please go ahead and unrevert your reversion at Julian Assange!
Rosenkreutzer ( talk) 10:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Thucydides411,
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 16:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm Sorry for getting mad at you over the Iraq War in 2013.
CJK ( talk) 22:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello- the image (File:China administrative claimed included.svg) that appears on the China page has an incorrect Hanyu Pinyin form (Gùizhōu should be Guìzhōu). I don't know how to edit .svg files- do you have any idea how I can do this? What software would I use to edit an .svg??? Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 23:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Geographyinitiative: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've uploaded a corrected version of the file. The most straightforward way to fix small labeling problems like this in an SVG file is to open it up with a text editor. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 11:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Thucydides411,
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Thucydides411,
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I've already said all that is useful to say at DS, so I'd appreciate not being pinged further. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
You should respond to my pings at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Unsourced claims about a living person being involved in a criminal conspiracy.
Making seemingly false accusations against two editors and then not providing evidence is wrong and cowardly. Please do the right thing. Either present your evidence or retract your accusations. As I wrote there, I will happily retract anything I've gotten wrong, so explain it to us there. We are waiting. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy ( help!) 10:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
You are coming close to a topic ban from Russian interference in the 2016 US election (yes, another one). Please see my comment here. Bishonen | tålk 17:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC).
Please actually discuss your reversions at
Talk:Tedros Adhanom instead of simply edit-warring out data you don't like.
WP:BRD-NOT specifically states BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.
I have given you over 8 hours to engage in a discussion I began at the talk page, you have simply refused to participate. This type of behavior is tiresome. —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans // 07:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Darouet: It is just that in WP:AAGF it is mentioned "When involved in a discussion, it is best to think very carefully before citing WP:AGF.". Which is why I added a reference to it. And yes, there were two reverts back to back without an explanation in the discussion. I will assume that it was a mistake and that it will not happen again. May I remind you that @ Thucydides411: was very prompt to ask me to revert my attempt at creating a sub section citing the controversy around Tedros, making his explanation about the fact that he's not always online a bit fishy. But then again, it was a mistake obviously. I also want to note that Thucydides411 did not respect WP:AGF when they wrote what I perceived as a threat of retaliation because of my edit. I had just learned about BRD and that's what I was attempting. If it was in fact a threat, please don't do it again, as I will be forced to take action on it. PhysiqueUL09 ( talk) 19:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
A community discussion has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (
COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described
here.
Doug Weller talk 09:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You wrote: "The fact that the people who wrote that analysis didn't know this basic fact about China tells you something about the reliability of the rest of their analysis".
When it was you that messed-up the dates, by what I think was not reading the report on your part. Why are you like that?
PhysiqueUL09 (
talk) 22:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry for the editing of that other page. I can rephrase this better, I think it's a bit of a language barrier from my part. I only want to know if you have read the report I sent before replying by assuming that they didn't know the dates of the Chinese national holiday. I thought that editing in wikipedia implied reading the references that other people sent before commenting on them. I am still new to this, can you help me understand? PhysiqueUL09 ( talk) 23:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
In the Talk:Huawei I replied to your suggestion that the controversies surrounding the company were overpowering the page. Since it is a larger geopolitical issue involving many different incidents in many different countries it may be better to confine it to its own page. However, I am not sure about the editorial precedence for this. If you think it is justified then that would result in the Huawei article at least being cleaned up. If this controversial items were moved to an 'event' page do you have any suggestions for a title? Also, another idea is to merge a lot of it into Criticism of Huawei which seems to cover the items you are referring to. If the controversial items are removed I could add some more business related facts to the article to fill it out more. --Ian Korman 06:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanKorman ( talk • contribs)
Thank you for continuing to keep the WIV page under control and free of NPOV/FRINGE/etc. conspiracy theories. There are a lot of us out here who really appreciate your work (and patience...). If I was involved on that Talk page, I would have brought things to ANI or at least NPOV or FRINGE long ago, considering how egregiously NOTHERE and RGW some comments are. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@ JoelleJay:, @ Thucydides411: "For example, biomedical information in an article about a chemical substance or a form of alternative medicine requires sources that satisfy the high standard of WP:MEDRS. Some editors try to prevent the inclusion of information on non-medical aspects such as history, statistics or legality by insisting that only medical publications, or even only medical reviews, can be used in the article. (This was even easier before MEDRS was corrected to state its scope as biomedical information in all articles, as opposed to all information in biomedical articles.)" [50] and /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling#Manipulating_an_admin_into_helping PhysiqueUL09 ( talk) 17:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- PhysiqueUL09 ( talk) 20:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted to come in here and offer you a proper apology for my behaviour on the WIV talk page. I realized yesterday that my perception of these interactions were altered. I thank you for your patience and I hope that in time you can forgive me. I also noticed that you seem to be interested in physics. It would be my pleasure to provide help related to nuclear/radiation physics if you ever need it. I again want to apologize and thank you for your patience. PhysiqueUL09 ( talk) 17:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
You saw I reverted you, no doubt. I'll repeat: there is no need to link a mass of material to a clearly partisan website verifying that these people protested, when one single reliable source attests to it. Adding the WSJ piece, an op-ed by a right-wing character, does not make those links any more valuable, and I just find it odd that you make these edits, which just look like spam to me. So besides that source obviously being partisan, unnecessary, and in triplicate, it's also in the lead that you made this edit, burdening the reader's load. Not good article writing, sorry. Drmies ( talk) 14:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Flaughtin ( talk) 15:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, you may be blocked from editing. This is nothing but disruptive. The author is a professor, the book is published by a university press. If you want to take issue with that, take it to WP:RSN. Drmies ( talk) 00:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"Dubious"_citations_from_an_academic's_book_and_article Drmies ( talk) 15:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Flaughtin ( talk) 21:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Please try your scare tactics on someone else, POV pusher. -- Calton | Talk 18:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
I appreciate your relentless work to prevent wholesale blanking of various articles as a result of deprecated sources. Your efforts do not go unnoticed, and you are not alone! Albertaont ( talk) 04:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC) |
Ive only opted to edit into a talk page three times in my life, the second being the useful idiots page, this the third. And I ended up on a whim clicking on your username and got lost in the wiki subcultural world on your talk page for a pleasant moment. Pointless courtesy hello. Thats all :) 199.66.13.72 ( talk) 21:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Flaughtin ( talk) 23:18, 30 October 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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or 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.
Djm-leighpark ( talk) 00:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey. Thank you for your considered statements over the last couple weeks at Talk:United States Electoral College. I wanted to expand on a string of Congressional reform addressing state mal-apportionment in federal elections. I noted previously, efforts to curb state majority abuses included three Acts of Congress passing both House and Senate in an effort to shape political communities that resembled the underlying populations geographically, socially, and ideologically (the culturally-related basket of religion, ethnic practice, and politics): contiguity (1842), and compactness (1872), including equal population (1911) (but only for a few sessions at a time, and never enforced).
If we expand the observation from listing Acts of Congress to exploring who was sponsoring them, the topic takes on an interesting aspect of US political intellectual history. The 1842 legislation was sponsored by Jacksonian Democrats, the 1872 by Lincoln Republicans, and the 1911 by Republican and Democratic Progressives. Wiki-fencing on Talk pages notwithstanding, I understand the impulse to the National Popular Vote generally to be aligned with that intellectual tradition. To take another page from the same democratizing impulse, if the states abuse their Constitutional duty to elect US Senators by their legislatures for thirty consecutive years as they did in the Gilded Age, then the American people will pass a Constitutional Amendment taking the abused trust away from the bad actors subverting their democratic republic.
So it is, that if the states do not refrain from the egregious anti-democratic practice of winner-take-all selection of their presidential electors, I expect that in due time the American people will take away the state legislature role in choosing a president, in one way or another. I will regret the loss of political community that might follow uniform standards for redistricting by equal population, contiguous boundaries, compact shapes, and respecting political boundaries aligned with the state geography. But the voting people are sovereign, at the very least, even if the non-voting populations of the voters' neighbors who are immigrants, young, and transients are left out of the national equation the future.
But whenever a persistent political majority takes form of the same opinion, it must be allowed to prevail, or we lose the American experiment that the London Economist last week noted is the political reason that Americans respect themselves and why others around the globe in turn respect them. - TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 16:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
" Reverting these additions again, because they're a BLP violation and therefore can't be left in while user behavioral issues are addressed." Could you elaborate on how there is a BLP violation? CowHouse ( talk) 14:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Shi initially considered if the virus could have come from her lab. She told Scientific American that she "had not slept a wink for days" until test results came back which confirmed that none of the genetic sequences matched any viruses from bat caves that her team had sampled.At the moment, the page doesn't mentioned the reason why Shi said the virus has nothing to do with her lab. There is only her uninformative response that "my time must be spent on more important matters". How is it a BLP violation to say she asked herself whether it was possible until test results showed that it wasn't? I think it's fine to include as long as it is clear to readers that she only asked herself "could they have come from our lab?" at a time when very little was known about the virus, and before the scientific community knew enough to refute a lab origin. CowHouse ( talk) 16:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
If coronaviruses were the culprit, she remembers thinking, “Could they have come from our lab?”[...]
Shi instructed her group to repeat the tests and, at the same time, sent the samples to another facility to sequence the full viral genomes. Meanwhile she frantically went through her own lab’s records from the past few years to check for any mishandling of experimental materials, especially during disposal. Shi breathed a sigh of relief when the results came back: none of the sequences matched those of the viruses her team had sampled from bat caves. “That really took a load off my mind,” she says. “I had not slept a wink for days.”If you believe it makes a substantial difference we could include the exact quote "Could they have come from our lab?" instead of "Shi initially considered if the virus could have come from her lab", but I'm not sure what inferences you're talking about. CowHouse ( talk) 16:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Your comment on whether MEDRS are mandatory before editing a claim implying the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy/fringe idea is requested by this Diff in this page, please take a look. Forich ( talk) 02:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. See Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Please reach consensus first before removing any well-sourced content. Normchou 💬 15:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Unexplained removal of content, yet you're accusing me of not giving valid reasons for my edits? Here are just some of the changes you made with your revert:
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to engage in subtle vandalism by making unexplained changes to information, you may be blocked from editing. Normchou 💬 13:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Normchou 💬 19:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Once again we got caught in the tale as old as time where a few rabidly active editors who insist on “reliability of sources” over actual reported facts squat a page and feign ignorance to exhaust any opposition. Thank you for not leaving me alone in trying to actually find proper sources and question the mainstream heavily Western biased narrative. I hope we can do so on other articles as well to help set a precedent for being a more neutral encyclopedia. Deku link ( talk) 19:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Deku link ( talk) 19:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I've opened up an RS discussion on Xinhua's usage for Id Kah Mosque since the dispute resolution concluded to take the issue there instead. Felt like informing you and the others involved, although it appears they already beat me to the punch in responding to the discussion. Deku link ( talk) 22:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ruling Party BLP violations. Thank you. I mentioned you as I asked for a partial block of Ruling party due to their continually adding back information only sourced to Wikileaks and you, like me, looked for other sources but found none. Nil Einne ( talk) 08:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
You accidentally added a cloud emoji to Nil Einne's post at AN/I. At least I hope it was an accident; if not, please pay a visit to WP:TALK. I think you'll want to remove it. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 15:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I've written a brief userpage essay on my opinions on RSP. Since this has been a subject both of us have discussed heavily recently and a moratorium is even being proposed on RSP discussions, I thought it might be of some interest to you. [57] Paragon Deku ( talk) 03:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Why did you undo the change I made to the Shi_Zhengli article? The article is misleading, it implies Daszak is an independent source whereas he's is Shi Zhengli's close colleague and client. He subcontacts work to her. See https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ -- Zeth
— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 22:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:17, 17 June 2021 (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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.
My very best wishes ( talk) 17:57, 2 July 2021 (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 edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, 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.
ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 03:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
You responded to me here, but that topic has been closed.
You said: You're arguing below (in the Caixin section) that we should have some sort of blanket ban on Chinese sources because they're possibly subject to the Chinese government, but here, you're arguing that we should take factual claims (mostly about China) made by a group set up by the Australian government and funded by US weapons manufacturers, the US State Department and the Australian Ministry of Defence at face value. I can't square that circle. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The answer is simple: Where an organization gets its funding doesn't really matter for factual reliability, what does matter is what policies and practices the organization implements with that funding, and what regulations it is subject to, among other things. Some organizations that get funding from their government are reliable (e.g. the BBC) while others are not (e.g. RT), so a model that focuses on funding to determine reliability is just plain using the wrong variable and will give wrong answers.
To construct another example: Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. Lets say he also hires a PR firm to promote himself. The Post's coverage of him is most likely reliable because of its institutional structure (journalistic firewalls and the like), while the PR firm's is not (because it's there to spin things to make him look at good as possible). The relevant variable isn't funding, but rather it's institutional practices and purpose.
Some other points:
1. You're mistaken if you think I'm arguing for a blanket ban on Chinese sources. I'm not.
2. Chinese news sources are subject to government management of their content based on political considerations, and domestic topics aren't free from that management (e.g. [58]). I actually linked in my Caixin comment to some of the directives all Chinese news organizations get from their government. There's also a extensive general censorship regime in place in China. Those facts are extremely relevant and need to be acknowledged and carefully considered when using mainland Chinese sources. - GretLomborg ( talk) 21:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
expert and timely advice for Australia's strategic and defence leaders.If you just glance at ASPI's list of publications, most of them are reports on how Australia and the US can militarily and diplomatically counter China, or reports accusing China of human rights abuses. I just think it would be absurd to pretend that this is some sort of neutral observer, akin to an independent public broadcaster.
RFA has inflated the death toll by factors of 9 to 50x:" I vaguely recall already arguing about that specific article, so I'm not going to waste much time on this again. That article didn't "
propagate[...] a conspiracy theory", but rather it was an early-ish journalistic reporting on what people were saying on social media when things were much more unclear. You're committing an error of anachronism if you expect such an article from 2020.03.27 to reflect a scientific study from 24 February 2021, almost a year later. If journalism was that good, why bother with the study? Obviously any Wikipedia article should not source death statistics from the former, but should use something like the latter instead. About all that particular RFA article would be good for now is for statements about skepticism of official results (which, to emphasize, is what it was actually reporting on).
Yet you haven't actually provided and examples of Caixin's supposed unreliability": why would I have? You should read that discussion again, and pay attention to the context of my comments. You'll see I offered no opinion on Caixin and only responded to someone else's proposal of a general rule for mainland sources. I did provide examples of the stuff I was actually talking about.
In this case, Caixin accurately reported on an issue in China, but a whole host of news organizations we normally consider reliable took that reporting out of context and propagated a conspiracy theory that we now know, based on scientific research into the death toll in China, to be false.: I addressed the "conspiracy theory" misrepresentation above, but I'll only emphasize here that Wikipedia shouldn't be using early 2020 news reports from any source for COVID death statistics, because better sources exist (e.g. the BMJ article you linked). The problem with news reports is that they have to be timely, that timeliness requirement often introduces error because they don't have the luxury of waiting until everything has been perfectly worked out. That doesn't mean an error like that makes a newspaper unreliable, it just means they're a different kind of source with different strengths and limitations. - GretLomborg ( talk) 04:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Wuhan resident surnamed Zhangand
resident of Hubei province. The first article is filled with lines such as,
Some social media posts have estimated, and is provocatively titled,
Estimates Show Wuhan Death Toll Far Higher Than Official Figure. This is not just good-faith, early journalistic work that turned out to be inaccurate. It's incredibly irresponsible misinformation about a pandemic, based on completely unreliable sourcing such as social media rumors. If the shoe were on the other foot and Chinese state media had written an article like this about the death toll in the US, I have no doubt you (and I) would label it disinformation.
Your comment here verges on WP:NPA [59]. I did not question the trustworthiness of Chinese scientists because of their nationality. Please address the matter of Chinese government censorship on Chinese scientists on COVID-19 research. In case you haven't read it yet, here is the AP Report about the censorship. LondonIP ( talk) 19:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
COVID-19 Barnstar | ||
Thank you for all your contributions to COVID-19 related articles. Wonderful additions to Zero-COVID. Moxy- 03:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC) |
I have received a few pings from you recently and am sorry not to have checked back yet. It's on my TODO, although I also have limited interest in constantly reading that page... Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 03:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
This revert [65] is concerning on multiple levels. You were reverting three different edits. Which are you describing as "editorializing"? One? All three? Or are there three different justifications for your reversions of the three edits you reverted? If so, why not describe them? Furthermore, the version you restored fails WP:V. Lastly, your revert message describes "obvious editorializing". That fails to describe specifically what you consider "editorializing". Lastly, the phrase "obvious editorializing" is itself concerning as WP:EDITORIALIZING mentions "obviously" as a word to be cautious with. Adoring nanny ( talk) 17:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I removed these random stats as they are meaningless without portion stats population.. ie 4000 infections is what percerntage of the population of an area...is 4000 good number or bad...in its current form the data has no scale for evaluation.-- Moxy- 17:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Zero_COVID. Moxy- 01:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't want you to get the wrong idea about my position on UPA, OUN, UVV. In my view, personally, I find their participation in genocide disgusting, revolting, etc. But wiki prohibits you or I from voicing our personal views in any article. Therefore, to keep with WP:NPOV, we have to describe them as the sources do. I don't want the article to get deleted. I feel that if you added their role in the Holocaust to the article it would be perfectly acceptable, and it might even make the article better. So I hope you do add it. I mean what do you have to lose right? If the article stays, then you've put in what you feel is important. If the article is deleted, then you've lost nothing. So I really hope you do. I'd like to see additions, I'm sure they'd be great. Best regards BetsyRMadison ( talk) 19:36, 27 April 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 Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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. |
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:03, 26 September 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 Falun Gong. 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.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Thucydides411! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:00, 30 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) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The Systemic Bias Barnstar | ||
I haven't run into you much lately, but here's some belated recognition for your efforts to help Wikipedia follow NPOV, even in contentious topic areas affected by systemic bias. Your well-reasoned arguments and hard work examining sources are an asset to the encyclopedia. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 20:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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:
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.
Longhornsg ( talk) 21:49, 23 October 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) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)