This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tyciol. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you clarify what the pseudoscience DS alert means? I'm not allowed to restore "pseudoscience" when it seems agreed-upon (per Fringe noticeboard) and consistent with sources (per RS and NPOV)? I'm not familiar with this particular DS alert. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Steve Down. Legobot ( talk) 04:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Nice of you to welcome me (although I have been around some time) with the message that you've deleted my page that I'd worked on for a long time. Not least of which was that the copyright had been freely obtained and given. How I cite/prove this is unknown. At least contact a user and then give them sufficient time to be able to give proof, which I have. That took me a long time to create. Please restore and I'll rewrite in my own words if you prefer and then cite the pdf. I did one reference for the whole thing as it's a compilation of many people's work, but did add/correct some items. Clearly, as a user who hunts down red links, I now know why there are so many. I'm not prepared to chase my tail anymore. The spirit that I thought Wikipedia had, clearly doesn't exist. I shall, instead, place my efforts elsewhere. Thanks, for nothing. Andrew.Hensman ( talk) 01:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted you reversion of the Erza talk page on the grounds that there was lot more substance to the post that the calling out of named editors. I would like to be able to speak regardless of either (1) the feelings of stone throwers or (2) how you might like to narrowly characterise the "dispute" terms of CIV. Ceoil ( talk) 03:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Bushmaster Firearms International#Mass Murder Weapon
GMcD6 ( talk) 22:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Taken it off my watch list, the only reason it was there was I closed an RFCand I'm largely uninterested with dealing with that sort of rubbish. In case you are unaware, for future reference Winkelvi is under an indefinite 1rr restriction logged at WP:Editing restrictions Only in death does duty end ( talk) 02:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Only in death: Thanks for the heads-up about the 1RR. Frankly I don't care where the hat tag goes as long as the hab ends the discussion. – dlthewave ☎ 02:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Dlthewave. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Linn City, Oregon, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a copyright violation, since the source material is a U.S. federal government publication. Thank you. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Dlthewave. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Kentucky Camp, Arizona, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Text and images published by the United States federal government is automatically in the public domain, and copying it is not a violation of copyright. Thank you. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Please stop following me.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
How is listing the names of prosecutors and defense attorney's inappropriate? Geo8rge ( talk) 17:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Greetings. FYI, if you want to prevent premature archiving of posts on the BLP Noticeboard, you should be able to use {{ do not archive until}} to specify how long the thread should remain. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 01:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Here (Alicia Keys album). Legobot ( talk) 04:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Please do not post on my talk page with your perceived violations, as already requested, per policy. Doing so would have the optics of harassment. Thank you. - 72bikers ( talk) 20:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sport in Australia. Legobot ( talk) 04:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
A new account that turned out to be a sock puppet got into an edit war with him over the gender identity of a German pop star who may have come out to a small number of people as a transwoman days before they disappeared off a cruise ship (presumed dead by the Canadian coast guard). In the course of this discussion he made some pretty explicitly transphobic comments, mostly in edit summaries. The sock got reported to 3RR but no action because of the BLP exception; but she was pretty ticked over the dispute and went to AN/I. That's the entire story. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | ||
For going above and beyond in helping to identify issues in African-American architects. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC) |
My first one! Thank you! – dlthewave ☎ 19:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Dlthewave, your notification of the gun politics group is basically canvasing. The editors of that group are basically exclusively a small group of like minded editors. This is one of the serious issues with that sells selected project from day one. Springee ( talk) 10:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Dlthewave, I know that I've been short with you recently and I've suggested POV pushing type motives in some of your actions. I apologize for that. I've reverted your edit (I think we were at 3:3 thus no new consensus) but added a RfC to discuss the material in question. I would like to ask you to provide the external references for the material in question. Currently it only links to other wiki articles. Since I'm opposed to the content I don't think it would be right for me to select the supporting references. Please feel free to edit the opening question to add the references. I know we won't agree on this but at least with a full, proper RfC we can feel the decision should stand. Springee ( talk) 02:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
By doing this you removed not only yours but also mine edits. That is not allowed. Actually, I have no objections to that, however, be cautious in future, because other users may report you. I posted it here, just in case if this your edit will be reported (that can happen, unfortunately. :-)-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 22:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I deleted it as garbage-- Woogie 10w ( talk) 14:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
While I do see the similarities between the text at this site and in this 2009 edit, I looked for evidence that the site was in existence prior to the edit and failed to find it. that's short of definitive. What evidence do you have that the Wikipedia article was copied from the site as opposed to vice versa?-- S Philbrick (Talk) 15:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Dlthewave. 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)
Hello, Dlthewave. 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)
Why didn't you post an edit wasting notice on Guy's talk page? If you had it would be easy to assume you were trying to calm a situation. As is it comes across as antagonistic and one sided.
Springee ( talk) 01:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Elisa Rolle's articles". Thank you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I reserve the right to disagree with it later but for consistency I think something like your S&W Model 19 edit would fit into the Browning High Power article since it provides context for the inclusion. Springee ( talk) 00:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Did you actually read the article? He is a world racquets champion, the titanic note is an interesting side note. How can a sports world champion not be notable? Racingmanager ( talk) 17:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - wolf 01:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Please note that a named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht was an award according to the German historian Felix Römer. There is also a book by the German Federal Archives which explains how, why and when a soldier, a unit, division, regiment or ship was named. Please consider reverting your edits. If you require proof, I will send you scans of the professional assessment made by historians, published in reliable books. Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 17:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd be interested in seeing the scans. My understanding was that it was a propaganda broadcast and the mentions didn't receive significant coverage in secondary sources, but I'm open to learning more. – dlthewave ☎ 17:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Please stop removing references to the Wehrmachtsbericht. This was one of the official government news sources. One doesn't have to like or approve of the regime to understand the importance of this historical reference. Indeed, the fact that there were so few permitted sources of information makes this source even 'more' important. 198.161.4.63 ( talk) 19:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic#Proposal to trim passenger list seems to have slowed down. I wanted to ask if you had listed it at any of the wiki-projects its listed under? (There's over a dozen of them). Thanks - wolf 18:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Thewolfchild: Would you mind looking over the draft message in my sandbox? I want to send out something neutral that will attract more editors to the discussion. – dlthewave ☎ 21:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 22:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år! |
Hello thankyou for your help in pointing out that many references were unusable in the article social media addiction. I have taken into account all yours and other considerations from other wikis and propose changing the article to what I am currently working on here /info/en/?search=User:E.3/sandbox. Can you please help with checking the citations due to my conflict of interest disclosed multiple times. I wish to develop consensus especially around the citations. Thankyou very much. E.3 ( talk) 05:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help again do you think any of these images would be OK? I only took the first one. They called it QI on commons, whatever that means really
Images |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
THx E.3 ( talk) 15:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
should be on it let me know, or just another one of the meds in the commons. But i think its probably enough images now though. Any thoughts appreciated. E.3 ( talk) 16:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
There is another redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 11#Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
its the toughest topic in the world presently in my opinion. You've helped us do it. E.3 ( talk) 07:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC) |
Your message isn't appreciated. Read the assessment. The vote was cast because of the inclusion of one source. That is now gone. Had editors been given the chance to reassess then they may have changed their minds. You've effectively allowed Koffman to take this article off the list by his own volition. There is nothing about that, that is remotely appropriate. Dapi89 ( talk) 15:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Dlthewave, Rather than have you find you indirectly, I wanted to let you know I have posted a Signpost comment in regards to your Firearms OpEd article. I have also posted a notice at Project Firearms talk. I'm concerned about what I view as a very one sided telling of events. Your article contains a number of accusatory claims but I think in most cases people would find the net results were not violations of DUE or NPOV etc. I think you have a very strong POV on the subject and thus you are making a good faith effort to fix a problem you are concerned about. However, I think many of the retelling are one sided and don't do the related discussions justice. We typically don't agree on these topics but I do think you are a good faith editor so I wanted to let you know I was responding to the article. If it's accepted I will likely, and as time allows, draft a rebuttal to many of the points and claims you made. I do think many of the claims can be reasonably refuted. Again, I do think you edit in good faith but I strongly disagree with the facts presented in your OpEd. Thanks. Springee ( talk) 20:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I've removed your notice here [ [1]]. I believe I understand why you feel this might have been CANVASING but I think you will find it was proper notification per the APPNOTE section. The material in question was discussed by four of us (you and I included) just a few months back. Waiting a period of time then starting a new conversation without considering the views previously raised might be FORUMSHOP issue. I don't know for certain but I'm sure it's not favorably viewed. Conversely, notifying all editors involved in a previous discussion of the same topic is appropriate notification; WP:APPNOTE "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". It would only be inappropriate if I notified previously uninvolved editors or was selective in my notifications. Springee ( talk) 21:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Springee, please strike the WP:FORUMSHOP accusation. I did not start any new discussions, in fact all of the recent discussions on the topic were started by you. – dlthewave ☎ 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
This has got to be seen to be believed : https://www.swigaptraining.com/skyway-anatoly-yunitskiy-was-awarded-the-international-peace-prize-from-slovakia-via-skyway/ Just out of curiousity, I checked. No one apart from pages and pages of SkyWay propaganda mention the recent ceremony. In fact, as far as I can see no one else has received such a prize. So funny it's scary.– Zachar Laskewicz ( talk) 20:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
As a result of the recent
arbitration enforcement request to which you were a party, I am warning you not to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for
polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. Should such problems reoccur, you may be made subject to blocks, topic bans or other discretionary sanctions.
Sandstein 07:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Dlthewave, you are removing a lot of basic content from a number of firearms articles and I was hoping to make a basic request. Some of the information looks like good removals but other material looks like material that shouldn't be controversial and likely could be sourced with minimal work. Take this removal for example [ [3]]. It does read to much like promotional material. However, there are also interesting bits of content such as the operating mechanism. The fact that the frame of the firearm is actually a sub assembly that fits inside of a larger grip (thus allowing the gun to be changed from compact to full size without a new serial number). Even if the text reads in a promotional style (it should not) the content is not controversial and even the mfr's product page should be a sufficient source (for example we can cite Ford's HP claims for cars). I hope you would agree that the technical content, if properly sourced, improves the utility of the article. Rather than wholesale removal would you please tag so others change change things later? I know we don't often agree but I hope this is something we can agree on. Springee ( talk) 19:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Please note that I have opened a request for clarification from the arbitration committee that involves you. I would be grateful if you would give your views at WP:ARCA#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Gun_control. GoldenRing ( talk) 15:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Blanking the page of an article you started an AfD on just yesterday [5] is a very strange thing to do. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Extended content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Look I'm really sorry if I've posted this in the wrong place as it is not really a personal criticism or a baseless accusation but a request for your help with the changes I attempted to make to an article (which resulted in not only my changes being removed but many other changes which have occurred since today). Any advice would be appreciated. I didn't want to pollute your talk page with the content below but as you seem to really be concerned with the content of the String Transport system page, it helps me rest easier with the knowledge that at least someone else who was generally interested in the subject had read my concerns (and judged them accordingly). Is there anything in it that would be acceptable? Thanks on the beforehand and wishing you the best: String Transport (also known as SkyWay, Yunitskiy String Transport and Rail Sky Way) refers to a theoretical engineering concept and proposals relating to a transportation system. Although these ideas may well relate to complex freight and passenger services, it has not received more than rudimentary practical application outside of the Russian Federation or Belorussia. When its business model has been proposed it has been widely questioned and never implemented. The theory involves an ecofriendly system of public transport using prestressed rails with prestressed cables ("strings") and the concrete inside them. It is engineered for both freight and passenger services and has two main types of track structure and rolling stock. Although there has been testing of this technology, the rudimentary construction in Moscow was considered unsafe and eventually taken apart and The Eco Techno Park facility in Maryina Gorka, Belarus,[1][2] has been blemished by technical faults and accidents. The websites of Skyway Capital refer to different proposals made to possible investors in places like the United Arab Emirates[3][4] but there is little chance that such projects will actually receive commercial realization. Funding for this project has been implicated in a series of scandals related to financial irregularities and pyramid schemes in places where it has been presented as a complex business model including Lithuania and Belgium. Average people whose money would never be required for investment in international projects of this type are encouraged to invest in complex financial schemes[5] and types of crowdfunding.[6] Public warnings have been issued by the Bank of Lithuania and FSMA on the grounds that promoters attracting investments to SkyWay are not in compliance with their securities regulations.[7][8] Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 18:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Kmarinas86
|
Dlthewave, I reverted two of your reversions of mine and thought I should try to discuss the topic with you. I think we have a disagreement regarding what constitutes WEIGHT when dealing with the mention of a crime in a gun article. I think your feeling is if the crime is significant and reports about the crime mention the gun then that establishes weight for inclusion in the gun article. My feeling is we need to show a RS about the gun that then links to the crimes. We have that with the AR-15 clones. There are plenty of articles that are about AR-15s that also talk about their use in crime and the debates associated with civilian ownership etc. Articles about guns like the Thompson sub-machine gun talk about their use in Chicago gang land violence. It's easy to find articles about the BAR that mention Bonnie and Clyde. However, I don't think we have any articles about the Sig Mosquito that suggest it's associated with any particular crime. What I would suggest is we work together to create a RfC so we could get wider input on this. It could actually help improve the Project:Firearms crime guidelines as it would then point to a RfC on the question. It would also give me a change to get input on the broader WEIGHT reciprocity question I've had for a while. Is this something you are interested in collaborating on? Thanks! Springee ( talk) 13:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, can you make your edit complete and correct please? Your deletion is incomplete Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 16:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost Barnstar | ||
For an outstanding contribution to the Wikipedia community's ability to critique itself in a contentious topic area. 2600:1700:9DD0:3130:CCE8:95FE:ABE2:6C1C ( talk) 17:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC) |
I have now closed your AE appeal. The warning is to be retracted (and it has been already retracted by Sandstein), and the page is to be undeleted, which I am going to do now. Happy editing.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Dlthewave, I'm quoted more than once in the above user page. Currently if a reader follows from our OpEd article to your primary article you list it as a See Also. Given that you are calling it a "whitewashing list" I believe it is a violation of WP:POLEMIC.
Rather than start a deletion review I would ask that you unlink it here [ [6]] and remove any examples where I'm quoted. You argued that the article should be undeleted because it was a supporting page for your OpEd submission. Since it is no longer part of the OpEd I think it would violate the imminently used part of POLEMIC. I hope that removing my quotes and delinking is a reasonable compromise. Alternatively, I would hope that you would consider removing it all together as other editors may feel the same as I do. If you request I can remove instances where I'm quoted so you don't have to try to identify the examples. Springee ( talk) 01:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done @ Springee: I am respectfully declining you request. Your name does not appear on my Whitewashing list, and any link between it and our joint Signpost submission is tenuous at best. Several editors at DRV did note that they did not consider the page to be a violation of WP:POLEMIC. You are welcome to open a community discussion as you see fit, however you should be aware of the potentially negative optics of opening a new discussion so soon after a related one has closed. If we're going to play Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, I would posit that the disparaging statements in the WP:Firearms archives, which are also indirectly linked from the op-ed, are of greater concern than my simple list of quotes. – dlthewave ☎ 16:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The following text is added to the "Important notes" section of the standard provision on appeals and modifications, replacing the current text of the fourth note:
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Just a heads up: the IP edit you approved here was material that has been repeatedly and erroneously inserted into the article. The previous edit I approved was actually the removal of that material. No idea why, but someone can't give up the idea that you can't get to Comox directly from Calgary... -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 11:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
ICHTHUS |
June 2019 |
The sad news was the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings. The Top 6 most popular articles about People in WikiProject Christianity were:
... that the first attempt to build the Holy Trinity Cathedral of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra resulted in the demolition of the nearly completed structure?
Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral is a
Gothic Revival three-spire cathedral in the city of
Cork,
Ireland. It belongs to the Church of Ireland and was completed in 1879. The cathedral is located on the south side of the River Lee, on ground that has been a place of worship since the 7th century, and is dedicated to
Finbarr of Cork, patron saint of the city. It was once in the Diocese of Cork; it is now one of the three cathedrals in the
Church of Ireland Diocese of Cork, Cloyne and Ross, in the ecclesiastical province of
Dublin. Christian use of the site dates back to a 7th-century AD monastery, which according to legend was founded by Finbarr of Cork. The entrances contain the figures of over a dozen biblical figures, capped by a tympanum showing a Resurrection scene.
(
more...)
Sent by DannyS712 ( talk) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 09:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Your refactoring of other editors's submissions is unacceptable conduct. It is officious. Contrary to policy and practice, Please stop it. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I hope we work together on the project in the future | ||
We may be on opposite sides of current issues, but if two people agree on everything - one of them is not necessary. User:Lightburst 20:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | ||
Make the most of the holiday! Lightburst ( talk) 00:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC) |
I'm clearing out his CCI right now. I have a question (possibly more to come); On Bogdan Nestorović, was the copyvio you removed the only one? Thanks, 💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 18:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
And, with a little help, I've finished it. 💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 20:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dlthewave. Can you tell me why you have removed the AfD notices from a large number of "Meanings of minor planet names" articles. As far as I can tell, the AfD discussions have not yet closed, so the notices should not be removed. Am I missing something? Thanks, Railfan23 ( talk) 13:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your vigilance over declined unblock requests. But for a user who is now subject to a community ban, unblock requests on their user talk page become irrelevant because no administrator is authorised to grant them. I have blanked Elsa.Rolle's talk page as a courtesy to a blocked user. GoldenRing ( talk) 20:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I am aware of the following discretionary sanctions: |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the September 11 attacks, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Abortion, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the Balkans, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Climate change, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding discussions about the integration of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Eastern Europe, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the Electronic cigarette topic area, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Falun Gong, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Liancourt Rocks, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Landmark Worldwide, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Muhammad, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Longevity, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Prem Rawat, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the Shakespeare authorship question, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the Senkaku Islands dispute, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Scientology, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the Transcendental Meditation movement, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding The Troubles, 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.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Waldorf education, 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. |
ICHTHUS |
July 2019 |
A suicide attack on July 11th claimed by Islamic State (IS) near a church in the Syrian city of Qamishli shows that Christians remain a major target of the terror group. The Top 6 most popular articles about People in WikiProject Christianity were:
When God Writes Your Love Story: The Ultimate Approach to Guy/Girl Relationships is a 1999 book by Eric and Leslie Ludy, an American married couple. After becoming a bestseller on the Christian book market, the book was republished in 2004 and then revised and expanded in 2009. It tells the story of the authors' first meeting, courtship, and marriage. The authors advise single people not to be physically or emotionally intimate with others, but to wait for the spouse that God has planned for them.
The book is divided into five sections and sixteen chapters. Each chapter is written from the perspective of one of the two authors; nine are by Eric, while Leslie wrote seven, as well as the introduction. The Ludys argue that one's love life should be both guided by and subordinate to one's
relationship with God. Leslie writes that God offers new beginnings to formerly
unchaste or
sexually abused individuals.
(
more...)
I dunno. Kinda useful as a honey trap. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 03:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:American people of Oneida descent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Please self revert this edit [ [7]]. The RSN discussion [ [8]] did not conclude TTAG was unreliable for technical facts, only for commentary or opinions. We don’t help our readers by removing the technical facts in the AR-15 article. Springee ( talk) 14:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:American people of Oneida descent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
ICHTHUS |
December 2019
|
The Top 3 most popular articles about People in WikiProject Christianity were:
Being a Ghost Story of Christmas, commonly known as A Christmas Carol, is a
novella by
Charles Dickens, first published in London by
Chapman & Hall in 1843 and illustrated by
John Leech. The book is divided into five chapters, which Dickens titled "
staves". A Christmas Carol recounts the story of
Ebenezer Scrooge, an elderly
miser who is visited by the ghost of his former business partner
Jacob Marley and the spirits of
Christmas Past,
Present and
Yet to Come. After their visits, Scrooge is transformed into a kinder, gentler man. (
more...)
“ | Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another. | ” |
Romans 12:10 New King James Version (NKJV)
We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project or an issue that you'd like to highlight? Post your inquiries or submission here.
I thought we had decided that when no Nation has been stated, the identification is self-identified as it cannot be checked. The only live sources on Beyoncé are the Fox news statement that her mother believes Creole = some degree of unnamed Native American descent, and the ICT blurb that quotes a makeup commercial, but does not in any way support the claim. I agree that people with no mention or sourcing are best removed from all of these cats. And she is another for whom there is no reliable sourcing. With no Nation claimed, it can't be sourced as anything other than self-identification. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry! – Muboshgu ( talk) 23:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 13:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Appreciate the explanation, but this claim needs a review or secondary source. A handful annons off the internet shouldn't be deciding the issue without substantive evidence. Dapi89 ( talk) 13:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, DI.
I'm not being contentious, but I wondered why you think the compensation to Kelly and the other members of Caliburn board, including seven flag rank officers with no particular expertise in the business of running a holding facility for children, should not be discussed? I Googled the following word combination: "homestead shelter children kelly," and I got 35 million hits, so I would assume there's significant interest in the issue. I'm also familiar with compensation to board members of for-profit corporations, and this seems huge. There is currently a lot of skepticism, criticism and immense public interest about Hunter Biden, who seems to have no particular expertise, getting $50 thousand a month for being a board member of a Ukraine petrochemical corporation. I expect if it was, say, $5,000 a month, there would be considerably less interest. Also, the $200,000 prospective bonus, contingent on the divestment of the operations, would mean that the principals would have considerable interest in the financial success of the detention operation. What do you think? Thanks! Activist
Per your comment on User talk:EdChem, you might be interested in reading WP:ANI#Future Perfect at Sunrise. (Caveat: per WP:Canvassing, I am not suggesting that you take any stand, pro or con, on the proposal.) Schazjmd (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
We are edit warring at the moment. I am in discussion on the talk page and there is not an urgent need to refactor the list at this time. Please stop edit warring. We can come to a conclusion with time and consensus. Lightburst ( talk) 05:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd really reconsider a ton of individual nominations here. Have a chat with Onel. If there is merit to the deletions, He'll listen and they can just be CSDed, but I'm noticing for example that Nommel is listed as a populated place in the USGS database, [9] so these might be places that were previously populated but are not any more. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 21:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
:( Lightburst ( talk) 19:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Just after I warned you not to make massive changes to a contentious article in spite of disagreement from other editors, you proceed to make exactly the same massive changes that prompted me to issue this warning in the first place. Not good. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅ 13:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
You got any way for me to check that? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Race_and_intelligence&type=revision&diff=941194357&oldid=941193902 Maybe you could do one of those quote things in the ref? I don't have the book. Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 04:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Please consider adding a comment to the discussion on the Second Amendment sanctuary talk page. -- Mox La Push ( talk) 08:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Right now you and another editor appear to be in a slow motion edit war over whether or not to include a Global variation of IQ scores section at Race and intelligence. A slow motion edit war is still an edit war. If the ongoing discussion about the section cannot produce a clear enough consensus I would encourage you to try other methods of dispute resolution. Continued edit waring may result in other sanctions. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dlthewave, thank you for your consistent stand in the debate around the page "Race and Intelligence". As you may remember, during the AfD discussion, I have cited the subsection "Global variation of IQ scores" as a perfect example of how the coatrack title "Race and Intelligence" naturally invites to all kinds of WP:SYNTH by people who think that races exist outside of people's heads.
It may come as a surprise for you that I don't agree with your complete removal of that subsection, but for quite different reasons than the race-believer camp. The point is, Lynn&Vanhanen and their attempt to apply an almost entirely US-focussed fringe theory to non-US data, are a notable example of IQ-related scientific racism, so they have to get due mention somewhere in the article as such. Of course, the pseudo-neutral title "Global variation of IQ scores" turns the whole thing into racialist trivia. My suggestion is to create an alternative text which only covers racist/racialist studies (primarily Lynn&Vanhanen) and studies which explicitly react to them. A possible title could be "Extension of race-based IQ-studies to global test scores". Constructive replacements will bring you out of the edit war corner (see ↑), and will help to bring the article in the right direction. – Austronesier ( talk) 21:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | ||
For the thankless behind the scenes work. Lightburst ( talk) 00:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC) |
I have requested dispute resolution about the "Global variation of IQ scores" section: [11] Please comment there when you're able to. 2600:1004:B166:536E:8800:9BF8:FCBA:FABB ( talk) 16:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
What you need to realize is that Census tracts are different from census designated places, which are always presumed to be notable and pass GEOLAND #1 as legally recognized places. If you disagree, I would raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) rather than creating AfDs. What are sometimes deleted are unincorporated places and neighborhoods. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 16:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Um, do we have to nominate so many unincorporated places for deletion all at once? No doubt, many may be non notable, but maybe not all. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 00:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey, there's a few of us who will work on California places and we'd be glad to have you join. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_California#Cleaning_up_all_those_GNIS_location_articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject California/GNIS cleanup task force. Going through these one or a few at a time at AFD is going to be futile against this scope. Thanks, Reywas92 Talk 03:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Please, for the third time, can you finally familiarize yourself with what a WP:PRIMARY source is?
You again added a primary source tag to the Rushton & Jensen 2005 source. It is a peer-reviewed article published in the Psychology, Public Policy, and Law journal of the American Psychological Association. An article released in such a journal, especially one that reviews research by others and offers insight by the authors, is not a primary source.
Your misundertanding of the sourcing policy was pointed out in two earlier AE requests: 1 & 2. This is starting to get disruptive. -- Pudeo ( talk) 21:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
"A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published works to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material)."and disabused yourself of that notion. – dlthewave ☎ 00:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
all sources are primary for something, I wonder. -- Pudeo ( talk) 06:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I made a thread on RSN because it would be great to have a better understanding on this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Peer-reviewed journal R&I articles as WP:PRIMARY? Happy editing! -- Pudeo ( talk) 07:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Dlthewave. I am trying to make a article but, I need help trying to get the quotes to Format properly can you help me and with anything else you see? /info/en/?search=Mass_Rape_By_German_forces_During_The_Second_World_War#Historians_assessment_on_Mass_Rape_by_German_forces Driverofknowledge ( talk) 02:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
tag from
Spaghetti Junction, Kentucky, which you proposed for deletion. It's a real place. I updated the article. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}}
back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
Normal Op (
talk) 08:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm inclined to bulk nominate the lot of those dumped in from Durham's book. The one thing I have a question about is for instance you added a comment about China City, California saying that it appears on some map. Which map? It's not on any of the usuals. Mangoe ( talk) 15:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Global action plan for influenza vaccines. I do not think that Global action plan for influenza vaccines fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because Not enough copied content to justify deletion. If you wish, you may try using the simple proposed deletion (PROD) process, or the full articles for deletion (AfD) process, instead. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 22:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your work in protecting Wikipedia by hunting down copyright violations and asking for revision deletions. The number of revision deletion requests has shot up in the last few days thanks largely to your requests, and so far I have found yours to be correct and accurate. Good work! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dlthewave,
If you get the chance, would you mind taking a look at Sensitivity analysis? I tagged it a couple of weeks ago, but nothing much seemed to have happened. It's not really my area of expertise. Thank you. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 18:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this article requires Revision deletion. The criteria for Revdel is "Blatant violations of the copyright policy" per WP:CFRD#1. As these were always sourced blockquotes I don't think this is a blatant violation. Nthep ( talk) 18:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I see you've restored the quotes. That's an editorial decision and not something I have an opinion on in this case. If you think the quotes are excessive you can remove them, all I am saying is that I do not consider their use to have been a blatant copyvio. Nthep ( talk) 09:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I've read your essay at WP:GNIS, and I pretty much agree with it entirely. I've seen a lot of the work going on with the Arizona and California places in the past year or so, and I've been looking at Missouri lately (Basically, GNIS calls every rural post office that ever existed a "populated place"). Is there a WikiProject for such cleanup? The need is very widespread. See Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States by state for an idea, as most of the GNIS error stubs are considered to be either unincorporated communities or extinct towns.
TZubiri ( talk) 21:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
The revert of the edit correcting to "bachelor’s degree" to "bachelor's degree" on the basis on COI rewrite/copyvio is highly inappropriate. Please correct you edit. Sun Creator( talk) 15:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Sun Creator - This guy "Dlthewave" is trolling the site looking for anything to revert, even minor stuff. Guess he has no life. Wikipedia is trash anyway and has been for years.. such a shame. It could have been great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashta ( talk • contribs) 05:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Since you participated in Talk:TSLAQ#This_is_the_most_hilarious_WP:COI_article_I've_read, I am informing you of a related discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#QRep2020. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 03:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Dlthewave, do you have a reason why you are restoring the longer version? If you were going to the talk page please ignore this message. Springee ( talk) 04:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Fair question, In answer, I am hoping that the threat of losing the article might lure SCHCComChr ( talk · contribs) back because I suspect that this may be a multiparty account or an undisclosed paid editor (Society of the Companions of the Holy Cross and maybe Communications Chair or Community Chapter?), and I would rather address both the copyright and the suspect account at the same time. Usually, when an article teeters on the brittle edge of non-existence, ling dormant accounts that have a stake in keeping or retaining specific versions of an article return to add their two cents, and I am hoping that might occur here so we can sort that out and then drop some advice about how to correctly build or rebuild an article so as to avoid having to go through this waltz again in the future. In fairness its a judgement call on my part, and there is no guarantee the account I'd like to speak to will return to editing to save the article, which means the shorter path to fixing this is as you surmise revision deletion, so I can dig it. TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I tried to delete the content that would most likely be considered copyrited material, but that got reverted just a little while ago. You've nominated 2 articles for speedy deletion. I do not have time right now to make major revisions of each of these two articles. If you feel they need to be removed, you have my permission. Dmm1169 ( talk) 04:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Dlthewave, I think you have been around long enough to know that restoring content that clearly doesn't have consensus is edit warring. We have something like 10 editors who have weighed in and half say the CPAC content is UNDUE. Why would you restore it without a clear consensus? Springee ( talk) 04:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I was open to talk on my edits. It is the other party that is committing the reversions you noted and refused to talk about them. Bring your issue up with them, not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkHorseSki ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
This may help: [12]
Please do your best to WP:FOC and work collaboratively with others to create consensus. If you don't get responses you like, try something different following the relevant policies and guidelines. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Dlthewave, the Ngo article has a 1RR limit. You are over that with your recent edits. Please self revert. I'm starting a talk section where we can try to address some of the concerns rather than just removing content. Springee ( talk) 12:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Dlthewave, you just broke 1RR again. Any of the congressional testimony content has been changed a lot recently so any change to it is a revision. You made changes to that material here [ [16]] and now here after I made changes to that exact content [ [17]]. The Fox news source does not say what you put in the article. Your version suggests there was an effort to find evidence and it failed. The article makes it clear the investigators were not looking for those connections. That doesn't prove connections do exist but the failure to find them doesn't mean such a claim was wrong which is what you are trying to imply with your edit. Springee ( talk) 17:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Please stop posting on my talkpage. Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I think we have to pick our shots on this and hope for a general change in policy that makes mass-creation easier to deal with. I'm entirely certain that, barring a major change in behaviour, for most of the ones still going we'll be looking at the same kind of block/retirement/whatever, and formation of a clean-up team to go through their articles one-by-one that we've had to do with C46. Until then, yeah, they'll just carry on creating a massive back-log of fails for future editors to have to meticulously sort through. FOARP ( talk) 13:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
PS -
let's also look at the top-ten article creators:
This is not to grave-dance on those editors who are now no longer active on wiki, but you can see a clear trend to either learning their lessons about massive article creation or being blocked/whatever. FOARP ( talk) 15:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I've got no problem with you AfDing cricket articles, but can we keep them to a max of 5 per day to allow good levels of discussion on the article in question. Previously when we've had large numbers at a time it has meant poor discussion and strange conclusions. Regards. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 17:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Dlthewave, it was nice meeting you at the Andy Ngo article. Hope you're doing well recently.
I'm here to ask a question about one of your edits there.
For this edit where you removed parts of Ngo's testimony, you said that there was a due weight issue because only a "deprecated source" covered it. Is there any WP policy stipulating that only information covered by secondary sources can be included, while primary-source information can't?
Thanks, Thomas Meng ( talk) 02:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Dlthewave, please slow down with some of these reverts.[ [21]] This is disputed content and has been since it was first added. Yes, in the past few hours the discussion is 3:1 but that ignores that Shinealittlelight also questioned the source when it was first added. Also, no one has actually addressed my concerns. The article is confrontational enough, restoring disputed content without a clear consensus doesn't help. Springee ( talk) 02:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
So long as I'm here, I noticed you reverted my edit here [ [22]]. Welcome to the article. Why to you think it's important to include a "soundbite" statement vs an impartial summary of the judge's ruling? I don't like the idea of saying someone was "objectively unreasonable" (an ironically subjective statement) vs stating what Hughes did that the judge found problematic? Else, remove the soundbite clip which is what I did. Springee ( talk) 20:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I reverted your edit because the link that the article quotes is no longer active. It looks like tannerite stopped selling that product about a year or so ago. MartinezMD ( talk) 04:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Hope you are doing well. I noticed that you had tagged Oprah with Meghan and Harry because apparently a few revisions contained copyrighted information added by a now-blocked user. I checked the page's history, and those revisions appear to be redacted now, so I removed the tag. However, I still preferred to double check it with you because I'm not really aware of what's going on regarding the investigations into that user's contributions. Regards! Keivan.f Talk 07:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the support at the MFD. I've done a bit more work on this essay and would be grateful for any comments/amendments. At least we can discuss it without CANVASS concerns as you already saw the MFD independently. FOARP ( talk) 15:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Dlthewave, please don't hat discussions that are related to the topic unless they are clearly a violation of FORUM. Hatting good faith discussions that have relevance to the topic is not helpful. Once the collapse was disputed you shouldn't have restored it without some additional input. Springee ( talk) 12:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I would really appreciate your opinion about an userbox I created on request, recently nominated for deletion together with other similar userboxes. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Qartagir/Userboxes/Fascist. Thanks, Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 00:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.
Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 21:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Recommend you reread the comment I made that you are responding to with this edit and strike your misrepresentation of my stated stance.-- MONGO ( talk) 23:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh my, I'm sorry, I must have misread your comment. I'm on mobile at the moment but I'll strike it and write a note general comment when I'm at my PC. – dlthewave ☎ 23:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I just saw your response on Awilley's talk page, and to avoid stirring up any shit, I decided to comment here. I wasn't attributing that accusation to you, but to PacMecEng, characterizing your comment as "MAKING THE PROBLEM [of tribalism] WORSE". I just wanted to be clear on that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
A discussion that may interest you: Wikipedia_talk:Editing policy#Edit summaries for reverts. Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 15:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord.
There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.
Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the Lord is his refuge.
Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad. 2605:A601:A961:0:2880:4139:E8E6:B69 ( talk) 05:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I see you've had some disagreements with Springee lately concerning the 1RR rule, and while I haven't followed in detail I'm concerned as Springee launched a WP:ANI action against me in February this year based on a spurious interpretation of 1RR, [24] and then subsequently launched another action months later against a different editor based on the same incorrect interpretation, in apparent ignorance of the earlier ruling. [25] While Springee is a frequent visitor to my talk page (65 mentions at present), I had no idea they were on a voluntary 1RR restriction and they have never indicated this to me. I'm somewhat concerned by what I see as a pattern of selective application of policy and POV-pushing, especially on pages related to conservative political figures like Andy Ngo. I'd be interested to know if you've observed this as well Noteduck ( talk) 01:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Dlthewave, you warned me about what you felt was a 1RR violation. What is your opinion regarding this pair of reverts [
[26]], [
[27]]?
Springee (
talk) 13:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The text clearly states that it is the organization's own description of requirements for members. In this case sourced from the organization's own website is okay. If you still have issues with it being reverted, please make a case for a change on the Talk page so we can work out a solution if need be. Myotus ( talk) 17:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Dlthewave, I know you have been concerned about editors crossing over from content disagreements to attacking other editors. Since you commented here [ [28]] would you mind commenting on the accusations of lying etc leveled against me? I would appreciate if you could try to calm that situation down a bit. Thanks! Springee ( talk) 02:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Category:American propagandists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_8#Category:American_propagandists. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Renat 12:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I noticed you
said at ANI: If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure [X] isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.
(Polite ping to
El_C who was also in that conversation)
I think I have some experience with that. WP:CRP, while a great policy, does lead to filibustering and deadlock. A dedicated admin would be great, but they are hard to find as they're generally busy with other things. Do you have other ideas on how the policy can be modified to prevent filibustering? Maybe we should have a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Consensus required about how this should be addressed. VR talk 16:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
The lists of Lochs and Islands in Sutherland, why did you delete them, they've been there for over 2 years without modifications, if you were really worried about unsourced material then add or find sources, I was already at that time working on finding information about those and now I realize the lists have gone N1TH Music ( talk) 09:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear User as you may know dozens of settlements of Kiribati have been created in 2008, most of them, without any kind of sourcing and no notability (except on remote database). On Nonouti island where part of my family is, there are not such villages. On Kiribati atoll, the villages are called kaainga and group few people (from 20 to 500 ca), each kaainga has its proper name, and none of the villages of Nonouti are in the list of AfD. But I saw some resistance : for example for Kaaitara an abandoned place in Teraina without any inhabitants since more than 20 years. the creator of those articles, in 2008, never replied to my question. thanks for supporting their deletion, yours -- Arorae ( talk) 15:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jot Em Down Store, Georgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Locale. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. Could you double-check your redirect at Beckley, West Virginia? Cheers! Magnolia677 ( talk) 16:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:American people of Sioux descent indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 19:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Have to admit I'd kind of walked away from the whole GNIS GeoStub issue for a few months. Now I'm back into it and I see the issues are more or less the same - there's a relatively small number of editors who continue to believe that any location that was ever populated should get a stand-alone article even if it says virtually nothing about the place. At least GNIS's unreliability is now the subject of a consensus at
WP:RSN, good going!
Personally, I think the only way this is ever going to be resolved is just by bringing GEOLAND into line with GNG the same way that schools basically were. People are having their minds gradually changed one AFD at a time. You see movement on WP:SPORT as well as people are beginning to see that basically Wiki is just being made to host directory-style information, which is undesirable. FOARP ( talk) 18:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
As a courtesy see here. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 17:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)