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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 13:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Explain how come for literally any other article involving Military History can have flagicons but yet for some unknown reason, there just can't be any in the Indian Rebellion of 1857? Again refer to the MOS since you don't bother to address that at all, again I don't want a edit war but I'm just asking why there simply can't be flags in this one article discussing military history when it doesn't break any guidelines or MOS's. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | |
Thank you for your continued service adding to Wikipedia throughout 2020. - Cdjp1 ( talk) 10:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Taiwan has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. STSC ( talk) 02:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
When I was editing Southern Cross of Honor, I missed the notice that you had removed a non-existent category I had just added and was in the process of creating. When I went back to the article I just assumed I hadn't added the category yet (which would have actually been the correct order for me to take.) Didn't mean to steamroll over your revert and, if you still have any concerns about my change to the article, I'd be happy to discuss. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
[1] <-- This is one of the sources some people are claiming doesn't meet the sourcing requirements in this topic area. I think it's borderline but since it's not necessary (there are two other citations there) I removed it. I'm letting you know just in case someone tries to drag you to WP:AE over this. Volunteer Marek 19:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Per your request in the edit summary of your reversion of my edit, I started a topic at Talk:Michael_Voris#Nationality regarding inclusion of Michael Voris' nationality in the infobox. I invite you to share your views on that over there. Thanks. – 108.56.139.120 ( talk) 14:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The international border between India and Pakistan is well-defined. It was demarcated on paper in August 1947. It is accepted by India and Pakistan and the UNited Nations. Read literature on it. What you say "disputed" is the line of control in Kashmir. India crossed the international border and entered Pakistani airspace. It did not strike in any part of Kashmir. It struck within Pakistani territory. Do not obfuscate the hard facts under the euphemism of your "neutrality" by referring to line of control because the airstrike was in a province of Pakistan. It was not in Kashmir. You are taking sides by trying to avoid hard fact of international border. Rao Ravindra ( talk) 12:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
If you are not well-read (and obviously you are not, judging by your ignorance about what is an international border and how it is defined by the UN), you may not know that Indian warplanes have crossed the international border between India and Pakistan in 1965 and 1971 when Pakistan attacked India. The Indian warplanes attacked and destroyed Pakistani airbases, troops, tanks, oil refinery, bridges, etc. without flying over Kashmir. The international border between India and Pakistan is over 3,000 km long. Indian warplanes do not necessarily have to fly over Kashmir to enter Pakistani airspace. Rao Ravindra ( talk) 12:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC) You are fond of deleting what you do not like and then asking the other person to go to talk page. I undid your "revert". So why don't you go to talk page instead of preaching to me that I should go to talk page. Are you a preacher or an editor? If you are an editor, stop preaching others on Wikipedia and stop inserting your wrong "facts" in articles. If you are a preacher, go and preach in a church. Decide for yourself what you want to be in life. Regards. Ravindra Rao Rao Ravindra ( talk) 13:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 14:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 15:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 13:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The reported user continues to edit war and violate revert rules despite warning and under report investigation. Could you please lock article Jovan Rašković from further edits immediately? I told them to open discussion on the talk page. Thanks OyMosby ( talk) 19:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven:, you made this post accusing me of doing a promotion of a company.
"And can you explain this. . ." Interesting you start your post with the conjunction "And" which implies "in addition to other things". Is this a logical, continuing part of the BMK incident? Why is this "can you explain" posted there? I don't mean to be glib, but if you think this accusation that I am "promoting of a company" is part and parcel of that incident, you are beating a WP:DEADHORSE, so please WP:DROPTHESTICK on that incident.
I am curious as to why I have to provide an explanation about what this "seems" to you? Are you stalking me to see if I will do something to criticize and perhaps claim an incident? Seriously, why are you doing this?
Here's the short answer: It is not what you seem to think it is. I am in no way promoting a company.
Here's the long answer:
In holding stuff in a place that undoubtedly does not receive much traffic, in a "backstage" area, am actually I promoting a company? It isn't covert advertising.
I have reviewed the Wikipedia page Subpages with special attention to "Disallowed uses" and the Wikipedia page Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. I don't see a violation concerning my saved stuff.
If doing this innocuous save of stuff (at least it is to me) is in violation of Wikipedia's policy, please specify what that policy is, and I will make my saved stuff comply.
If this explanation is not adequate, please clarify what is needed.
And again, why are you doing this?
Osomite hablemos 00:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. It'sOnlyMakeBelieve ( talk) 16:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind if we talk directly instead of getting into an edit war, haha.
I believe mainstream Andorran scholarship actually does support the idea that Andorra was never part of the war. Here's a screenshot of a translated section from the article I mentioned. It has multiple cited sources you can check for yourself:
Qmwnebrvtcyxuz ( talk) 13:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The Catalan wiki article cites eight different sources, and that article was just one of them. Like I said, you can check out those sources for yourself.
But yes, I will continue the discussion on the talk page.
Qmwnebrvtcyxuz ( talk) 13:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe this is a violation of WP:POLEMIC, but I think it's only fair to let you know that Osomite has included you on their list of editors to "check out", here, along with myself, Drmies, and Fram. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 17:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Please check the article's history. The material was added, with a reference, and Snowdad refused to explain why they think it's "citation spam", I might agree if they presented evidence of any kind, but they have not done so. Yur edit to the article was not helpful, Please consider reverting it and asking Snowdad to provide evidence of why the edit in question is not appropriate. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 11:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 15:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
any objections? Acousmana ( talk) 15:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Slatersteven! I'm Dswitz10734. I'm writing this message regarding my edit and your revert of my edit. I just want to make it clear that I am not offended in any way by your action, but I just wanted follow up and explain why I did made the edit that I did.
The word "march" makes it seem like Trump encouraged the violence. I'm sure he didn't want violence nor deaths, but the light he is in seems to get that message across to the reader. I wanted to make it clear in the article that Trump didn't encourage deaths, but he said to "peacefully and patriotically" [5] express your feelings.
I do my best to be neutral on this encyclopedia, and with so many people with so many different backgrounds editing, making this whole encyclopedia neutral is a hard task. I didn't want the article to convey that Trump wanted the violence without a reference; this article should be neutral. I noticed when I referenced that site that it was citation number 1. That means that the entire intro is citeless! (I made that word up because it makes sense ;-) ) Please tell me your thoughts so we can work this out. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear from you soon! Dswitz10734 ( talk) 16:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Why is disputationism getting erased? -- Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm ( talk) 11:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Why is coagulationism getting erased? -- Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm ( talk) 11:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
To prevent any more of your questions, as I said "they sound made up", words you are using in ways that do not (assuming the words themselves are not made up) in ways that differ from everyday (or even dictionary) usage. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Why is concentrationism getting erased? -- Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm ( talk) 11:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Why is objectionism getting erased? -- Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm ( talk) 11:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Why is collectionism getting erased? -- Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm ( talk) 11:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you tell me the terms used in English ending with ionism? How many do you have? -- Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm ( talk) 11:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I do not say -ism, I say -ionism. You know, expressionism is like impressionism. Ending with the following letters IONISM. Whatever brain I have, I bring -ism to the end of every word that has -ion. -- Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm ( talk) 11:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Tell me the words that end in IONISM used in English. -- Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm ( talk) 11:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey Slatersteven. I saw your edit at the RfC here and was confused as to what you meant. There have been more one sentence votes simply saying “I agree with Slatersteven or xx editor” without any self explanation as to why. Are RfCs just popularity votes or are the opposition required to make an actual case? Otherwise 2+2 can equal 5 if majority says so, haha. This RfC seems to have been open for a bit. Not sure what you meant to remove as you said you now don’t want to vote? Your vote is still there so wanted to verify with you. Thanks! OyMosby ( talk) 15:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
this see what I mean? Acousmana ( talk) 17:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I reverted an edit, I did not introduce something. Check the history before making false assumptions. Secondly claiming that anti-Semitism needs verifiability is quiet a proof of bad faith. You are not really willing to be constructive, this is very low. Are you coordinating your militant activity with the second user? I don't understand why you became part of the user actions as you are not showing your willingness to present your arguments... I can wait, but then don't act out of bad faith and do reverts on false pretexts. Thanks for understanding the message, if not reread.-- Vanlister ( talk) 17:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why the percentage of users of lesswrong who identify with neoreaction is notable (which is less than 1%), but the percentage who identify with effective altruism isn't notable (over 20%). The source is the same 2016 survey so verifiability isn't a concern. Either both statistics should stay or both should be omitted. 72.209.38.247 ( talk) 17:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
From the book "The AI Does Not Hate You", chapter 38:
It's impossible to talk about the Rationalists without mentioning their conjoined twin, the Effective Altruism movement. They're so intertwined that I have a bad habit of using the terms synonymously, but they are in fact distinct. [...]
The links between the Rationalists and the Effective Altruists go back pretty much to the beginning [...]
Certainly, the LessWrong Rationalists provide a large proportion of Effective Altruism's support. In 2014, 31 per cent of survey respondents said that they had first heard of the movement through LessWrong; by 2017, that figure had dropped to 15 per cent, presumably partly because LessWrong had shrunk while Effective Altruism had grown, but a further 7 per cent had heard of it through Slate Star Codex. And a large fraction of LessWrongers are Effective Altruists: according to the 2016 LessWrong diaspora survey, 20 per cent of respondents identified as Effective Altruists, and 22 per cent had made 'donations they otherwise wouldn't' because of Effective Altruism.
Is that enough to justify inclusion? 72.209.38.247 ( talk) 18:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven,
Mangal Pandey DOB is 30th January 1831, not 19th July 1827. We raised our concern to the Indian government and acknowledge them. They agreed that the actual DOB is 30th Jan 1831 and we are celebrating the DOB on 30th Jan 1831. We are trying our best to people know the actual DOB. I am from the same place where Mangal Pandey was born so I knew the actual story from his relatives. If DOB is incorrect in any popular website t's our duty to raise a concern. He is our first freedom fighter and everyone should know the actual DOB. Please try to understand the importance of this issue.
Please find the below link to see what's published in the Indian newspaper for your reference and another link also.
https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/will-observe-mangal-pandeys-birth-anniversary-on-jan-30-from-next-year-up-minister/1899615 https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Mangal_Pandey
I translate some of the websites into English for your reference.
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=hi&u=https://www.patrika.com/varanasi-news/martyr-mangal-pandey-untold-story-on-independence-day-news-in-hindi-1-1716560/&prev=search&pto=aue https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=hi&u=https://www.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/varanasi-city-questions-raised-on-mangal-pandey-birth-anniversary-ballia-people-say-tampering-with-facts-birthday-is-30th-january-jagran-special-20529379.html&prev=search&pto=aue
Let me know if you have any concerns.
Thanks, Manish
Do you think I am I going too far in my removals or possibly misapplying the BLP rules? ~ BOD ~ TALK 09:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I see your exasperation on a bunch of those edit requests you respond to, and I totally feel you. I used to try to talk to people who posted like that but I found it was never worth it, and now I just close with a template. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
With this edit you removed a lengthy section of text, and in your edit summary wrote, "this is all we so far have consensus for". I read the article's talk page and didn't really see a consensus. Perhaps I missed it. Thanks! Magnolia677 ( talk) 16:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, this AfD is not properly set up and might be speedily closed. I recommend WP:TWINKLE to automatically generate correct AfDs. Sandstein 15:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
You left some brief cryptic comments on my talk page. I have no idea what you are on about. sbelknap ( talk) 17:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, one little problem I have with the edit on Satanic ritual abuse: I don't remember any of the best WP:RSes on the topic asserting that the SRA panic itself originated in Canada. Only Michelle Remembers' author Lawrence Pazder did. (Even the book was published by a New York publisher, and our WP article seems to say the book was mostly promoted in the US.) So I'll make that change to the article now, but if you want to discuss you can revert and ping me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 20:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GulayAta ( talk) 09:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Not sure most people would say what does? -- Roastedturkey ( talk) 16:01, 1 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) 21:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
"...if you do not wish to donate to the project, fine. But do not use the threat of doing so to try and force your POV onto an article." Oh, I have your permission to not donate? Thank you so much!!! That right there is why I hope Wikipedia dies. It's not a threat, pal. It's what I'm doing, and I don't need your permission. Not only am I not going to donate this pathetic website anymore. I'm donating to projects that are working to destroy and replace this horrible site. People like you are cancer. You don't care about anymore except yourself. Your articles are heavily biased propaganda, not even pretending to be objective or balanced. You routinely censor anyone who reverts or corrects your misinformation, play little admin-tag on reverts, even when editors provide sources from sites YOU approve. If you want to purge all factual opinions from the articles, fine. But don't you dare tell me what I can say on talk pages or threaten me, you insecure power-tripping troll. Keep your snarky self-referential "help" pages about how not dumb you are to yourself. No one in the real world cares about your pathetic little fiefdom. Wikipedia is a joke and people like you have turned it into a bad one.
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I tweaked your comment on the delhi riots talk page. The spelling you used could be considered derogatory (and I know that's not your intention). Hope that's ok. -- RegentsPark ( comment) 13:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Why?
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1029046331&oldid=1029046123
soibangla ( talk) 15:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
Came across your recent edits. If you are further interested in topic may be you would like to join a discussion @ Talk:Superstition#Definition in lead besides I am also looking for article expansion help @ Draft:Irrational beliefs if you find topic interested in.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' ( talk) 15:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WP_and_Youtube_stats_cited_to_Youtube. It was discussed a bit at Mark Dice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The edits that I have made are not radical ones. There is no evidence that he spoke up against legal immigration. He has, though, been an active opponent of illegal immigration. Also, the other changes were just realignment of the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshit 3110 ( talk • contribs) 13:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
No they don't! There is no concrete evidence of his opposition to legal immigration. He has repeatedly denounced anti-racial discrimination being used as a tool to combat past discrimination. Reflecting on these changes is neither radical nor incorrect.
You don't get to decide what an article should say. The changes I made did not state anything untrue. Just because it doesn't match your view, does not make it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshit 3110 ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I saw your revert here and I think this does fit the definition of weasel wording - who exactly made this claim? It seems Sherri Tenpenny would be one person that we can name. -- hroest 15:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
You suggested the One is not irrelevant to a certain university. I beg to differ.
See this as a starting point. Apply diligence in plunging the depths of Wikipedia, and the wisdom of relevance will become yours. Perhaps the One is closer than you think. SimoneBilesStan ( talk) 00:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello! On the neutrality board, you asked me to provide you with RS on the subject of Black women in the history of Juneteenth and Juneteenth celebrations. I'd like to post them here, on your talk page. Would that be ok with you?
AmorLucis ( talk) 14:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
They already are on the talk page.
I was offering to repost them here so you would not have to read through the whole thread over there to find them. I have been repeatedly warned not to "repeat myself" on the talk page, so I can't repost them there to answer your question about sources.
AmorLucis ( talk) 18:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. They had already been posted and discussed before you asked me (on two different talk pages) to post my sources. If you are now withdrawing your request to me for my sources, I will no longer attempt to provide them to you.
AmorLucis ( talk) 18:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
You also wrote: "Do any RS discuss the topic you wish to add, so any RS say black women were not emacipated and thus Juneteenth is not about them?"
Correction: at no time did I state or imply that Black women were not emancipated from chattel slavery (they most certainly were) or that Juneteenth is "not about" Black women (of course it is). Can decisions being made be valid, if they are based on arguments that are not mine?
Correction: I did not ban anyone from my talk page for giving advice on editing. I welcome editors' advice on editing. I set a boundary about editors on my talk page implying that I am acting in bad faith.
AmorLucis ( talk) 19:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
"Yy have to have a source (for example) that says "honored in Juneteenth celebrations include Sojourner Truth’s "Address to the First Annual Meeting of the American Equal Rights Association"
I am aware of that. That's why I cited Juneteenth sources that mention Truth's 1867 address and others that included Pauli Murray's "Jane Crow" law review article.
As I said, I welcome advice on editing, including an editor asking me to read a policy because they believe I am coming close to violating it.
AmorLucis ( talk) 20:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
RS from my original reverted edit directly connecting Juneteenth to Sojourner Truth. The page suggests to "Celebrate Juneteenth" by honoring "The Women of the Movement" and directly references Sojourner Truth's historical speeches on women's rights, specifically.
To save you time, the relevant quote on the page (under the section on Sojourner Truth) is:
"Her most famous address, given in 1851 at the Women’s Rights Conference in Akron, Ohio, challenged prevailing ideas about racial and gender inferiority."
The source, The Chisholm Leadership Academy, boasts an impressive Board of Directors of Black civic leaders. Their mission statement is "The Chisholm Leadership Academy is a Georgia 501(c)(3) organization that cultivates a pipeline of middle and high school girls of color to become catalysts for change and to be inspired for bold careers in public service."
Thoughts?
AmorLucis ( talk) 03:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The WP Juneteenth article covers, in detail, how people CELEBRATE Juneteenth. This is a source on how to CELEBRATE Juneteenth. The RS of this article is CELEBRATING Juneteenth (the title of the article) by honoring "The Women of the Movement" (a section in the article) and Sojourner Truth (a woman in that section) and her speeches (mentioned in her section).
There is already precedent in the Juneteenth article for noting "female-centric" CELEBRATIONS--the "Miss Juneteenth" contests.
What part of "this source directly and quotably connects CELEBRATING Juneteenth with Sojourner Truth and her speeches" do you not understand?
Explain to me, please, the difference between the WP Juneteenth article including how people CELEBRATE Juneteenth with breakfasts, re-enactments and beauty pageants and including how people CELEBRATE Juneteenth by "honoring the women of the movement."
AmorLucis ( talk) 18:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Since we are going to have to agree to disagree on the relevance of Black women leaders of history to Juneteenth commemorations, I'll end our discussion with this point of clarification on your earlier analogy:
"I asked you to read a policy as I felt you were coming close to violating it. In the same way, I might say (if you are driving at 39 in a 40 zone ) "a bit close to the speed limit".
There was, in fact, two parts to your statement to me on my talk page. Advice on WP policy AND commentary on my motives. So an accurate analogy would be that you told me that I was driving "a bit too close to the speed limit" because I "had to get there before everyone else."
You commented on my motive when you said that I was going to different forums to "get the answer I wanted." I was going to different forums for clarification, which is what those forums are for. Fortunately, other editors are continuing to work with me on that clarification.
I was clear that what I objected to was not your "advice" about WP policies. I objected to your comment about my motive, because commenting on the motive of other editors is a violation of talk page guidelines. I was (erroneously, IMO) blocked because my setting a boundary for myself about you discussing my motive was deemed "disruptive."
AmorLucis ( talk) 23:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Hi - Could you please clarify the issue with adding factual information?
The user can't comment at ANI because they're currently blocked. If you're interested, at Preferences>Gadgets>Appearance there's a box you can check that will strike through the username if an account is blocked. —valereee ( talk) 10:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
You have repeatedly accused me of removing sources and statements from the Elections in Cuba article. I have proven this to be false, will you admit your mistake and apologise? 82.33.72.42 ( talk) 13:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I have defended your concerns with Brackenheim's behavior on procedural grounds, not because I have any (current) interest in getting involved at the MCS article. ( You can read my recent comments.) Bbb23's comment at AN is on point, and I'll let you and ScienceFlyer take the lead there. I may join in later. -- Valjean ( talk) 21:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Slatersteven. As you've noted, it would appear Pipsally has begun resorting to IPs. [11] Here's another IP that has made multiple reverts back to Pipsally's edits and should probably be included in the SPI. [12] Amanuensis Balkanicus ( talk) 15:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm working through a list of orphaned talk subpages and came across this one you created in Wikipedia space. I'm not sure what you intended it to be used for, whether you wanted to move it to User space or tag it for deletion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
As a newbie myself to Wikipedia, can anyone enlighten me as to what a newbie edit war is? Slatersteven uses this term in his profile page. I know what an edit war is, at least I think I do, but not a newbie edit war. Redaction101 ( talk) 06:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven Undoing of revisions seen as vandalism: why do you deliberatly delete a voice from https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis&action=history
If my english is wrong, please you can correct it. If my sentences are lies, please tell me which one and you can remove it (after you demonstrate me that it's a lie, which is not, because all my sentences are verified). If you have a particular problem with an author, you can not administer this page because of self-interest. You didn't even have the time to read the contribution, that you immediately deleted it: this makes me think you have a personal interest on deleting that contribution. Please, I gently report you here and I gently please ask you to change this behaviour. Please restore the contribution and tell me which single sentences are lies.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 23:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC) I am trying to keep things as simple as possible. Thank you again. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 23:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven: Could you please explain why you undid my last edit on the Assange page here ? You should be aware that the defence used more than one “psychiatric expert” in the 2020 extradition hearing – as well as Kopelman, Dr Quinton Deeley gave testimony for the defence on Assange’s autism. As stated in my edit summary the wording: “Assange's psychiatric expert” clearly implies Assange’s team only used one psychiatric expert – it’s just wrong to say otherwise - so could you kindly revert your edit on my completely innocuous and accurate wording. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
As you requested, There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 15:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
You recently removed claims about the effectiveness of the Sputnik V vaccine on the grounds that the material was from the the company (lab) that produced the vaccine. Actually, the material was presented by a separate source, which was citing the company. Instead of not including the claims, might it not be better to state that the secondary source reported the lab's claims? It seems that's what's usually done in English Wikipedia. Kdammers ( talk) 17:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
In the edit I made removing the word “crazed” from and Assange quote I said in my edit summary “please see talk page” – I can only assume you missed that because - had you done so - you would have seen the following explanation for my edit:
“As I mentioned earlier I now not happy with my edits which include Assange’s “crazed radical feminist ideology” quote followed by: “a view that he repeated in later interviews”. I now realise this is somewhat misleading as the other two known similar comments did have some differences - notably they did not say “crazed” (see above). So I’m removing the crazed part of the quote as the remaining “radical feminist ideology” is reflected in the other cited quotes. If someone prefers to take out the “a view that he repeated in later interviews” thus resolving the issue I’m fine - but we can’t say both and be true to the sources...”
As explained: you can either have the “crazed” word included or the “a view that he repeated in later interviews” you can’t have both and stay true to the source - so please could you remove one or the other. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello Slatersteven,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Or he'll threaten a ban, trying to justify it by saying you have an attitude even when you don't. Pyromilke ( talk) 17:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
What's wrong with pravo.gov.ru? It's official source of Russian legal acts (laws, decrees, orders, etc.). Why do you consider it's not reliable source? It's the most reliable source, other sources aren't. 5.129.59.116 ( talk) 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that you reverted my edit on the revolt of 1857 article, for saying that it sounds better that way, but I think you didn't see below it because I had written a HUGE paragraph about the doctrine of lapse and you stated no clear reason for removing that. So I will undo your revert and may replace them with the older 1st para lines. I hope it is clear. Regards, WikiSilky ( talk) 16:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I mark my edits as minor by default, I sometimes forget to uncheck that box. -- 31NOVA ( talk) 10:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
So my understanding is that if several Wikipedia editors pronounce Taiwan a country, regardless of a huge global debate, then a handful of Wikipedia editors can determine Taiwan's disputed status, tell the world on a popular encyclopedia that Taiwan is definitely a country (never mind the United Nations refusal to seat Taiwan as a sovereign participant; never mind the US State Department's one-China policy, never mind the claims of a country of 1.4 billion people that Taiwan is a break-away province), lock the editing, determine all discussion over or irrelevant and impose a moratorium on debate that lead to changes Marcywinograd ( talk) 19:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC) for two years. This is disappointing and suggests Wikipedia, on this topic, chills debate and violates its own neutrality pillar whenever it suits the agenda of those who previously reached consensus. Marcywinograd ( talk) 19:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Steve. Thank you for your recent message. Unfortunately, I think "Righting great wrongs" actually supports what I said at "White privilege", eg "that which is verifiable". White privilege is not verifiable, because it is an opinion, not a verifiable fact. If you say it's a verifiable fact, you are descending into the murky world of opinion, which is not appropriate for WP, no matter how PC it is (and Political Correctness is what we are really dealing with here).
Another point is that the guidelines talk about "giving appropriate weight to the balance of opinion". If you say that White Privilige is OK the way it is, you are ignoring the balance of opinion, because the opinion expressed in the article (and it IS an opinion) is just one side of the issue.
I could go on and on, because I have looked at the dubious statements expressed by you at your Talk page, for example your opposition to the idea that there are only two genders, which just happens to be scientific fact (but you PC types were never interested in science).
A quick reading of your talk page is fascinating. You have a history of clashing with other editors, edit warring, Osomite, ANI etc etc etc. Quite frankly, Steve, I think you should be barred. Sardaka ( talk) 09:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 14:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the RFC on Assange talk - In acknowledgment of a valid point raised by Geogene I would like to alter the wording of option F to the following:
“Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and conferred with Guccifer 2.0 (a persona thought to have been created by Russian hackers) in order to coordinate the release of the material."
As this alteration is merely consists of clarifying a detail and also substituting “continued to confer” for “conferred” as approved by several editors I hope this suggestion will meet your approval and that you can substitute the new wording in the RFC that you initiated (or approve my doing so). Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
What does RS stand for? Sardaka ( talk) 11:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks like you inadvertently restored the Stundin paragraph that was removed per the close of the recent RfC. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
He meets notability per WP:ANYBIO. Highest award and included in the Montenegrino standard national biographical dictionary. If I had not edited in the article I would do a speedy WP:NAC. I suggest you revert your deletion nomination. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 21:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at AUKUS, you may be blocked from editing. Not following WP:BRD: the bold edit was removal of the content, that was reverted and now it should be discussed before removing again. Whizz40 ( talk) 10:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I edited your comment for clarity. If that is not what you intended to link to, feel free to WP:TROUT/digitally castrate/ fire at will. Cambial foliage❧ 15:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
What does the nudge nudge in
signify please? What are you trying to say? NadVolum ( talk) 16:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V8KdGqUfek
Let me make this clear, my talk page has (as far as I am concerned) rather less strict rules or what is and is not allowed (see wp:talk). So if a user tried to use BS argument that may not be an issue (as in a ruloes infraction). If however, they try to use wp:or (and wp:blp violating) conspiracy theories to sway a talk page discussion that is against the rules I would warn them (I have) I have if they continued I would report them (I will). That is not a threat it is a promise. It is to make sure that if I do report you it will defiantly be an infraction of policy. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Why are you so damn difficult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.222.34 ( talk) 09:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I look forward to your explanation of how two edits nearly 48 hours apart breach 1rr restrictions. Do try to keep up. Cambial foliage❧ 15:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. This includes templating users for 3rr that you have reached first. Cambial foliage❧ 14:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
You may want to clarify the
last sentence here (presumably "one IP is an SPA"). I think I understood correctly but it was not clear.
Cambial
foliage❧ 15:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
To start with, I am sorry I didn’t respond to your reply to my discussion in the Project Veritas article, I only learned how to reply after it was locked.
You seem to be a very passionate and dedicated editor, but I have a few concerns. From reading your posts in the discussions, it appears you would have a conflict of interest in editing the page due to your personal opinions on the subject matter. I in don’t want to assume you are biased, but I think it would be important for you to assess whether you are objective on the subject matter.
I hate to be this critical of someone who is putting a significant amount of effort into editing, but I want to make you at least aware of my concern in the case it is valid. Otherwise, keep up the good work. GigaDerp ( talk) 17:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Julian Assange shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in being
blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the
Arbitration Committee, if you violate the
one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one
revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please self-revert to avoid sanction
Cambial
foliage❧ 15:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
so were yousupposed to mean? Cambial foliage❧ 15:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
irrelevantis cause for much more serious
concearns about [[wp:CIR}]]than a copyediting mistake that would likely have been corrected had you not decided to start reverting to your preferred earlier version. Cambial foliage❧ 16:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
altering content: it's closer to the truth, but still wrong. In fact I barely even altered what you added. I interpolated additional content between the sentences. Cambial foliage❧ 16:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, let's have a look.
You wrote: Support for Assange has came from politicians, journalists and celebrities including Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who has said ""They have arrested him and I don't hear so much as a single protest for freedom of expression"
After my edits: Support for Assange has came from politicians, journalists and world leaders. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the President of Brazil, said at the time "They have arrested him and I don't hear so much as a single protest for freedom of expression"
you wrote: John Pilger who stated that if Julian Assange is extradited to US 'no journalist who challenges power will be safe'""
after my edits: John Pilger stated that were Assange to be extradited "no journalist who challenges power will be safe".
you wrote: Oliver Stone, who stated that ""Julian Assange did much for free speech and is now being victimised by the abusers of that concept.""
after my edits:The filmmaker Oliver Stone stated that ""Julian Assange did much for free speech and is now being victimised by the abusers of that concept.""
you wrote: Whilst the Australian Federal Police said he had not broken Australian law at the time of his activities in Australia.
after my edits: but the Australian Federal Police said he had not broken Australian law.
I did add a more appropriate quote from Jeremy Corbyn, because the one you wrote: for the rights of whistle-blowers and journalists to be “upheld for the good of all of us” is a generalised statement, is not about Assange, it doesn't mention him, and so is not relevant.
The only part that was removed entirely was this sentence American politicians (such as Sarah Palin) have said he should be pardoned because it was not supported by any source. If you want to argue that that portion of my edit, removing an unsourced claim in a BLP, means the entire edit therefore constitutes a reversion, then go right ahead. Cambial foliage❧ 17:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
revert". That's your word; feel free to argue it wherever you think it will help you achieve your goals. You are incorrect as to whether I did
botherto look at the sources you provided, which is why I concluded the quote that is screengrabbed in the article (but reported in another) is more appropriate. I missed the Palin mention in the same article. Would you prefer I restore that sentence? Cambial foliage❧ 17:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
EVERYONE! Whatever happened to collegial and collaborative editing? A talk page discussion is ongoing, so there should be no edits to that content until a consensus is reached. The article itself should not be a battlefield. Stick to discussing, proposing, and refining the propositions, all on the talk page. When everyone has agreed, THEN install the new version. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
reset". Cambial foliage❧ 17:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
before the changes [you] made? I'm all ears. Oh, a proposal to go back to another completely arbitrary point in time. I'll pass, but feel free to propose that on article talk. Cambial foliage❧ 17:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
You haven't responded to whether you want me to restore the twelve words I removed when expanding the other content you added, because I erroneously thought they were unsourced. About Palin and a pardon. Do you want it restored? Cambial foliage❧ 18:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This all needs to go to WP:AE rather than endless quibbling in user space. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on trying to stop the page being vandalised. A Fresh Start and I have asked to a temp block. Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 16:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Cambial foliage❧ 11:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
This is now the third time [17] [18] [19] you've posted on my talk page something that is inaccurate and/or included threats or warnings that are baseless. For that reason I ask that you no longer post on my talk page unless it is with an explicit and accurate diff to support it. I will look to enforce this. Cambial foliage❧ 11:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Stop telling lieswithout evidence. Cambial foliage❧ 11:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
My mistake, I thought you had used the npa template herewas difficult to understand? You're still yet to withdraw your evidence-free and false accusation of a personal attack; now you're doubling down on an accusation of
lies. Thin ice, buddy. Cambial foliage❧ 11:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
This is now the third time you've posted on my talk page something that is inaccurate and/or included threats or warnings that are baseless.That remains true. You are surely aware that your sentence does not represent what I said because you've separated the two sets of quotation marks. I'm unwatching your talk page now; you'll need to ping me if you want a response. If it's for further uncivil, manufactured and groundless accusations on your part we can continue the discussion at the appropriate noticeboard. Cambial foliage❧ 12:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Five weeks ago you opened a RFC here about the wording of a sentence re. Julian Assange and Seth Rich. I wonder, perhaps you could take what action needs to be taken to get a result on this (contact an admin maybe?). Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
[21] - thanks- GizzyCatBella 🍁 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kolma8 ( talk) Kolma8 ( talk) 14:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, While FreeWiki isn't WP:RS, it is always good to know what others think about us. That was my point. tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
You may be interested to know that a Google News search for this person brings up the charmingly-titled "Lacey and animal sex, Chanel hotties, a six-pack and more: Celebrity pictures of the day!". Happy to close the AfD as delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
[23] "most common", then? I suppose that would be equally upsetting to American exceptionalism types. / lh clpo13( talk) 18:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Commonest, or maybe more than one word, and they missed a space. I am unsure it displayed a conspicuous understanding of English. As it seemed rideled with odd choices of word order. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think there was a forged link, and I was careful to say that I thought it was just an error on OP's part. But I don't recall there having been an RfC on the Greenwald content, do you? And if there were, it would at any rate be out of place because the content in that Oct 3 link is not the content that was referenced in OPs complaint about the Isakoff article in 2021. At any rate, it just struck me that nobody had noticed the unrelated text at that link, presumably not having actually read the links presented as evidence. When I looked at the talk page, I found that same talk page text in a comment, but not an RfC, by Burrobert. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
It strikes me that OP's essay in opposition belongs in a separate comments section below the !votes, not in the description of the question of the RfC. But you are more experienced in these formats than I so I thought I'd mention it here rather than move the preamble myself? SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Can I delete your reply at the Iver. talk page if I delete my question about arb? Thanks, and thanks for your answer. Your user page statement seems well intentioned, but I personally think it will eventually prove to be the opposite when it comes to the covid benefits of iver. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC) (had to come back and sign this after the reply, accounts for the time difference)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for engaging with me constructively at Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Its a breath of fresh air to work productively on contentious topic with a user Vanteloop ( talk) 16:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Please point me to the part where i have violated wp:npa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 ( talk) 19:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
In that case you should read wp:npa Because this is in violation of wp:npa -" BUt you do want to say "they did it" When i did not make any inferences and was quoting verbatim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 ( talk) 19:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
My suggested edit only quotes the words of a Judge of the Additional Sessions Court who asked the police to frame charges on the accused with this observation after verifying all the evidences and witness accounts. At no point, i made a personal inference or connected dots to come to a preconceived result like your allegations suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 ( talk) 19:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@SlaterSteven I began by quoting the lines of the court verbatim with adequate references for the same. At no point, I said or infered anything close to what you accuse me of. Please read wp:npa before making such outlandish accusations against fellow editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 ( talk) 20:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, is my username okay on here? Thanks in advance. - HumbleConservative ( talk) 23:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
THe word "Hindoos" with double-o is seen as a racist slur in India, as it was the spelling used by British Colonialists and Christian Missionaries to demean the Indigenous people of the Indian Subcontinent. Please refrain from using this spelling and use the right spelling. 49.204.198.173 ( talk) 16:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey, can you tone down the SOCK thing? There is no requirement that anyone get an account, and if you have indications of socking (not using different IPs by itself), please show that. Your comments made me look through the history of that talk page and elsewhere, but I found nothing. Sure, the IP was disruptive, but that had nothing to do with their IP-ness. Yes, using different IP addresses to avoid scrutiny is a kind of socking, but as I said I found no evidence of that, nor did I see where you presented that. So please, just leave that be--it just muddies the waters. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 21:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from,
Interstellarity (
talk) 18:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Re this I think you got confused between the inventor of mRNA vaccines and the ex-nurse styled as doctor? Alexbrn ( talk) 18:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Qq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:2304:8942:F100:3805:8C33:C8F:B17F ( talk) 22:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Knowledge1253 ( talk) 10:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)@Slatersteven thank you for your pointers. I click on some links, then words I don't know, and end up angry.Sorry for being rude. Because you are right, I am not demonstrating respectfully behaviour. And I WILL truly make an effort not to be snarky and snide. Knowledge1253 (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for making me aware of my rudeness in a way which did not get me riled up and defensive. I reflected on what you said about my behaviour, and realized that being kind and respectful is how we must be at all times, especially when it is not around us. Knowledge1253 ( talk) 10:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I want to make sure you are aware I added this bit [25] and that you still agree. Nice to see you. Hope all is well. Jehochman Talk 17:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven: Hi mate! I’m just writing this to gripe and commiserate with myself and maybe with you (I’m making a biggish assumption about your inclinations) at the way the article’s going. As you are probably aware, there are many very active editors around who just will not allow anything in an article which relates in any way to current affairs if they get wind of it and it isn’t in alignment with their leftie/woke views. I’m writing here about the quote about mass formation psychosis. Which is so obviously noteworthy, but they just don’t like it, so it has to be eliminated. I’ve seen this time and again. You too? It’s all so bluddy tiresome, frustrating, painful. I’m guessing that you stood back as you could see the way it was heading? All the very best to you. Boscaswell talk 07:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Grretings @ Slatersteven
I felt good to see some one else too thinks like me, when I came across your comment about COVID-19 related article @ Fringe theories/Noticeboard.
For encyclopedic audiences 'Safety' and 'human well being', are legitimate concerns of encyclopedic curiosity, IMHO.
Thanks
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 08:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Slatersteven Mr. Slater - Looks like Crashed greek misarranged the sources which didn't support the lines they were referenced to. So I fixed the arrangement. You can take a look and also added all unreliable and failed verification tag where applicable. I also did some study yesterday on more sources from reliable academicians but couldn't find any source that specifically states "Battle of Peshawar". Its plain, "Capture" of Peshawar. Even though one or two source states that "attack and captured Peshawar", it still doesn't verify it as a battle in an open battlefield. In agreement that its "capture", unless other user can come up with a reliable source that mentions a "battle" but so far I have found none and I went through quite many sources. MehmoodS ( talk) 16:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Greetings! and apologies. I edited out a phrase in the Cambell article that I thought was unfair. I can see now how alterations like that are a really bad idea! You may want to edit out the word "So?" however if that's ok, which due to my edit now looks a little strange. I don't think any other harm has been done in this case, thankfully.
On the subject of Campbell, I take him to be a very professional medical practitioner in spite of his recent gaffs. He can't be such a maverick if his text-books are used to teach nurses. Again, greetings and thanks Faltero ( talk) 01:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven, I just popped into the conversation with that SPA on Talk:Fascism to help out with the work of countering their POV-pushing (as I've been doing at Talk:Economy of Nazi Germany as well). You appear to have responded to my comment as though I were them: [26] An understandable mistake, since the replies have been coming hot-and-heavy, but you might want to correct it. Thanks, Generalrelative ( talk) 17:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Can I ask you to go back and look at the discussion at Talk:Crimean War#Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022. I am reluctant to simply make another edit request because the person responding might just say "but those are completely different things, you need a reliable source." Thanks in advance. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:F4E7:A53C:3FD6:69F4 ( talk) 18:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Seems like due to less vote on deletion, the AFD message was removed from Battle of Peshawar. Is there a AFD tag for redirect or Merge or even rename the title that can be added? MehmoodS ( talk) 16:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Please don't waste time on the editors page. I know you mean well, but it isn't benefiting him or you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello there! I noticed you reverted an edit that I made where I deleted the “Relationship with Science” section. I gave a reason for this as it was talking about YEC rather than Progressive Creationism (which was the article’s subject). The section didn’t give a criticism specific to Progressive and just creationism in general. You reverted it, for the reason “seems to be”. What did you mean by that comment? Thanks 68.97.131.85 ( talk) 18:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. If you continue your revisions, you will be reported per WP:EDITWAR. Hcoder3104☭ ( 💬) 15:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hcoder3104☭ ( 💬) 15:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
"I would argue if both sides are unhappy that means we have what we should have, balance." Very nicely said. Unbroken Chain ( talk) 16:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC) |
Please leave a space between the last word (or punctuation mark) of your talk age comments, and your sig. Several of your comments on Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, for example, do not do this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm confused by what you mean with what's written both in response to my explanation and on my talk page and can only come to three possible conclusions as to why you'd respond in that way based on reliable sources. First of all, reliable sources state that whites cannot be the victims of racism, they are solely the aggressors in race motivated incidents, so the conclusions are as follows.
1: It was not a racially motivated incident and the whites who were hit are victims of an attack. 2: It was race based and the whites hit got what was coming to them as a result of their aggression. 3: You simply made a mistake and misread what was written as a judgement.
I doubt your actions are malicious in intent, so I'm going to assume the latter of those three. 88.106.234.104 ( talk) 02:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine and west will bathe in nuclear fire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4EE0:A201:ADBE:2DD:73B6:75C0 ( talk) 17:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry. I want to contribute to Wikipedia, so I created an account. I added a single piece of information which seems clearly and obviously valid. Yet, it keeps getting deleted even though I keep following all these rules people throw at me. I hope you understand the frustration, but I want to apologize for being testy with you. I think you are trying to help. I am just going to step away for now. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MythicalTom ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll file an AE about the latest problem. Just wanted to let you know to avoid any duplicated effort! Alexbrn ( talk) 16:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I Slatersteven I need your immediate help. There is a guy on wikipedia who is attacking me personally. He has created an inappropriate account disrespectng me please help me!!! I am in depression.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamjeed Ahmed ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 13:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)