RightCowLeftCoast (talk | contribs) →Keep keeping on: new WikiLove message Tag: wikilove |
m ce |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 217: | Line 217: | ||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | May this image give you the rest and relaxation that the late President [[Ronald Reagan]] received when he went to it. I can understand that editing on Wikipedia can be [[Criticism of Wikipedia#Level of debate, edit wars and harassment|difficult]], but hang in there, and continue to improve as an editor, while you continue to attempt to [[WP:AGF|improve]] Wikipedia. [[User:RightCowLeftCoast|<span style="color:#B22234">'''Right'''Cow</span><span style="background-color: #C2B280; color:#3C3B6E">'''LeftCoast'''</span>]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|<span style="color: black">Moo</span>]]) 03:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | May this image give you the rest and relaxation that the late President [[Ronald Reagan]] received when he went to it. I can understand that editing on Wikipedia can be [[Criticism of Wikipedia#Level of debate, edit wars and harassment|difficult]], but hang in there, and continue to improve as an editor, while you continue to attempt to [[WP:AGF|improve]] Wikipedia. [[User:RightCowLeftCoast|<span style="color:#B22234">'''Right'''Cow</span><span style="background-color: #C2B280; color:#3C3B6E">'''LeftCoast'''</span>]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|<span style="color: black">Moo</span>]]) 03:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
|} |
|} |
||
==Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction== |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
|2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg |
|||
|imagesize=50px |
|||
|1=The following sanction now applies to you: |
|||
{{Talkquote|1=On Article Talk pages related to post-1932 American Politics, the number of posts you are allowed to make is throttled according to: [[User:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions#Anti-filibuster sanction]].}} |
|||
You have been sanctioned for [[WP:BLUDGEON]] and [[WP:IDHT]] behavior on article talk pages in the topic area. An example is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=886066446#Proposal:_mention_false_and_misleading_statements_in_the_lede this] short section where you have commented 12 times, responding to almost every comment, and repeating the same assertions over and over. For example you repeated the claim at least 5 times that the statement "Trump has made many false or misleading statements..." fails [[WP:V]]. Some of your other comments were just unhelpful like "I take the lack of explanation to mean it was just bloviating" and the stuff surrounding "empty hyperbole" (which you repeated 6(!) times). |
|||
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved administrator]] under the authority of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]'s decision at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision]] and, if applicable, the procedure described at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]]. This sanction has been recorded in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2019|log of sanctions]]. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|banning policy]] to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. |
|||
You may appeal this sanction using the process described [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications|here]]. I recommend that you use the [[Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal#Usage|arbitration enforcement appeals template]] if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.<!-- Template:AE sanction.--> <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] <small>([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])</small></span> 07:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
Note that this sanction is not meant to censor your views, but to encourage you to present them in a reasonably concise and clear manner that doesn't put an undue burden on the other editors who interact with you. Also as a side note, before you cite a Wikipedia policy or guideline, please make sure the substance of the guideline is actually relevant to the argument you're making. It's better to use sound logic than to haphazardly fling around [[WP:ALPHABET SOUP]]. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] <small>([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])</small></span> 07:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:16, 4 March 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to road, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you.
Deletion discussion about Intelligent design (historical)
Hello, Markbassett,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Intelligent design (historical) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent design (historical) .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks, Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Reinstating edit on Creation-evolution controversy
-- here we have the benefit of the exact item being talked about on google docs, yet guy misquotes a misquote from popper and ... claims that is the better way ... Theories then are never empirically verifiable." and "These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as the criterion of demarcation."; [1], Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1935; Engl 1959) pg 18
Hi Markbasset, I see you reinstated your edit I had reverted previously, which removes the word pseudoscience. That word is backed by the reliable secondary source used and quoting Popper directly could actually be considered WP:OR since it's a primary source. It'd be great if you could give WP:BR a read. When an edit you make is reverted you go to the talk page, open a new thread about it and then wait to hear from other editors' input on the issue. Reverting back is considered bad practice and doing so more than three times in less than 24 hs (I'm not saying you did BTW) is considered edit warring. I'd really appreciate it if you could self revert your last edit and open a new thread so we can discuss it. Thank you very much. Regards. Gaba (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Please try the article talk since the re-creation means I've really looked and still think the edit is appropriate and so posted there. But first, please consider the desireability of having the primary source on the section topic Falsifiability (the Popper book) in favor of a lesser secondary source and on what wording would convey what is modern application or re-interpretation and where it will have gone too far in rephrasing the secondary source. To be precise, Popper defines falsifiability as a separator for science from all else, not saying the all-else is pseudoscience. Even the secondary source seems to not be making it the determinant for pseudoscience but noting it as a criteria (one of many?) for distinguishing science from psuedoscience is the Stanford extension of modern discussions. Saying a test mentioned in modern discussions is correct of STanford, but saying it as the determination of a duality was not in Stanford. Non-falsifiable pieces might equally well be poetry, law, music, acconting etcetera. And while Popper used the word pseudoscience, to him Pseudoscience usage differs from that of modern day -- he used that for Bolsheviks as epithet for his fellow Jews having to teach politically-correct Marxist views in what we now would call 'soft' sciences. Markbassett (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
TALK at Creation-Evolution Controversy [about Outside the United States]
It appeared that the other editors were not swayed by the facts that I brought up and I did not try to press the point beyond that. Dan Watts (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Surprise ! I've been blocked - and explanation only says "Long-term abuse: User:Philm540" ????
This happened sometime after my edit of 17:05 19 August and noon of 22 August, but there is no apparent reason for a block, even for a topic block, as far as I can see.
- Nothing really said what this is about, there was nothing explanatory in the post.
- I'm blocked so unable to post messages at the User:KrakatoaKatie to ask what this is.
- I did not find my name in the Active Case list, nor the Archive or Full case list
- I do not have anything on my talk page
- I have not seen any heated warnings to me or heated mentions about at any recent Talk or edits that pinged misconduct
- I see no unexplained activity in my contributions that would indicate account hacked
- I'm also unable to see anything contentious in the last few days of my edits to cause this - the last few things I've done seem nothings, design review, a scheduling disambiguation, and some Talk items mostly from WP:RSN and WP:RFC/A. The RSN and RFC were on contentious topics, but my inputs were polite responses to questions.
- Last edits on what seem hot pages were nothing much - 17 Aug removed dead wikilinking around a phrase at article Lost Cause of the Confederacy; 13 Aug put in book linking at History of Eugenics; 2 August, move a few ref tags left in the sentence to the part they supported at Creation–evolution controversy.
I see an odd message my Special Notifications a day ago "User:Markbassett/Sandbox was patrolled by DragonFlySixtyseven a day ago, but I'm not understanding what that means and see no reason that my sandbox would cause a block.
The complete text I see on edits now is as follows: - - - - Editing from 2600:1002:B000:0:0:0:0:0/39 has been blocked (disabled) by KrakatoaKatie for the following reason(s):
Long-term abuse: User:Philm540
This block has been set to expire: 19:28, 11 February 2016. - - -
Please remove and/or explain this block. Thank you.
Markbassett (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
seems a glitch - no info given in notice, not finding info, no recent activity known
Accept reason:
Ip-block exemption granted, see below. --slakr\ talk / 03:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- That means you're editing from a blocked range which isn't set to "anonymous users only". Rangeblocks are generally used as a last resort to curb a long-term or IP-hopping vandal's disruption. Individual IPs can't be blocked independent of the range. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Markbassett: Sorry for the confusion. We can likely grant an ip block exception (IPBE) for you to continue editing. I've gone ahead and requested a quick check for this, and if that comes back fine, everything we can grant the IPBE immediately. In the meantime (hopefully less than a day), be sure to read and understand the conditions for being granted IPBE. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 02:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- --slakr Thanks... I'm going to limit my use of free wifi for a bit and see if those IPs were the issue. Markbassett (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
School and student project pages
Odd -- at illegal immigration, a Talk post mentioned being a senior at Rice University and intending to craft a page. Healthcare availability for undocumented immigrants She was/isKatcai02 and gotten a barnstar about Use of restraints on pregnant women .
Looking at her activity history led to finding another student at LHall19 and a general search for 'senior at rice' with site:wikipedia.org' turned up Wang1991 (and many others) who mentioned a class page Human Development
Love it ? Hate it ? Maybe systematically such will flush out due to low hits ... but then many small topics are in same kind of situation. Hmm.
- - -
- p.s. looking at contributor led to another class Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/California State University, Fullerton/Gender and Technoculture (Fall 2015) which says it is autogenerated class page ... hunh. Markbassett (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- pps now there is [2]
Just a Friendly Suggestion
Heya, Mark. Just a friendly suggestion: you might want to put something on your user page, even if it's just an image or a single sentence, so it's no longer redlinked. I got a bit confused as to whether I was using the reply template correctly, for example, because your name was redlinked. When other users refer to you, it can also give the mistaken impression to readers (especially new users) that a user by your name doesn't exist. There's a variety of similar situations in which it would be more logistically ideal that your user page was bluelinked, aside from it just looking better - like you're an editor here to stay; as you've probably noticed, the majority of redlinked names are new users or single purpose accounts. As I said, its just a suggestion (and you're certainly under no obligation to do anything of the sort), but I thought I would propose it. Have a good day, my friend. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Quinto Simmaco Understood, but WP:User pages has that open to choice and I chose to have and use my Talk page but had no purpose or desire for a User profile page, and did not want to redirect it to the Talk page as that seemed just confusing. I actually get a small side benefit that Red helps me find my posts in a Talk. Markbassett (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I have a suggestion for that, as far as helping you to sight your posts. Go to this page, and copy the text there: User:Quinto_Simmaco/common.js, and paste it to User:Markbassett/common.js. It will highlight all of the posts you've made. It also has the added benefit of displaying the most pertinent and useful user data and page data at the top of any page, among other things. By this, I mean things such as when it was last edited, who created it, etc. For users, it displays their permissions, current status, how long they've been on Wikipedia, and the number of their contributions. It has numerous other benefits which I can't recall at the moment. Most of the veteran users here, especially administrators or those serving bureaucratic functions, have a similar script page with the same capabilites. User:L235 is the user who encouraged me to adopt those javascript additions. Honestly, I'm pretty sure you'll find it invaluable, and wonder how you ever did without it. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sigh - so had to go to extra effort to zero it back out. Folks editing anothers user page without talk. Then had yet another do it so went back to WP:USER and found it again. Suppose I could do protection of user page but that seems a bit much. Markbassett (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Before you add See also links ...
Hi, I just undid two of your See also links as the wikilink in question was in both cases already in use in the article text. A quick search of the article is required before See also links are added; and since See also is almost invariably less good for readers' understanding than a line of text and a proper citation, it's always worth considering whether you can spare a moment to add things to the text instead. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
BTW as the discussion above mentioned, a redlinked username does give everyone the impression they're dealing with a newbie, and some of our colleagues are less friendly than they ought to be. The page doesn't have to give anything away.
- Chiswick Chap - mm, think thanks for the undo pointer at Evolution, it's presence there wasn't visible to me there. Otherwise - I'm thinking "See Also" may be desirable, particularly at Modern synthesis. In that case, the section "Postscript" seems just ill-done and not very appropriate. It's mostly not that the section title implies Modern Synthesis is dead (though I've seen a genomics advocate quote saying that), it's that the text there is so little/wrong and seems a bit WP:OFFTOPIC to just insert a line saying 'there is this later topic(s)'... If it's a related topic, WP:ALSO seems indicated instead. I'll ponder a bit and maybe come back to the articles TALK on this. Markbassett (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Basic outline
I have prepared a basic outline here for you. Since only some of that type of detail is mentioned in RS, I don't see how we can use it without an OR violation. We simply document the time period over which they were written and how many there are: 17 memos, 35 pages, were written between June 20 and December 13, 2016. Do we really need more? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- User:BullRangifer less and more maybe. Since the items were individually released and did not have page marks or begin as'1', drop the first column numbering and page numbering in column two as not part of the item, and rephrase 'written from' to 'issued various dates between'? A length of each rather than pagination might suit. Think it would make a neatly presented table at 2 lines per report?
- For RS sources, googling with site:Washingtonpost.com may help as they did at least a couple walkthroughs.
- What were you thinking for title and placement of this ? Markbassett (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's now located here. Feel free to discuss there and make tweaks, but ping me since I won't get any notification. My watchlist is so large I can easily miss it.
- I have never had any plans for using this unless RS made something of it. I'm not sure how this would be accepted at the article.
- Here are the current wordings from the article:
- "a private intelligence report comprising 17 memos that were written from June to December 2016".
- "Steele delivered his reports individually as one- to three-page memos.[2] The first memo, dated June 20, 2016, was sent to Washington by courier and hand-delivered to Fusion GPS. The names of the sources were redacted, "providing instead descriptions of them that enabled Fusion to assess their basic credibility."[8]"
- Would you rather see different wording there?
- The public never received these reports individually. What we have is what BuzzFeed released, and I assume they were the ones who wrote the numbers on the pages, but I could be wrong. AFAIK, Steele has never commented on the page numbering. I suspect that if it was wrong, he would have commented. That's all we have to go on. If you find anything, let me know. The dossier has been written about in so many RS that there is a lot I haven't read. This is one of the most notable and sensational documents in recent political history. Fringe sources on both the right and left also discuss it, but we can't use that. I haven't even looked at those sources, except for when it's occasionally been "thrown in my face" online. It's hard to avoid completely. There is lots of speculation there which isn't worth considering.
- Simpson has mentioned the page numbering, but it's primary source testimony:
- Simpson: "Yes. Could I just clarify something? I assume this is exactly how it was published and someone mixed up the sequence of the memos. So the next memo's numbered 94 and is dated July 19th and this one is 95 and is not dated, I don't believe. Maybe that's why they got mixed up."[3]
- In that source, the Senate uses Bates numbering for each page.
- So the current page numbering may not be in the order in which the memos were written and sent. That would explain why they are not all in chronological order. I'm sure that journalists have been analyzing these memos for a long time, and done so in the correct chronological order. Many themes are repeated and developed throughout the dossier as he got more information. There are several story lines, but we can only document what secondary RS say about this type of stuff.
- Most of the headings, except for the first one, aren't found in secondary sources, but of course there are several online sources for the whole dossier, but we can't use them. I generally use two, the original BuzzFeed Documentcloud source, and The Moscow Project, where a clean version is found. It's easier to search, but it lacks page numbers and also blacks out some lines of content. That has to be compared with the Documentcloud version. Some parts are blacked out in all versions. They contain information which could cost lives. Steele knows the names of many of his sources. Anonymous does not equal unknown. Journalists and spies have always used this system when dealing with anonymous sources. It is the public which doesn't know their names. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
BullRangifer - I think the table would be better as just title and date columns. it seems OK to present them in the order shown but nothing much seems lost when the added numberings are left off.
There is perhaps enough for a short paragraph below the table, although there are many statements made on a wide range of sites as possible material - not all of them would go in or all sources good, but here's a quick example: I've seen tables of allegation + source + circular 'Here'; Cost described here; and examining the number and appearance over if there is more here and here. But just the bare simple table would seem a good step to me. If you're not sure of that, perhaps discuss it at the TALK to see how others feela bout the table format. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Fortunately I saw your ping before leaving, so I'll leave you with the current status. I have already added this content. I'll look at your sources later. Thanks for finding them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, now I've had time to look at your sources. Unfortunately none of them are RS here. The idea that there is much more to the dossier (the missing pages) than were published by BuzzFeed is compelling and makes sense. I wonder if the FBI/CIA/NSA have those pages (too)? What we have is apparently just 17 memos out of possibly 80.6, assuming the missing pages were also memos of 1-3 pages each. (Calculation based on 17/35 x n/166.) It's all interesting speculation. Can we find that in RS? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Sean Hannity
Sometimes I have trouble understanding your comments, this one in particular. There's something off about the grammar that makes it difficult for me to follow. Perhaps you could re-write it? Also, as an aside, are you a native English speaker? I assumed you were based on your name and interest in American politics, but perhaps I was mistaken? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Are you going to answer? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- The article section on his immigration stance being weasel (vague or ambiguous) was not changed by your edit, and any weasel vagueness about what calling him a label meant was not changed by putting in text the publisher. Markbassett (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'll take that as a no. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- You were having trouble with this one and asked for more, so I explained it more.... all of that was in answer to your post. Markbassett (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- It didn't clarify anything, and it didn't answer my question about whether you're a native English speaker. Look, if you don't want to answer then just say so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
You have gotten an answer — reply, response, reaction — a couple of times, and even offered a different grammar as suggested. If that has not helped, well time to move on. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Perennial sources
Not sure if you saw my suggestion #2 in this cmt re changing the name of that page to clarify its intent. Also note my cmt here that "The issue perhaps is how to most appropriately and clearly indicate the value-add of 'existing consensus'." You can vote on that here. I indicated my willingness to change my vote if that clarification is implemented. In any case, I'd appreciate your thoughts. Humanengr (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- User:Humanengr - I can see the title of it is wrong, being ‘repeatedly checked sources’ or something else. But then it seems a half-baked effort to what I am thinking seems a bad idea, so a poor title is not much surprise. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think we’re largely on the same page — see item 1 in my response to the Template:Supplement RfC. In anticipating the support this RfC would likely garner, I thought it best to make things a bit less inedible. That led to this proposal where my last adjustment to the proposal was prompted by your cmt that “Ultimately a source is only judged RS in some context …”. I see that proposal as a nudge and perhaps a step away from totally inedible. Humanengr (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
1rr violation and Self-revert
Your recent editing history at Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially, 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 don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have violated the 1RR by adding back contested content and reverting more than once in a 24hr period. If you do not self revert on both you could be blocked. ContentEditman (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- ContentEditman - thank you for contacting me, however note my edit history I have only done one revert and opened a TALK section at the article. Not a 1RR claim. Discuss civilly and see what others say. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Since you are ignoring the obvious sanction for these articles and being given more than enough time to self-revert I have posted here. You should probably review.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Markbassett ContentEditman (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sigh, making a mountain out of a molehill here, but OK I will duly respond. Markbassett (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
This arbitration enforcement request has been closed. Please see the request for details. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- That WP:AE discussion was here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive242#Markbassett. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
MOS
I am planning on making changes to intros of the bios of British prime ministers, Canadian prime ministers, Australian prime ministers, New Zealand prime ministers (to name a few) in the coming weeks. It appears that 2019 is developing into the year of the 'lower-case' intro, according to the trends on the MOS pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- User:GoodDay - please desist, there are multiple editors objecting and notes of conflicts in the MOS, reverts, and simply no discussion let alone consensus within the MOS for those areas. I suggest talk to the Commonwealth venues and elicit relevant inputs and RS but meanwhile just hold that thought. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- User:GoodDay - I was saying take time to get some wider venues of input, and see if clarifications want return to the long-standing forms “Queen of the United Kingdom” and so on. Is it you are wanting me to revert your edits now ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you're going to revert back to 'upper case' on US presidents & vice presidents? then you have to do all of them, not just a few. Above all, I'm pro-consistency. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- User:GoodDay Are you requesting that I undo your edits at this time ? I asked you above to please desist, mentioning multiple editors objections, issues noted with MOS, reverts (part of BRD), and simply no wider discussion let alone consensus in the affected projects. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I won't stop you, if you restore President of the United States & Vice President of the United States to all the US presidents & vice presidents bio intros. I'm pro-consistency above all else. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- User:GoodDay I asked you to desist your stated intents for Commonwealth title, mentioning issues and needing discussion in appropriate venues. I will say that desisting any further changes of the long-standing “President of the United States” also seems wise, but raising the topic of me reverting all your whatever such edits was mentioned by you and needed clarification whether you were asking me to do it now. It now seems more a voiced condition though, one which is not feasible or appropriate since neither of us WP:OWN those articles or control any editor doing inputs, and until you actually do the discussion in other venues there is no telling whether they will make distinctions among your edits. In this TALK one can propose edits or make requests — so you might propose undoing or request I undo for you - but it is moot to state preconditions. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- p.s. While I can understand you may have free time during Christmas, it’s perhaps not the best time to embark on a change across so many articles, or to expect discussions from all... I will suggest the desist be for two weeks and am reverting across the British monarchs at the moment. What groups other than that and BLP of any President of the United States have you recently altered to lower case ? Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- US presidents (Washington to Trump), US vice presidents (Adams to Pence) & British monarchs (Anne to Elizabeth II). GoodDay (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, and seems good it is grouped. I will hold at reverting of British monarchs and doing discussions for the moment. Markbassett (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- US presidents (Washington to Trump), US vice presidents (Adams to Pence) & British monarchs (Anne to Elizabeth II). GoodDay (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I won't stop you, if you restore President of the United States & Vice President of the United States to all the US presidents & vice presidents bio intros. I'm pro-consistency above all else. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- User:GoodDay Are you requesting that I undo your edits at this time ? I asked you above to please desist, mentioning multiple editors objections, issues noted with MOS, reverts (part of BRD), and simply no wider discussion let alone consensus in the affected projects. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you're going to revert back to 'upper case' on US presidents & vice presidents? then you have to do all of them, not just a few. Above all, I'm pro-consistency. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- User:GoodDay - I was saying take time to get some wider venues of input, and see if clarifications want return to the long-standing forms “Queen of the United Kingdom” and so on. Is it you are wanting me to revert your edits now ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Commonwealth realm, not Commonwealth Realm
Howdy. I few years ago, an RM was held concerning the article title for Commonwealth realms. The result was Commonwealth realm (i.e. realm, rather then Realm). GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:GoodDay which of the objections in that article’s archives are you referring to? I think it is a side note for the Queen discussion, but usage of a realm versus Commonwealth Realms is another capitalised phrase that needs further work on the MOS. I hope you acknowledge that the capitalised usage exists? Hmm would MOS have things in “The United states” ? Markbassett (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
!vote format
I've been fixing your !vote format for awhile now - e.g. [4][5][6][7][8] - and I'm wondering whether it would be undue burden for you to form the habit of bolding the first word(s) like everybody else. There are good reasons for that convention. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- ‘’’’ehh’’’ It’s not the same keyboard with the mobi. An asterisk is doable, but hashmarks are not, and html is tedious. I don’t see a strong need or utility to it, so frequently skip it. Markbassett (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Dealing with consecutive vandalism edits
Hi Mark, thanks for trying to undo vandalism at Carvel (franchise). However, you didn't completely remove the bad edits; I've done the rest. In the future, try reverting the page to the last unvandalised version, rather than trying to use the undo feature. Graham87 16:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:Graham87. Oops. Thanks. And ummm... how do I do that, specifically on a mobi touchscreen ? Travel is a great time to check recent changes for vandalism, but when there are multiple edits involved I went for another undo then another. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't really know ... normally I'd recommend Twinkle, but that doesn't seem to work on mobile. I found a fairly recent archived discussion which says that reversion is best achieved using the desktop site on mobile devices. Graham87 02:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- eh, already there but thanks for looking. Markbassett (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment requested
I've been asked to ask you for comment at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting#Possible edit warring over a Markbassett post. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, will do Markbassett (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Are you receiving our pings? Do you have notifications disabled? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think I am receiving pings when sent. Markbassett (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, I was just wondering since you didn't respond to this ping. At least one editor in that little dispute feels I need your permission to make that format change, so I'm asking for it. Would you mind going there and clearly granting or denying me that permission? Your earlier comment is very unclear on that. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Feeling time to say over & out there. The rfc has my !vote with basis and explanations... and umpteen back & forths. Enough already. Markbassett (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Greatest Generation which affects an article which you have previously participated in a discussion about. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you! Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Keep keeping on
Reagan Ranch | |
May this image give you the rest and relaxation that the late President Ronald Reagan received when he went to it. I can understand that editing on Wikipedia can be difficult, but hang in there, and continue to improve as an editor, while you continue to attempt to improve Wikipedia. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
On Article Talk pages related to post-1932 American Politics, the number of posts you are allowed to make is throttled according to: User:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions#Anti-filibuster sanction.
You have been sanctioned for WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT behavior on article talk pages in the topic area. An example is this short section where you have commented 12 times, responding to almost every comment, and repeating the same assertions over and over. For example you repeated the claim at least 5 times that the statement "Trump has made many false or misleading statements..." fails WP:V. Some of your other comments were just unhelpful like "I take the lack of explanation to mean it was just bloviating" and the stuff surrounding "empty hyperbole" (which you repeated 6(!) times).
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ~Awilley (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Note that this sanction is not meant to censor your views, but to encourage you to present them in a reasonably concise and clear manner that doesn't put an undue burden on the other editors who interact with you. Also as a side note, before you cite a Wikipedia policy or guideline, please make sure the substance of the guideline is actually relevant to the argument you're making. It's better to use sound logic than to haphazardly fling around WP:ALPHABET SOUP. ~Awilley (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)