Jargo Nautilus (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
Jargo Nautilus (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
||
Line 328: | Line 328: | ||
::There wasn't a good reason, actually. [[User:Jargo Nautilus|Jargo Nautilus]] ([[User talk:Jargo Nautilus|talk]]) 13:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
::There wasn't a good reason, actually. [[User:Jargo Nautilus|Jargo Nautilus]] ([[User talk:Jargo Nautilus|talk]]) 13:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
::Silencing your political opponents is not (as far as I'm aware) allowed at Wikipedia. [[User:Jargo Nautilus|Jargo Nautilus]] ([[User talk:Jargo Nautilus|talk]]) 13:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
::Silencing your political opponents is not (as far as I'm aware) allowed at Wikipedia. [[User:Jargo Nautilus|Jargo Nautilus]] ([[User talk:Jargo Nautilus|talk]]) 13:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
::And yes, I will clarify that you and I are opponents, Jones. After your repeated actions, there is no way to redeem our professional relationship. It is clearly impossible for you to engage in civil discussions with me, I am sorry to say. [[User:Jargo Nautilus|Jargo Nautilus]] ([[User talk:Jargo Nautilus|talk]]) 13:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:26, 5 September 2022
Shiny stuff |
Welcome! If you post on this page, I will respond on this page. If I post on your talk page, I will have it watchlisted for the duration of the conversation (and possibly longer!), but please feel free to ping me if I appear to have missed something.
Season's Greetings
Season's Greetings | ||
Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
- Thank you Fowler&fowler! A well-taken collage of a well-decorated tree. I hope it sees you into a better 2022. CMD (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome
Thanks for the welcome! :) Vacationer (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
One year! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt a year already? I was not expecting that. Thanks again, CMD (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Edits to Russia and Ukraine
Can you take a look at Chidgk1 edits at these two articles. Think they are just new to country articles thinking that all stats need to be from this month or somthing. We are talking about the tagging adding updated sources if posible...but not sure if we can keep up with there pace of tagging . Dont think they are trying to get this article demoted as has been suggested here...I think they belive they are doing good work. --Moxy- 16:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome
Proud of my African articles and pleased to see you added them to the 10,000 challenge. My prime driver is gender but its just part of the diversity and equality we strive for. Victuallers (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Dili info
I thought I would continue discussion of this topic on your talk page so that you don't need to keep an eye on mine.
I have in fact recently nominated a number of East Timor articles for DYK. The ones that have already appeared as DYKs are acknowledged on my talk page, and two more have recently been approved. I didn't nominate Tibar Bay, because I took too long to write it to my satisfaction. The German Wikipedia article about the history of Dili (de:Geschichte Dilis) seems to be quite comprehensive, although I haven't looked at it very closely yet. I am able to translate German, but most German Wikipedia articles need significant improvement to comply with English Wikipedia expectations relating to referencing, etc.
More recently, I have added more content to National Stadium (East Timor), created Cape Fatucama, and upgraded Ombai Strait and Wetar Strait. The Stadium article needs some more refinement, but the basic factual material in it is already now pretty much all I have been able to find on the internet. I also intend to expand the two Strait articles further, and an improvement of Timorese Resistance Archive and Museum will be my next task. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- No problem, whichever venue works. I agree on the German Wikipedia, it has great East Timor articles. They have more OR so they can't be translated directly, but I do forgive them given the impossibility of finding a source that says something as simple as "The Bay of Dili extends from the Comoro River to Cape Fatucama". (That'd add really good context to the current Geography section, and it's obviously true from a map, I just can't find it in anything remotely high quality.) CMD (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the source I used for the statement in the Bay of Dili article in English Wikipedia to that effect is a map that doesn't actually name the bay. So it doesn't really go quite far enough. For some reason, maps of East Timor seldom, if ever, name bodies of water or rivers. Maybe that's because East Timor is an impoverished country, and such names are not really important in the overall scheme of things. But like you, I will keep my eye out for a better source. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Dili
Hi CMD
Sorry for not replying yet to your request at my talk page... unfortunately my Wiki time has been dwindling considerably recently, and I'm about to go on vacation. So if you're still interested in my thoughts then, I can hopefully have a look at it in late April. I think your thoughts may be generally sensible from a very brief look. If you do decide to split out History into its own article, don't forget to leave a decent self-contained summary of appropriate length in the parent article. Its a bug-bear of mine when people just leave a section empty with a link to "main article", that's not how summary style is supposed to work, and why we have e.g. Rwanda#History and History of Rwanda as separate entities. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: No problem, as could be guessed this is quite a slow burn. Fascinating that that's your bugbear, mine is the opposite, too much expansion on the summary while the main article is ignored. CMD (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi CMD
If you're still interested in nominating something for DYK, you might want to consider Comoro River, which I started expanding on 6 April. A possible hook might be: "... the Berloi Waterfall forms part of a minor tributary of the Comoro River?" I intend to expand the river article a little bit further, by including some information to the effect that its lower reaches are flood prone. I will do that in the next day or so. Bahnfrend (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Bahnfrend: How about adding a small bit of history, such as the very recent date of the second bridge? I think a hook on something like "...that the Comoro River, which cuts through the East Timor capital of Dili, had only one vehicle bridge until 2018?". I have a QPQ done so otherwise ready to go. Also added a link to the CPLP Bridge article from Dili. Best, CMD (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis: Done. In the next 24 hours, I'll add some brief content about the 2020 and 2021 floods, but you don't need to wait for that content to nominate the article for DYK. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Timeline of Philippine political history
Hi. Heads-up. Some time ago, you merged the old Timeline of Philippine political Sovereignty article into the Timeline of Philippine political history article. I've proposed some fairly major changes in part of that article. If you're not following the discussion of that here, please take a look and comment if needed. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Reaching out in good faith
Hey Chipmunkdavis, I know you had a problem with my recent AfD nominations but I just wanted to say I feel like the quote you have on your page is great and pretty relevant in our disagreement:
"There is a habit among editors to look at how the text of an article changes, rather than what the text says. There is a presumption that if text moves from one POV then it must be moving towards another POV (and so we see opposing POVs waxing and waning rather than seeing it for what it is: a settling at a NPOV)."
That's not meant to be snappy or sarcastic. I just genuinely feel like my WP:BOLD edits are helping build a WP:NPOV and add WP:VERIFIABLE information. Much of the information on the Ora (currency) article was incorrect and not supported by sources. I also personally believe, and you may disagree, that Orania Representative Council fails WP:GNG. I appreciate the engagement but I will say I was a bit perturbed by the immediate suggestion that I be topic banned or worse. If this message feels inappropriate, I understand and feel free to delete and ignore. Just wanted to reach out in good faith to explain why I am doing what I am doing. Desertambition (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am sure you are working in good faith, but that does not meant there is no issue. I have no opinion on whether the Orania Representative Council meets or fails GNG. I have not looked into it at all. The problem is, your deletion rationale leaves me none the wiser. It reads as entirely disconnected to GNG, and that is problematic. On the Ora article, you have removed the note of the peg, removed the etymology behind the name claiming that this was inappropriate in Wikivoice, added the assertion that the digital version is a cryptocurrency, among other problematic edits. As with the deletion rationale and notability, your expressed reasoning does not match the actions taken. I cannot understand the reasoning behind this disconnect, and I suspect from the AN/I other users cannot either, but so long as this disconnect remains you're editing is going to continue to run into issues. CMD (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I did remove those things from the article because they were not supported by the sources. The articles I read almost always said "Orania spokesperson says..." or "According to Orania..." but the central claims were not supported by the sources provided/other reliable sources. The etymology was in fact a statement by an Orania spokesperson who said Ora "sounds like" the latin word for gold. That is not the same as a reliable secondary source stating the etymology authoritatively. The peg statement is refuted by the Reserve Bank of South Africa and other reliable sources. The dOra is a cryptocurrency and that was supported by sources already present but I could add more if you would like. I truly believe I explained these things in my edit summaries and have edited honestly. I personally do not understand how we came to separate conclusions based on the cited sources. This following statement is meant earnestly as well, it puzzles me as to why you would characterize my edits as vandalism or disruptive when I have stuck by reliable sources, detailed edit summaries, and have been ready and willing to discuss issues on the talk page if they may arise. I believe it's clear many users have a problem with my edits but I make sure to stick by WP:VERIFIABLE information and try to remain WP:BOLD in doing so. Desertambition (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- It does feel a bit like you are not assuming WP:GOODFAITH. Hopefully you at least understand my perspective a bit more. Desertambition (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- A group that names something is a reliable source for why it is named something. The currency is pegged to the Rand, no source disputes this. There is no source stating it is a cryptocurrency, and it is not a cryptocurrency, by definition. I feel you do not understand the topic at hand. The assertion I do not assume good faith is bizarre, given the conversation so far. I note in the AN/I you have apparently asserted similarly with others, so sadly this does appear to be a pattern. CMD (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
misleading edit summary and unnecessarily pointy language
Really? Where exactly? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- The opening sentence. CMD (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please give explicit example. I see no issue with my edits. Expand on how the edit misleads. Expand on how it is pointy vs what was there before the edit. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- For a start, deliberately changing "independent" to "independent sovereign", which reads as redundancy to make a point. CMD (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Redundancy is a very different thing to misleading. I submit that there is nothing misleading about "independent sovereign" as opposed to "independent". And if it was making a point, what was that point? I fail to see the point that you seem to see. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Misleading was the edit summary which asserted the edit was about date formatting. If you fail to see a point to the change, why make the change? CMD (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- So the edit to the article itself was not misleading; it was just the edit summary that was misleading. Is that your position? Why would you revert an edit if it was not inherently misleading or otherwise erroneous? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Because it adjusted the wording to a much pointier form, while also not adding any information or clarity for a reader. CMD (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- So if I change it to read as follows, you will have no objection? "Today, Artsakh is a de facto sovereign state" Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Of course I object, that is exactly the same sort of uninformative jargony change. You have so far not answered the question of why you want to make such a change. CMD (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have so far not answered the question of why I want to make such a change because so far it has not been asked. Since you now ask, I think that it's best to avoid WP:EasterEgg surprizes. Such as clicking on "independent" and landing on "Sovereignty". Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- It was asked above, but if that is the case then the easiest solution is to remove the wikilink. Readers understand what independence is. CMD (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- What's your beef with bluelinks? Readers understand better when a term is linked. No extra cost involved in bluelinks. If you know what it means, don't click it. It you don't know, click it. That's how Wiki works. What's your beef with this bluelink: "Today, Artsakh is a de facto sovereign state" / Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- No beef outside of standard guidelines. CMD (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- What's your beef with bluelinks? Readers understand better when a term is linked. No extra cost involved in bluelinks. If you know what it means, don't click it. It you don't know, click it. That's how Wiki works. What's your beef with this bluelink: "Today, Artsakh is a de facto sovereign state" / Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- It was asked above, but if that is the case then the easiest solution is to remove the wikilink. Readers understand what independence is. CMD (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have so far not answered the question of why I want to make such a change because so far it has not been asked. Since you now ask, I think that it's best to avoid WP:EasterEgg surprizes. Such as clicking on "independent" and landing on "Sovereignty". Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Of course I object, that is exactly the same sort of uninformative jargony change. You have so far not answered the question of why you want to make such a change. CMD (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- So if I change it to read as follows, you will have no objection? "Today, Artsakh is a de facto sovereign state" Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Because it adjusted the wording to a much pointier form, while also not adding any information or clarity for a reader. CMD (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- So the edit to the article itself was not misleading; it was just the edit summary that was misleading. Is that your position? Why would you revert an edit if it was not inherently misleading or otherwise erroneous? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Misleading was the edit summary which asserted the edit was about date formatting. If you fail to see a point to the change, why make the change? CMD (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Redundancy is a very different thing to misleading. I submit that there is nothing misleading about "independent sovereign" as opposed to "independent". And if it was making a point, what was that point? I fail to see the point that you seem to see. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- For a start, deliberately changing "independent" to "independent sovereign", which reads as redundancy to make a point. CMD (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please give explicit example. I see no issue with my edits. Expand on how the edit misleads. Expand on how it is pointy vs what was there before the edit. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. |
No objection re Armenia
No objection: [1]. Largoplazo (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
WikiProject Malaysia April 2022 newsletter
The Malaysia WikiProject Newsletter |
||
Issue 24 • April 2022 • About the Newsletter | ||
| ||
Past Newsletter • Newsroom • Malaysia Noticeboard • Malaysia Portal | ||
Newsletter written by Chongkian. You may opt-out of this monthly newsletter by removing your name here. |
WikiProject Malaysia May 2022 newsletter
The Malaysia WikiProject Newsletter |
||
Issue 25 • May 2022 • About the Newsletter | ||
| ||
Past Newsletter • Newsroom • Malaysia Noticeboard • Malaysia Portal | ||
Newsletter written by Chongkian. You may opt-out of this monthly newsletter by removing your name here. |
He is most likely a vandalism-only IP. I'm keeping a close eye on him and his contributions. I'll report him if he starts doing it again because I'm confused if it's good faith or bad faith (I want to be sure, he's most likely bad faith), Thank you! Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 17:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Henley & Partners
Hi CMD! I noticed that you're a member of WP:COUNTRIES and you've also been somewhat involved in the past at Henley Passport Index (which is produced by my employer, Henley & Partners), so I'm hoping you might have some familiarity with the subject matter and would be willing to help out with a content issue.
In short, I initiated a discussion at Talk:Henley & Partners#Major changes made without consensus after an editor made several sweeping changes without discussion in mid-March, most of which I considered either WP:COATRACK additions, additions that relied too heavily on a WP:BIASED source, or arbitrary removals of sourced content. Another editor, User:15, wrote that they largely agreed with me and said they would revert the bulk of the undiscussed changes. But then 15 abruptly stopped editing (their last edit was Apr. 5), so the article since then has remained basically unchanged in the non-consensus version - I have not done the revert myself due to my COI. Since then I've been in touch with an editor (Wtmitchell) who is active in articles about the topic of citizenship, who also agreed with 15's approach, but said he was too busy to get involved.
I'm hoping you can read the talk page discussion and, if you agree, revert the disputed changes (1, 2, 3) to whatever extent you feel is appropriate, to allow consensus to be reached properly. Thank you, Sarah Nicklin (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Responding on the article talkpage. CMD (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking action on this. Would you mind taking a quick look at this edit to the article on the company's founder as well? It was done by the same editor at around the same time as the other edits. Similar removal of sourced content, plus addition of multiple paragraphs of coatrack/POV fork material. Much appreciated, Sarah Nicklin (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Sarah, I'm afraid BLPs are not an area I go to often. If it helps that page does not appear that negative. Best, CMD (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- OK. I reached out to you in the first place because of your connection to the subject matter, but at this point the situation really just requires a level-headed, unbiased editor who knows how to apply WP:NPOV - not necessarily a BLP expert. Plus, you are by now already familiar with the context of the situation and the nature of the edits to both articles. So if you could take a moment to review the Christian Kälin edit despite your reluctance, I would greatly appreciate it. But I certainly understand if you still prefer not to get involved. Thank you, Sarah Nicklin (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Sarah, I'm afraid BLPs are not an area I go to often. If it helps that page does not appear that negative. Best, CMD (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking action on this. Would you mind taking a quick look at this edit to the article on the company's founder as well? It was done by the same editor at around the same time as the other edits. Similar removal of sourced content, plus addition of multiple paragraphs of coatrack/POV fork material. Much appreciated, Sarah Nicklin (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
User:TAKA Michinoku
Not sure where to ask about this, but since you welcomed the user, I thought I'd start with you. Is this a valid username? I ask because Taka Michinoku (often stylized as TAKA Michinoku) is the ring name of an actual wrestler. I seriously doubt that we would allow a user to call themselves Ric Flair or Hulk Hogan or CM Punk, and this seems just as odd and prone to misinterpretation as the user being the wrestler in question. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Khajidha: We would not, per WP:IMPERSONATE. I have dropped a note on the talkpage. CMD (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?
Hi Chipmunkdavis, I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board. Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 17:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC) |
Your GA nomination of Wildlife of North Macedonia
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wildlife of North Macedonia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Storm of IPs
Hi, Chip. You revert fast, but you might also find Writ Keeper's mass rollback script makes life easier. Bishonen | tålk 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: Thanks, I happen to already have that for precisely these situations. It really does smooth maintenance. However, it breaks down when competing with Sinebot, so perhaps a (short) semi of Talk:Germany wouldn't go amiss. Best, CMD (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've already semi'd a number of the targeted pages. Talk:Germany, you say? OK. Bishonen | tålk 11:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC).
Your GA nomination of Wildlife of North Macedonia
The article Wildlife of North Macedonia you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Wildlife of North Macedonia for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Nomination—no movement?
Hello, I notice that the issues I raised in my review have yet to be addressed. Please note that the nomination will probably be failed on 27 June if the review is not completed by then. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Amitchell125: You actually caught me right near where I had the space to attend to this (the weekend is here). Should be done before the deadline. I am fiddling with the topographic map as suggested, I may take you up on your offer of assistance at a later point. CMD (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks, happy to help with the map.Amitchell125 (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
2022 Core Contest
Hi. Congratulations on your win at the 2022 edition of the Core Contest. Please get in touch with me at karla.marte@wikimedia.org.uk to coordinate your prize. Thank you. Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Privet
Privet comrade. The Russian page content you deleted had been agreed by consensus on the talk page of the article. If you want to remove content do not just delete it, in the future start a discussion on the talk page. If you are a paid Wikipedia editor you should not be editing this type of content either... conflict of interest. Colinmcdermott (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Colinmcdermott (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Edit Request Tool changes
Hello, I just made some significant changes to User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool. Since you have the tool active, I am informing you of this since it may affect you. To open the tool you will now have to click the "respond" button. The tool will load a similar interface as before. There is now a live preview of the response. These changes might have introduced some bugs so if you have any concerns / suggestions or run into problems please leave a note at User talk:Terasail/Edit Request Tool Thanks, Terasail[✉️] 15:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
WikiProject Malaysia June 2022 newsletter
The Malaysia WikiProject Newsletter |
||
Issue 26 • June 2022 • About the Newsletter
| ||
| ||
Past Newsletter • Newsroom • Malaysia Noticeboard • Malaysia Portal | ||
Newsletter written by Chongkian. You may opt-out of this monthly newsletter by removing your name here. |
ASEAN
Hi, I think you must see all official language of members of ASEAN. You can see all is putting ASEAN flag in their language example Thai language & Indonesian language article. If it wrong I think you also remove on their article Malayan Law (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- If there is no source for it, please remove it from those articles. CMD (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
The source same like what I do Malayan Law (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, that source does not seem provide the official languages of ASEAN. CMD (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Privet
Man, I knew it. Comrade, Brycehughes (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Removal of information on Straits Times history
Could you please clarify why you removed information related to the Straits Times being used as a propaganda paper? I think that is very important to its history, the history of Japanese-occupied Singapore, and how the paper evolved following the end of WWII to provide that information and context. The edits were well-sourced and well-documented in scholarly publications in English and Japanese, and I intend to return them to the page. Also I think that the sub-section headings were useful in breaking up a long history section to make it more readable, but that's neither here nor there. Kazamzam (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Kazamzam: I removed all text added by an LTA who has a serial history of vandalism and source fabrication, and ironically, propaganda. I don't know which particular text you refer to, but on the topic of propaganda, they for example changed the text "The newspaper is sometimes referred as "the mouthpiece" of the ruling party" to "After Singapore gained its independence in 1965, the newspaper has since been referred to Singapore's newspaper of record due to its links with the government." This text was sourced to [2] and [3], both of which mention being a mouthpiece, but neither of which mention being a newspaper of record. In addition to the obvious POV pushing, this is not being "well-sourced". Often this user simply grabs a random source which sounds like it could be right and attaches it to their text, so it appears sourced, even though it's possibly garbage. If you think a source is useful, I advise reading it yourself and writing from that. CMD (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I didn't explain what I was referring to precisely. I added a lot of info on how the paper was used during WWII when it was changed to the Syonan Shimbun by the Japanese military government with sources to back it up. That part was deleted, along with the LTA's changes, in one of your reversions and I didn't understand why, plus I wasn't sure where the comment on POV-pushing came from. I very much agree with your rollback of the changes made by the LTA. My apologies for not being clear on what I meant by a 'propaganda' paper, and I appreciate the explanation. I prefer to focus on history prior to the 1960s but if I can find some more relevant stuff on being a government mouthpiece, I'll add it in there. Thanks! Kazamzam (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
WikiProject Malaysia July 2022 newsletter
The Malaysia WikiProject Newsletter |
||
Issue 27 • July 2022 • About the Newsletter
| ||
| ||
Past Newsletter • Newsroom • Malaysia Noticeboard • Malaysia Portal | ||
Newsletter written by Chongkian. You may opt-out of this monthly newsletter by removing your name here. |
Talk:Russia - Incident involving Seryo93, Jargo Nautilus, and Mzajac
Hello Chipmunkdavis. I believe that there has been a misunderstanding. Well, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. A certain comment made over at Talk:Russia#Add Russian invasion of Ukraine, 2022, to the lead has been flagged for disinformation by me due to containing an objectively false misquotation of @Mzajac by @Seryo93. My response to this misquotation, aside from initially pointing it out, has been to strike-through the relevant text, pending a retraction of the statement by Seryo93. I have contacted both Seryo93 and Mzajac, and I have made clear what is wrong and how I propose to solve the dispute.
I have asked Seryo93 to not remove the strike-through without first amending the misleading sentence. Obviously, it was you, CMD, who first removed the strike-through. So, Seryo93 is not guilty of anything at the moment. You are also not guilty of anything at the moment since you might not have been aware of the content dispute taking place. That is why I am giving you a chance to explain yourself now. If further disruption occurs, then I will take this case to ANI. And bear in mind, if it is you, CMD, who continues the dispute, then the charges will actually be against you, not against Seryo93. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Here is the relevant discussion. User talk:Seryo93#I have struckthrough your comment on Talk:Russia because it is false beyond a reasonable doubt. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Do not edit others' comments in a way that suggests they wrote something they didn't. CMD (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I clearly wrote that I am flagging Seryo93's comment as disinformation since he is misquoting something that Mzajac apparently said. So, to you, I can equally say "don't misquote people". Jones. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Who is Jones? CMD (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Take a guess. I'm going to take this case to ANI soon, although not right now because I am pre-occupied with something else. You've got maybe half-a-day to a day to mull things over and consider your actions. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I advise you against taking a case of you editing another editor's comment to AN/I. CMD (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I provided a good reason for what I was doing, and I clearly explained it to all parties involved as well. Seryo93 misquoted Mzajac, and I intend to redeem the information that was presented there so that the misquotation issue is revolved. This can either involve deleting the material, rewording the material, or simply marking it as a misquotation with a little asterisk or something. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- For the record, I (i.e. you) would wait until Seryo93 returns before anything else is escalated. I know that Seryo93 is currently active at the Russia article's talk page, although they haven't replied to my talk discussion on their own talk page yet. Indeed, if Seryo93 actually agrees to rewrite their comment in order to remove the misquotation, then no actions will have to be taken. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I know, misquoting another user is against the guidelines/rules of Wikipedia. It's not necessarily a criminal act if it was simply a mistake as opposed to deliberate. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Please also, consider this. This is a dispute that is primarily between me and Seryo93. If you yourself get involved even further, CMD, then that is on you. And you are bringing unnecessary trouble to yourself that doesn't concern you. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- There are very few situations where anyone should edit another's comment, and feeling something was misinterpreted is not one of them. CMD (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's not simply a "feeling". It's a fact. The fact is, Seryo93 objectively presented a piece of information as a quote attributed to Mzajac, and that quote was misleading, portraying information in a way that was distinctly different from the way that Mzajac had originally presented it. I don't even care about the exact contents of what either Mzajac or Seryo93 were saying, I only care about the fact that the information was misquoted, which has caused complications in the flow of the discussion. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Read this sentence specifically: In any case, the claim that 2014 event was the first annexation in the world since WWII is, indeed, not true. -- attributed to Seryo93 in Talk:Russia.
- In this statement, Seryo93 mentions "the claim" (by whom?), which, based on the flow of the discussion, can be inferred to mean "the claim by Mzajac". And, when analysing what Mzajac actually said in the preceding comments, he never actually said exactly what Seryo93 wrote.
- The concept of "paraphrasing" can be considered here. Oftentimes, people paraphrase others because a direct quotation is not suitable for the flow of the discussion. However, there's a certain threshold at which point a rewording of a quote becomes a misquotation, presenting information that is completely different from what was originally being said by the person who is being quoted. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- There is no quote there. CMD (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're seeing, but that indeed looks like a quote to me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- What does the term "the claim" mean, then? To me, that indicates a quotation. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Quotes are generally indicated by quotation marks or similar visual identifiers. Not wishing to comb over what was a remarkably normal conversation before you decided to revive it a month after it ended, I can only advise again not taking to AN/I a case of you unilaterally editing someone else's comment. CMD (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Did you not read what I wrote about "paraphrasing" a few comments ago? A quotation doesn't have to be in quotation marks to be a quotation. When it isn't, that's generally referred to as paraphrasing. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- For the record, this was my initial response to Seryo93 upon identifying the misquotation (which, mind you, I didn't notice immediately, and only noticed after looking more carefully).
Just to add to this conversation, I think you are misquoting @Mzajac here. As far as I can tell, he never precisely said that the 2014 event was the first annexation in the world since WWII.
- JN
- Meanwhile, this was Seryo93's subsequent reply to me, which does include a quote of Mzajac with actual quotation marks, rather than just paraphrasing.
"No one has taken such actions since the Second World War and signing of the UN Charter in the first half of the last century, and the following proliferation of nuclear weapons.". And yet, there were many post-WWII annexations waaay before 2014.
- Seryo93
Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)- Cambridge definitions: Quotation, paraphrase. See also our related internal links, Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. CMD (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Those links aren't helpful. When someone says "the claim of such and such", that is inferred to mean "someone said such and such".
- Indeed, Seryo93's comment would not be too problematic if it were instead written as, for example, "the idea that...", or "the notion that...", or "the implication that...". The specific detail that has caused me to label this a misquotation is the fact that Seryo93 specifically used the phrase "the claim that...", which implies a quotation more so than the other alternative descriptors that I've listed here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- If Seryo93 had said any of those alternative phrases, I probably wouldn't have batted an eyelid. It's the specific usage of "the claim" which I have a problem with. If he literally just changes that one word to any of the alternatives that I've listed, then that would effectively solve the problem. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- My initial reaction to seeing Seryo93 write "the claim that", aside from coming up with a reply to Seryo93 himself, was to look upwards throughout the thread to see where somebody actually claimed that. Because, myself being reasonably knowledgeable about world history, I knew that that was an absurd statement to make, which is why I was checking to see who would have actually said it. And, indeed, nobody actually said it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- The closest I could find to that exact quote was
It includes the first annexation in Europe since WWII
- Mzajac (Michael Z)
, which is located higher up in the talk section (not in that thread itself). But, as you can see, Mzajac specifically says "in Europe" here, rather than "in the world". That's a pretty significant distinction, unless you consider those two concepts to be synonymous. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC) - Still, as far as I'm aware, the example of India's annexation of Goa, provided by Seryo93, definitely does not pertain to the borders of Europe. Goa and India are located very far away from Europe. Perhaps Seryo93 has a terrible understanding of geography, and he actually thinks that Goa and India are located in Europe. Benefit of the doubt? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Cambridge definitions: Quotation, paraphrase. See also our related internal links, Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. CMD (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Quotes are generally indicated by quotation marks or similar visual identifiers. Not wishing to comb over what was a remarkably normal conversation before you decided to revive it a month after it ended, I can only advise again not taking to AN/I a case of you unilaterally editing someone else's comment. CMD (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- There is no quote there. CMD (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- There are very few situations where anyone should edit another's comment, and feeling something was misinterpreted is not one of them. CMD (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I advise you against taking a case of you editing another editor's comment to AN/I. CMD (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Take a guess. I'm going to take this case to ANI soon, although not right now because I am pre-occupied with something else. You've got maybe half-a-day to a day to mull things over and consider your actions. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Who is Jones? CMD (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I clearly wrote that I am flagging Seryo93's comment as disinformation since he is misquoting something that Mzajac apparently said. So, to you, I can equally say "don't misquote people". Jones. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
(Admin talkpage watcher:) Jargo Nautilus, please don't strikethrough any part of another person's post. Strikethrough (<s>..</s>) is only to be performed by the person who wrote the text, see WP:TALKO. Since this is the rule, your striking through part of Seryo93's post will by no means "make it very clear that this sentence of yours is false", as you say here. Instead, it will make the impression that Seryo93 themselves have struck-through their sentence, in order to withdraw it. It's not for you to do a strikethrough, and still less to offer conditions for removing it, and making threats about what will happen if it is removed, as, again, you do here. I hope that's quite clear. Please remove your strikethrough yourself, if it's still there at the moment, and find some other way to make your point. I too advise you not to take CMD to ANI, since you are the one at fault, not CMD. Bishonen | tålk 23:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC).
- Well, how do you suggest that I resolve a dispute where someone has misquoted another user? I merely intend to resolve that one misquotation so that it no longer presents someone as saying something that they didn't actually say. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Bear in mind also that I'm not saying that the contents of the sentence are false, only that the quotation is false. Indeed, it's kind of a misquotation of me to say that I think the sentence is false. Indeed, I actually agree with the contents with what Seryo93 is saying, since I agree that there have been more annexations around the world after WWII than just Crimea in 2014. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
...because it misquotes @Mzajac as saying something that he didn't actually say.
--> I think this part of my comment that you omitted is relevant. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)- As for "making threats", you are mischaracterizing what is actually happening here. Indeed, I had it in mind to take the content dispute directly to ANI upon identifying the misquotation (and after Seryo93 replied to me), but I first decided to inform Seryo93 about the issue, and I informed him that I was going to take it to ANI. I was under the impression that I had to first use other less-serious avenues of dispute resolution before escalating towards ANI? Because the alternative is that I would have just immediately escalated the dispute to ANI. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, you'll have to figure out how to make your point yourself on the article talkpage (and do please try to be concise when you do, and to avoid incurring repeated edit conflicts by posting so incrementally). I'm only here to tell you that you didn't do it in a good way, and that your attempts to intimidate other users into letting your strikethrough stand are inappropriate. (As well as, in the case of CMD, likely to be ineffectual, since he's an experienced user.) Bishonen | tålk 23:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC).
- I think the one takeaway from this conversation is that Wikipedia does not care about whether people misquote or not. Apparently, nobody here aside from me seems to think it's an actual crime. In any case, I'm pretty sure there are millions of instances of users misquoting other users on Wikipedia. So, it's just a normal part of Wikipedia, as annoying as it is. I may have to abandon my efforts to take this to ANI, but I will definitely write a comment underneath Seryo93's comment indicating that this is a misquotation, so that other users don't become as confused as I was upon reading it for the first time. (Note: I've already done something similar to this, although my initial comment was more like "I think this is a misquotation" rather than "This is definitely a misquotation".) Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, you'll have to figure out how to make your point yourself on the article talkpage (and do please try to be concise when you do, and to avoid incurring repeated edit conflicts by posting so incrementally). I'm only here to tell you that you didn't do it in a good way, and that your attempts to intimidate other users into letting your strikethrough stand are inappropriate. (As well as, in the case of CMD, likely to be ineffectual, since he's an experienced user.) Bishonen | tålk 23:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC).
Thoughts?
[4] - LouisAragon (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- I saw that addition before, but didn't feel the desire to look into it. Personally, I find the topic quite interesting, but for the purposes of the lead we should really just stop at "in the Caucasus". What you added to the talkpage is quite fascinating, and I don't have anything that would add value to it right now. CMD (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- Im not sure whether this is satisfactory.[5] Seems as if the user wants to portray it as an "inevitable, natural" process, even though the very same opinion piece as well as Stephen H. Rapp clearly portray it differently. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- Edit: Though I guess I can't say I'm surprised when looking at this comment that was attached to that edit.[6] - LouisAragon (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, that is not a great presentation of the source. The old concept of Europe as Christendom is something I would suspect may have remained in the culture there, but the Carnegie piece doesn't go into that. I haven't looked at the sources outside of your quotes, but the Carnegie piece also question the inevitability, given the differing conceptions of "Europe". CMD (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- Would you be willing to adjust the content per WP:BOLD and WP:VER? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- I am very busy at the moment, so I don't think I would be able to until next week, apologies. CMD (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- No worries at all Chip. IRL affairs are always more important than non-IRL ones. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- I am very busy at the moment, so I don't think I would be able to until next week, apologies. CMD (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Would you be willing to adjust the content per WP:BOLD and WP:VER? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, that is not a great presentation of the source. The old concept of Europe as Christendom is something I would suspect may have remained in the culture there, but the Carnegie piece doesn't go into that. I haven't looked at the sources outside of your quotes, but the Carnegie piece also question the inevitability, given the differing conceptions of "Europe". CMD (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- Edit: Though I guess I can't say I'm surprised when looking at this comment that was attached to that edit.[6] - LouisAragon (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Proding Bricherhaff
Hello, I wanted to ask about why you didn't consider a redirect for Bricherhaff, I mean Eitermillen was redirected to Contern by a trusted user for the same reasons you proded Bricherhaff, what about WP:ATD?
Also about the article itslef, I agree, it's not good quality and right now it's non-notable, if I can find sources, that could change but until then, we are on the same page. N1TH Music (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- There is no encyclopaedic purpose to redirecting non-notable properties to somewhere else, and there no content within the stub that looked like it was worth preserving in article history. CMD (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- WP:ATD states that we should, if possible, use an alternative, regardless of how useless preserving the history of said article may be. N1TH Music (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- We should use an alternative if it helps the encyclopaedia. Redirects from individual properties to their towns do not. CMD (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's not an individual property, it's a legally recognised settlement and I say it should be redirected to the mill directly adjacent to it. If you want proof to it being a settlement, search Bricherhaff on Google Books, I found a directory of settlements in alphabetical order, it isn't a list of properties, it's a list of settlements. N1TH Music (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to like looking at maps, so please look at it on a map and see it's someone's farm. You were blocked for this sort of disruption, and it's really not a great way to come off your block to go right back into it. CMD (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not looking at it on a map, I've been there, I live not far from it, I know it's populated, I know it's legally recognised, I know it's publicly recognised and again, I check google books, there are no maps there and I found a couple sources. I don't know how reliable everything there is but once I can acces it on my computer I will put the information on the AFD and then let everyone decide. N1TH Music (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- It is not uncommon for private property to be populated and legally recognised, this doesn't mean much on its own. I am not sure what you gain or are trying to acehive by continuing with whatever campaign you are on, I can only advise you drop it sooner rather than later. CMD (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not looking at it on a map, I've been there, I live not far from it, I know it's populated, I know it's legally recognised, I know it's publicly recognised and again, I check google books, there are no maps there and I found a couple sources. I don't know how reliable everything there is but once I can acces it on my computer I will put the information on the AFD and then let everyone decide. N1TH Music (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to like looking at maps, so please look at it on a map and see it's someone's farm. You were blocked for this sort of disruption, and it's really not a great way to come off your block to go right back into it. CMD (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's not an individual property, it's a legally recognised settlement and I say it should be redirected to the mill directly adjacent to it. If you want proof to it being a settlement, search Bricherhaff on Google Books, I found a directory of settlements in alphabetical order, it isn't a list of properties, it's a list of settlements. N1TH Music (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- We should use an alternative if it helps the encyclopaedia. Redirects from individual properties to their towns do not. CMD (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- WP:ATD states that we should, if possible, use an alternative, regardless of how useless preserving the history of said article may be. N1TH Music (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Flinders Reef (Coral Sea)
On 24 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Flinders Reef (Coral Sea), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that coral cores from Flinders Reef capture environmental changes caused by the use of nuclear weapons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Flinders Reef (Coral Sea). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Flinders Reef (Coral Sea)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Vanamonde 00:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
WikiProject Malaysia August 2022 newsletter
The Malaysia WikiProject Newsletter |
||
Issue 28 • August 2022 • About the Newsletter
| ||
| ||
Past Newsletter • Newsroom • Malaysia Noticeboard • Malaysia Portal | ||
Newsletter written by Chongkian. You may opt-out of this monthly newsletter by removing your name here. |
Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment
You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Dependent territories
I'd like to request to at least add Mong Yawn back to the list of similar entities. As it does not have an officially recognized status it is obviously not part of most lists, but that does not change the way it is de facto ruled (That's why I put it in italics, one could add a more detailed description)
Greetings, Ly.n0m (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how its de facto rule makes it a Dependent Territory. Whether a territory is considered a Dependent Territory more often relates to its de jure ruling. Perhaps it might be appropriate for List of rebel groups that control territory? CMD (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Please do not comment on my user page
This is a request to you to not comment on my user page. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Deletion of talk page comments at Wikipedia articles
As far as I'm aware, if there is not an extremely good reason, it is against the rules to delete another user's comments at a Wikipedia article. You are allowed to delete talk page comments however you like at user talk pages, but doing so at Wikipedia articles is against common practice. You can only delete illegal content and spam without objection. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Happily there was good reason. CMD (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- There wasn't a good reason, actually. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Silencing your political opponents is not (as far as I'm aware) allowed at Wikipedia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- And yes, I will clarify that you and I are opponents, Jones. After your repeated actions, there is no way to redeem our professional relationship. It is clearly impossible for you to engage in civil discussions with me, I am sorry to say. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)