Reverted 1 edit by Sirjohnperrot (talk): Read the policy on your talk page and stop digging yourself deeper into a hole (TW) Tag: Undo |
Horatius At The Bridge (talk | contribs) →User warnings: Inserting factual inaccuracies and/or libel - deliberate lies alleging altering source material. |
||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
::{{ping|Verbcatcher}} I think it is becoming a clear case of [[WP:NOTHERE|multiple levels of disruption]] and an unwillingess to reform or listen so the next stage is probably a case to ANI for a topic pan on anything to do with Perrots, or an 'only proposals on the tale page'. It would be best if s/he learnt how to edit on articles around which there is less personal commiuttment. One of the behaviours is altering source material. I saw you spotted one example of that. If you would let me have the link I can add it into the draft ANI case. I hope that won't be necessary however.-----[[User:Snowded|<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 06:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC) |
::{{ping|Verbcatcher}} I think it is becoming a clear case of [[WP:NOTHERE|multiple levels of disruption]] and an unwillingess to reform or listen so the next stage is probably a case to ANI for a topic pan on anything to do with Perrots, or an 'only proposals on the tale page'. It would be best if s/he learnt how to edit on articles around which there is less personal commiuttment. One of the behaviours is altering source material. I saw you spotted one example of that. If you would let me have the link I can add it into the draft ANI case. I hope that won't be necessary however.-----[[User:Snowded|<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 06:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] This is your '''only warning'''; if you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments again, you may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further notice'''. <!-- Template:uw-tpv4im --> |
|||
:::[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] This is your '''only warning'''; if you make [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks]] on others again, you may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further notice'''. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.<!-- Template:uw-npa4im --> |
|||
:::[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] This is your '''only warning'''; if you [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalize]] Wikipedia again, you may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further notice'''. {{Z190}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism4im --> |
|||
You have now been reported for inserting factual inaccuracies and/or libel. The above content is yet further evidence of your malicious intent, you have circulated deliberate lies about another user which should be removed immediately: - malicious lies alleging altering source material should be removed immediately. [[User:Sirjohnperrot|Sirjohnperrot]] ([[User talk:Sirjohnperrot|talk]]) 12:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:41, 3 July 2020
Manual Archive pages |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Nomination of White Student Unions for deletion
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White Student Unions is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Student Unions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.
Constituent countries
Hi there, I remembered that you had commented on the issue fairly recently, and I see that the last post above is on related matters. Do you have a view on this? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- I reversed the lot I think and put a note on the editors page -----Snowded TALK 17:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. For reference, do you know where the material about the agreed position is located?
- I notice a certain user has come in for further visits to their old haunts, trying to repurpose another discussion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- It is linked on each Countries talk page. If you mean GoodDay then this edit illustrates the problem. His current interventions on all UK articles are displaying the same behaviours which resulted first in a topic ban and then a wikipedia ban. No one holds an old crime against someone, unless they start to repeat the same crime in which case the same punishment may be appropriate. I think I am going to start assembling examples as a reimposition of the topic ban and also one on commenting without dealing directly with content may be necessary. -----Snowded TALK 07:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, it's fairly evident at the England and the Wales talk pages but I think I may have initially just checked the Scotland talk page, where it is much less evident, listed among the FAQs, the content hidden.
- It is linked on each Countries talk page. If you mean GoodDay then this edit illustrates the problem. His current interventions on all UK articles are displaying the same behaviours which resulted first in a topic ban and then a wikipedia ban. No one holds an old crime against someone, unless they start to repeat the same crime in which case the same punishment may be appropriate. I think I am going to start assembling examples as a reimposition of the topic ban and also one on commenting without dealing directly with content may be necessary. -----Snowded TALK 07:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- I had been aware of GoodDay's widespread fly-in-the-ointment talk page presence in the past and had clocked their subsequent indef. As far as I remember, this was only ever as an observer and I don't think I was ever involved in any direct discussions.
- You may have seen that I linked their dubious approach to me in November to promote the term on their behalf, in order to evade scrutiny. They tried to back out sharpish on realising I knew they were returning to the scene of past misdemeanours. When they touted it again here, in response to your comment on their return to old ways, I noted that earlier approach to me. In light of that, I'm not sure whether their responses to me at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_Kingdom#Constituent_country and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland#Constituent_country indicate they'd forgotten they'd already tried that one on me, or that they had remebered and it was a deliberate dig. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 June 2020
- News and notes: Progress at Wikipedia Library and Wikijournal of Medicine
- Community view: Community open letter on renaming
- Gallery: After the killing of George Floyd
- In the media: Part collaboration and part combat
- Discussion report: Community reacts to WMF rebranding proposals
- Featured content: Sports are returning, with a rainbow
- Arbitration report: Anti-harassment RfC and a checkuser revocation
- Traffic report: The pandemic, alleged murder, a massacre, and other deaths
- News from the WMF: We stand for racial justice
- Recent research: Wikipedia and COVID-19; automated Wikipedia-based fact-checking
- Humour: Cherchez une femme
- On the bright side: For what are you grateful this month?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Black Lives Matter
User warnings
Thank you for your support on my user talk page. For the future, I think it is preferable to put warnings to other users their user talk page (with an edit summary in case the the warning is deleted), so that if an administrator later reviews the editor's actions the warning is explicit. When appropriate, it also helps to use one of the user talk namespace templates (see WikiProject User warnings). We should assume that an admin will not simply count the warnings, but will use them to help review a the issues. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've been trying to avoid making it formal. but the time may now be there -----Snowded TALK 14:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Verbcatcher: I think it is becoming a clear case of multiple levels of disruption and an unwillingess to reform or listen so the next stage is probably a case to ANI for a topic pan on anything to do with Perrots, or an 'only proposals on the tale page'. It would be best if s/he learnt how to edit on articles around which there is less personal commiuttment. One of the behaviours is altering source material. I saw you spotted one example of that. If you would let me have the link I can add it into the draft ANI case. I hope that won't be necessary however.-----Snowded TALK 06:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Template:Z190
- @Verbcatcher: I think it is becoming a clear case of multiple levels of disruption and an unwillingess to reform or listen so the next stage is probably a case to ANI for a topic pan on anything to do with Perrots, or an 'only proposals on the tale page'. It would be best if s/he learnt how to edit on articles around which there is less personal commiuttment. One of the behaviours is altering source material. I saw you spotted one example of that. If you would let me have the link I can add it into the draft ANI case. I hope that won't be necessary however.-----Snowded TALK 06:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
You have now been reported for inserting factual inaccuracies and/or libel. The above content is yet further evidence of your malicious intent, you have circulated deliberate lies about another user which should be removed immediately: - malicious lies alleging altering source material should be removed immediately. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)