→Discretionary sanctions alert: warning: WP:BLUDGEON |
Topic ban from Lauren Southern |
||
Line 210: | Line 210: | ||
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} |
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} |
||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/03&oldid=866998024 --> |
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/03&oldid=866998024 --> |
||
==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=You are indefinitely banned from editing anything related to Lauren Southern, broadly interpreted. Please see [[WP:TBAN]] for what a topic ban is.}} |
|||
You have been sanctioned for ignoring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dig_deeper&diff=870435206&oldid=869688722 my warning above] about [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] concerning the appellation "far right" on [[Talk:Lauren Southern]]. |
|||
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:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#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/2018|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.--> [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 16:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
Revision as of 16:01, 25 November 2018
Thanks for your message. Be aware when looking for information on Château de Jully that there is also a Château de Jully-lès-Buxy in Saône-et-Loire (71) - this can cause confusion in Google etc. The French Ministry of Culture database is a useful first stop for researching French monuments with a simple to use searchable map. It is also authoritative. Specific detail on Château de Jully is here. A great place for finding historical documents is Gallica BNF which contains a massive archive, in French, of documents covering several centuries. I've just done a quick search there for "Château de Jully" and found 33 results, though whether any are properly relevant I don't know.
- Actually, I've just now gone to French Wikipedia and found that there is an equivalent article, titled Abbaye de Jully-les-Nonnains. Emeraude (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information, much appreciated! I'll add chateau de Jully to the list and create a redirects and some Wikilinks on French Wikipedia.Dig Deeper (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Dig deeper. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
French castles
Well done. Sorry to be so long replying - been away. I've added some details here and there and done some tidying up on Druyes and Chastellux. I'll take a close look at Maulnes later.
One thing to bear in mind with French castle articles is the French use of the word château, which basically means a large building, without the sort of distinction we have in English (e.g. castle, stately home, vineyard and water tower are all château in French). In English, we do use the word château, but only when referring to the stately home type of structure (e.g the châteaux of the Loire).
If you are going to do more such articles (and I hope you will), you might like to use the following for references to the French Ministry of Culture database:
<ref name=MinCult>Ministry of Culture: [http://www.culture.gouv.fr/public/mistral/merimee_fr?ACTION=RETROUVER&REQ=((XXXXXXXXXX):REF) XXXX] {{fr}}</ref>
Insert the Ministry's reference number title at XXXXXXXXXX and title at XXXX, e.g.
<ref name=MinCult>Ministry of Culture: [http://www.culture.gouv.fr/public/mistral/merimee_fr?ACTION=RETROUVER&REQ=(('''PA00113676'''):REF) '''Château (ruines)'''] {{fr}}</ref>
.
This appears in the references list as
Ministry of Culture: Château (ruines) (French)
Subsequent uses of the reference can then simply be
<ref name=MinCult/>
.
Emeraude (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Emeraude: No problem. Thanks for the feedback! I saw what you did. I'll try to do this in future articles. The word chateau is a little tricky. This was especially so in the Chateau de Druyes. As you said, the word is sometimes used to refer to the estate (i.e. everything within the walls) and other times it refers to the residence, etc etc. To add to some potential confusion, if the residence becomes fortified later, but is later destroyed, do you refer to the ruins as a castle ruins or chateau ruins, etc. I've struggled with this a little. My concern with switching from chateau to castle to estate to residence/lodging is that the English reader get all confused and will wonder how it all relates to the title of the article. Trying to place an explanation within the body of the article looks a little awkward, not sure how to best go about this.... ThanksDig Deeper (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, it is tricky. The best thing is to think about the context. When referring to a structure by name, use the French title (e.g. Château de Place, not Place Castle). If the structure is obviously still a castle then refer to it as a castle; if it's now a comfortable stately home, refer to is as a home, or mansion or château if big enough. The confusion arises when a structure has undergone modification - there are a number of former castles which have been converted into palaces etc, usually in Renaissance times, so use "castle" before conversion and something else after (eg Château de la Rochepot). But, the context will make it clear - the text will probably say "Château de Place is a French castle that has been converted into...." (see eg Château de l'Arthaudière). Some châteaux, of course, were never castles so the problem does not arise. As you say, the task is to avoid confusion for English readers and I think the key to this to reserve "château" to just what we would call a mansion or palace or the like.
- To make matters worse, there are, in the UK, some places called XXX Castle which were never castles (Wentworth Castle) but that's a whole different issue. Emeraude (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Emeraude: Good advice. Thanks for thoughts on this. I'll go over the 3 articles again with fresh eyes and make sure it all flows in a sensible way. I've also been thinking that an explanation of this by way of a footnote off of the first instance of chateau might be less distracting way of informing readers of this challenge.Dig Deeper (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
A page you started (Château de Saint-Fargeau) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Château de Saint-Fargeau, Dig deeper!
Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
I've added a talk page and linked to some tourist guides as sources.
To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Third Opinion, Denis Villeneuve
Thanks very much for your contribution to the discussion. As a *very* infrequent editor, it's good to hear the point of view and reasoning of someone more experienced. However, maybe I'm still guilty of looking at it as a black or white issue with no grey, but I still think that it's soapboxing to a degree, especially after re-reading the other editors earlier comments and looking at their contribution history. JimboM32 (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Question about admin-status
Hi, thanks for officiating the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network. Question: I received an alert that a request for admin was in progress, but there were no details at all. How can I tell if someone is trying to become admin of the PNSN page, and if so, how can I vote? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzbox (talk • contribs) 19:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jazzbox: I'm not sure I know what you mean. The WP:Requests for adminship does not reveal any of the names we recently dealt with. Also nobody owns an article, it is always in the commons. Can you direct me to a specific page? Also reminder to please sign your posts with 4 tiddles.Dig Deeper (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dig deeper! I was on holiday during the GA review so I missed the whole thing. I kind of hoped the article would reach the PR review before the GA review because I knew the article needed a bit of work before it was GA ready. Still, I had reached the stage where I had invested countless hours researching all corners of the internet and print to gather sources and place their nutrients into the virtual food platter of this article, and I was mentally exhausted. So I was ready to pass the torch to a copyediter.
The work you did on the article was really great, and it is a shame that you stopped mid way. Please continue your work on this article. Not only have I invested a lot of my time into it and would hate to see it linger in quality-limbo, but I believe this is an important article for the WP:VG, as both the childrens-edutainment and point-and-click-adventure video game genres are not given the attention they deserve, so I wanted to prove that these genres are valid, and that there are many popular and financially successful franchises within their ranks. Additionally, this is also an important article in terms of the narratives of: the trend toward girls' video games in the mid 90's, and the dissolution of the edutainment genre toward the end of the 90's.
So to reiterate, I would love to see you continue your great work on this article, to tighten it up and make it the best it can be. I've hauled in the massive stone. Now it just needs to be sculpted into a statue.--Coin945 (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Coin945:. Thanks for your feedback. I wasn't wanting to be too aggressive with the editing, some people can get a bit upset about that sort of thing. If I continue, there will likely be some serious reduction in content. If you're OK with that, I'm happy to proceed. Dig deeper talk 01:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery.
Carmen Sandiego article
Hi @Dig deeper:! I just wanted to direct your attention to another edutainment article I've been working on now and again for the past few years - a deeply nostalgic game for my called Carmen Sandiego's Great Chase Through Time. I would love for you to go to town on that article too after you're done with Madeline. It's been sitting in quality limbo for too long and I'd like it to reach GA. Just like the Madeline article, I believe this article has the makings of a really great article that is trapped inside a bit of a mess. The article went through a half-copyedit a while ago, so if you wish you have access to the full scope of info (before the cuts), you can find it in the Revision History. Tell me what you think of the Carme Sandiego article! As I said, I'd love for you to add your unique touch to take it to the next level along with Madeline. :)--Coin945 (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Coin945: Thanks for your kind words. I'll see what I can do. My life outside Wikipedia has been getting busier lately, so I can't promise anything. Dig deeper talk 15:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Tours Amphitheatre
Hi, Dig deeper. Nice job on Tours Amphitheatre. I haven't seen your other fr-en translations yet, but if this is any indication, you do good work. We could sure use people like you to give a hand at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Skip past all the boilerplate at the top, and just scroll to the bottom to see where the action is. Then you can come back and look at the top section later. I do fr-en as well, as well as some other pairs on occasion.
See if you agree with my translation of départ d'enduit at Church of Saint-Sulpice, Jumet#The excavation of 1967 (from the original at fr:Église_Saint-Sulpice_de_Jumet#Les fouilles de 1967). I had some trouble with that one, as well as some of the other technical terms. Haven't looked at the rest of that article, which definitely needs work, only that one section; so if it interests you, have at it.
You'd be very welcome at WP:PNT; hope you stop by. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Dig deeper. Yes, it's really a very good job. I worked on french page and it's a real pleasure to discover this translation. We are always working about the amphitheatre (yesterday, I was in the cellars built within the vomitoria) for publishing results as soon as possible (2018?). Then, wikipedia pages could be updated... Cordially, --Arcyon(talk) 07:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer Roll Call
This is a volunteer roll call sent to you on behalf of the current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Coordinator, Robert McClenon, and is being sent to you because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to the roll call list. Those who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after May 31, 2017 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after May 31, 2017, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.
Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this.
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Dig deeper. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject Wikify: Current Backlog Reduction Plan
Hey, I noticed you marked yourself as a member of WikiProject Wikify and you are currently listed as active. I was wondering if you would be able to assist with our current backlog reduction plan. While traditional drives are more structured month-long sprints by WikiProject Wikify members, there is currently lacking activity within the project and in order to significantly reduce the incredible backlog, members are encouraged to review all articles marked with the Underlinked Template Message - {{underlinked}} - a list of which can be found here - to analyze the worthiness of the template message on the given article. Articles that have nothing to link or are have had wikilinks sufficiently added should have the template removed to clear the backlog and make it easier for editors to find articles in genuine need of wikification. This can be done by any editor; however, all editors should consider joining if they haven't done so already. Thank you!
The Novac (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
3O - thank you
Thank you, and not just because it came out how I would like. :-/ Pinkbeast (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Pinkbeast: You're Welcome. Regarding Talk:Macedonia naming dispute, I put quite a bit of time and thought into my 3rd opinion, I was happy to assist. You say it did not work. If by this you mean your opponent did not fully embrace my 3rd opinion, then I suppose one could perceive this as a loss. I don't see it that way. A 3rd opinion was requested and I gave a detailed and unbiased opinion. It is recorded on the talk page for all to see (as well my behavioural critiques, which I hope will be given serious consideration by both editors). Having done this a number of times such a response as you see is not uncommon. As far as what's next, it seems to me your options are 1. Walk away for a while and let someone else with a POV similar to yours carry on the discussion. 2. Walk away and reenter the discussion after a lengthy cooling off period (maybe 1 month). 3. Walk away and, after a lengthy cooling off period, initiate a request for comment or dispute resolution (also non-binding but a good thing to do prior to any binding process). You may have noticed a pattern here. While annoying to see inaccuracies or bias in topics we feel strongly about, it is unlikely a random reader will change their mind about this topic simply because my opinion was not implemented into this article immediately. Nobody is going to scroll down the article and read the remarks and think "Macedonians are terrible" or "Greeks are terrible". Everyone knows Wikipedia is a work in progress and contentious articles will easily get cluttered with disjointed headlines. I hope this puts your mind at ease. Dig deeper talk 02:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- I mean it hasn't worked in the sense that SilentResident has completely ignored the outcome. I would have respected it (you can verify that I respect 3O outcomes even when they are not what I hoped for). Pinkbeast (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- The outcome is a non-binding progress. Dig deeper has explained that. If you want a binding decision instead of mere third party suggestions, then why did you go for it? By the way, Dig deeper, you have my thanks. The edit compromise is not what I have expected given the sources, but it is nevertheless a compromise. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 02:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- @SilentResident: Just because a 3rd opinion is "non-binding" does not mean that it does not hold any weight. Requesting a 3rd opinion is usually a good first step when trying to overcome a stalemate. Also were this taken to the next level, administrators would take the 3rd opinion comments into consideration.
- The outcome is a non-binding progress. Dig deeper has explained that. If you want a binding decision instead of mere third party suggestions, then why did you go for it? By the way, Dig deeper, you have my thanks. The edit compromise is not what I have expected given the sources, but it is nevertheless a compromise. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 02:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
From WP:3O
The less formal nature of the third opinion process is a major advantage over other methods of resolving disputes.
Dig deeper talk 01:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nehushtan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lehi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Cathy Newman
Greetings. Thanks for your efforts to untangle the arguments about the interview controversy. However, I'm surprised that you suggested Douglas Murray's article in The Spectator as a reliable source for evaluating the controversy. From what I can see, The Spectator mostly publishes commentary, which makes Murray's piece more or less like an editorial in terms of reliability, at least as far as BLPs are concerned. There's further discussion about this at Talk:Cathy Newman § Spectator Life. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Sangdeboeuf: Thanks for your feedback. There were similar questions on the article's talk page. Rather than have 2 separate conversations on the same issue, I think it would be preferable to keep it all on the talk page. Please see my response there.Dig deeper talk 17:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
You won't guess my password you may as well quit trying
There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password. Dig deeper talk 20:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
More attempts to access my account
Someone out there really wants to be me. My password is rock solid, so no point trying to guess. Also I consistently edit from 1 geographic area, so even if you do gain access, it won't be for long. Dig deeper talk 16:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Dig deeper talk 16:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's not just you. I wonder if it's every active editor? The WMF might know. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Strange. Thanks for letting me know.Dig deeper talk 00:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font>
tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.
You are encouraged to change
<span style="background:#F0F0FF; padding:3px 9px 4px">'''[[User:Dig deeper|<font color="Green">Dig</font> <sub><big><font color="Brown">deeper</font></big></sub>]]''' </span> <sup>[[User talk:Dig deeper|'''talk''']]</sup>
: Dig deeper talk
to
<span style="background:#F0F0FF; padding:3px 9px 4px">'''[[User:Dig deeper|<span style="color:Green">Dig</span> <sub><big style="color:Brown">deeper</big></sub>]]''' </span> <sup>[[User talk:Dig deeper|'''talk''']]</sup>
: Dig deeper talk
—Anomalocaris (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Most users are updating their signatures as requested. We hope you will also. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Steven R. Bangerter for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steven R. Bangerter 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/Steven R. Bangerter until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. North America1000 13:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | talk 19:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC).
- I've given you this alert because of your edits at Lauren Southern. Bishonen | talk 19:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC).
- I don't understand this. It says that "sanctions may be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion". Can you tell me how I severely or persistently violated Wikipedia policy? I changed "far-right" to "right" because none of the sources listed actually support the statement. I invited the other party to the talk pages. I followed the BLP guidelines listed at the top of the page and I brought this to the attention of the BLP noticeboard. I've been editing Wikipedia for a long time. I feel I followed Wikipedia guidelines exactly as outlined.Dig deeper talk 20:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you did severely or persistently violate Wikipedia policy, or violate it at all. Do you see the sentence in italics at the top of the pale blue template? The message "does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." I posted the alert to make you aware that if you disrupt discussion, you can be sanctioned, including be topic banned from the article in question. The reason I gave you the alert is that you seem very invested in making this particular change to the article, and you insist a lot, without so far gaining any traction. I'm not going to start a third discussion of the "far-right" vs "right", or "conservative", issue at Lauren Southern; but I'll say I'm surprised to see you say "none of the sources listed actually support far-right". AFAICS, they do, you know. Anyway, the main point I want to make here is that the blue template is only an alert that the article is under discretionary sanctions. It's not a warning. If I should think you're approaching disruption on the talkpage (via WP:BLUDGEON) or on the article via edit warring, then I would warn you first, before I thought of sanctioning you. OK? Bishonen | talk 21:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC).
- I'm not sure I follow. Does everyone who brings a BLP concern to the noticeboard get this warning? Have I written something I should not have? This is my first edit on this page, I wouldn't call it invested. The Tours Amphitheatre was an investment. I came up with several reasons why I felt it should be changed, based on what I have seen in the past on other BLP articles. I also presented a reason why it should not be changed. I'm not dug in. If I misinterpreted BLP and the definition of primary sources, that's ok. I would like to get more feedback and know where my points are invalid so I don't make similar errors in the future.@Bishonen:Dig deeper talk 21:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Obviously you will call my blue panel a "warning" however much I explain that 'it's not a warning but only an alert', as I do above. But now I'm actually warning you, because you are approaching WP:BLUDGEON on Talk:Lauren Southern. When you got no purchase at WP:BLPN for your proposal that "far right" was based on primary sources (?), was libellous (?), was a BLP violation, violated NPOV, etc etc,[1] you shifted instead to the very similar position that all right, so there's consensus at BLPN for calling her "far right" (there certainly is), but it shouldn't be in the lead, nor stated in Wikipedia's voice but rather as "Several sources have considered Southern views and opinions to be "far right",[2] or as something about what some journalists "feel".[3] Right back where we started, in other words. This post marks the moment I would diagnose as your beginning of WP:BLUDGEON, or trying to exhaust and bore everybody to the point where they stop replying. You have posted ten times in the section "The 'far right' label"; nobody else comes even close, nor does anybody else come close to your repetitiousness. Please stop gnawing that dry bone, or I will topic ban you from Lauren Southern. Please follow my link to see what a topic ban is. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC).
- I'm not sure I follow. Does everyone who brings a BLP concern to the noticeboard get this warning? Have I written something I should not have? This is my first edit on this page, I wouldn't call it invested. The Tours Amphitheatre was an investment. I came up with several reasons why I felt it should be changed, based on what I have seen in the past on other BLP articles. I also presented a reason why it should not be changed. I'm not dug in. If I misinterpreted BLP and the definition of primary sources, that's ok. I would like to get more feedback and know where my points are invalid so I don't make similar errors in the future.@Bishonen:Dig deeper talk 21:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you did severely or persistently violate Wikipedia policy, or violate it at all. Do you see the sentence in italics at the top of the pale blue template? The message "does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." I posted the alert to make you aware that if you disrupt discussion, you can be sanctioned, including be topic banned from the article in question. The reason I gave you the alert is that you seem very invested in making this particular change to the article, and you insist a lot, without so far gaining any traction. I'm not going to start a third discussion of the "far-right" vs "right", or "conservative", issue at Lauren Southern; but I'll say I'm surprised to see you say "none of the sources listed actually support far-right". AFAICS, they do, you know. Anyway, the main point I want to make here is that the blue template is only an alert that the article is under discretionary sanctions. It's not a warning. If I should think you're approaching disruption on the talkpage (via WP:BLUDGEON) or on the article via edit warring, then I would warn you first, before I thought of sanctioning you. OK? Bishonen | talk 21:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC).
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Dig deeper. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Dig deeper. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are indefinitely banned from editing anything related to Lauren Southern, broadly interpreted. Please see WP:TBAN for what a topic ban is.
You have been sanctioned for ignoring my warning above about bludgeoning concerning the appellation "far right" on Talk:Lauren Southern.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#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. Bishonen | talk 16:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)