Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
|||
Line 484: | Line 484: | ||
:::The word "POLEMIC" appears 12 times in the DRV discussion. --[[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 02:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC) |
:::The word "POLEMIC" appears 12 times in the DRV discussion. --[[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 02:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::Again, that review was specifically regarding if {{ping|GoldenRing}}'s deletion was allowed per DS. Many of the editors specifically said MfD is the correct place to have the discussion. Some did say it was POLEMIC and others said no. The review was handed off to ACD where it was decided the page should not have been deleted as a DS action. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 02:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC) |
::::Again, that review was specifically regarding if {{ping|GoldenRing}}'s deletion was allowed per DS. Many of the editors specifically said MfD is the correct place to have the discussion. Some did say it was POLEMIC and others said no. The review was handed off to ACD where it was decided the page should not have been deleted as a DS action. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 02:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
{{Not done}} {{re|Springee}} I am respectfully declining you request. Your name does not appear on my ''Whitewashing'' list, and any link between it and our joint ''Signpost'' submission is tenuous at best. Several editors at DRV did note that they did not consider the page to be a violation of [[WP:POLEMIC]]. You are welcome to open a community discussion as you see fit, however you should be aware of the potentially negative optics of opening a new discussion so soon after a related one has closed. |
|||
If we're going to play [[Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon]], I would posit that the disparaging statements in the WP:Firearms archives, which are also indirectly linked from the op-ed, are of greater concern than my simple list of quotes. –[[User:Dlthewave|dlthewave]] [[User_talk:Dlthewave|☎]] 16:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:06, 12 April 2019
To submit a Personal Attack or Baseless Accusation, please click here.
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
DS alert
I am aware of the following discretionary sanctions: |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding discussions about the integration of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the Electronic cigarette topic area, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Falun Gong, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Liancourt Rocks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Landmark Worldwide, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Muhammad, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Longevity, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Prem Rawat, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the Shakespeare authorship question, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the Senkaku Islands dispute, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Scientology, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the Transcendental Meditation movement, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding The Troubles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Waldorf education, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. |
Confederate monuments
I was hoping you'd comment on a matter at the Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials talk page.--MagicatthemovieS
Can we put together a village pump RfC together?
Dlthewave, I reverted two of your reversions of mine and thought I should try to discuss the topic with you. I think we have a disagreement regarding what constitutes WEIGHT when dealing with the mention of a crime in a gun article. I think your feeling is if the crime is significant and reports about the crime mention the gun then that establishes weight for inclusion in the gun article. My feeling is we need to show a RS about the gun that then links to the crimes. We have that with the AR-15 clones. There are plenty of articles that are about AR-15s that also talk about their use in crime and the debates associated with civilian ownership etc. Articles about guns like the Thompson sub-machine gun talk about their use in Chicago gang land violence. It's easy to find articles about the BAR that mention Bonnie and Clyde. However, I don't think we have any articles about the Sig Mosquito that suggest it's associated with any particular crime. What I would suggest is we work together to create a RfC so we could get wider input on this. It could actually help improve the Project:Firearms crime guidelines as it would then point to a RfC on the question. It would also give me a change to get input on the broader WEIGHT reciprocity question I've had for a while. Is this something you are interested in collaborating on? Thanks! Springee (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- You're certainly welcome to propose your "reciprocity of weight" idea to the community, and a Village Pump RfC would be a good way to do it. Hopefully you'll get more outside input than our similar NPOVN discussion did last year. If I can offer a piece of advice, I would suggest that you either write a proposal that applies neutrally to all Wikipedia content or be prepared to explain why criminal use of firearms should have separate, more stringent sourcing criteria. –dlthewave ☎ 17:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- If you don't mind, I'll run the proposal by you before posting. I don't believe that this would be a more stringent standard for firearms articles rather something that would generally hold true for all articles. The catch is when people ask for examples. Perhaps private airplane crashes would be a less political example? Thanks for the link to the previous discussion. I had forgotten about that one. Springee (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Springee: You've raised your WEIGHT idea with a few different editors lately and even mentioned your attempts to find common ground with me. At this point, I think it would be most helpful if we could have a concrete idea of what exactly it is that you're proposing. Would you be interested in writing something in your userspace, either as an essay detailing your viewpoint or as a specific guideline proposal, so that folks can provide feedback? This is something that would ultimately need to be decided at a community venue such as Village Pump, and some of it comes down to differences in opinion that might preclude a joint proposal, but I would be glad to look it over and provide my opinion or address any obvious flaws before you present it to the community. –dlthewave ☎ 20:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Dlthewave. I'll try to get something together in the next week or so. I do get that you might not agree with the idea but I would appreciate the help in making sure the concept/question is clear. I think the idea of a VP question/comment thing makes more sense vs an essay. At least at this point. Springee (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Springee: How would you feel about writing something for the Signpost about your idea? It could be a way to provide an alternative view alongside my submission and perhaps generate some feedback from the community. –dlthewave ☎ 22:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dlthewave, I think that's an interesting idea. I'm a bit reluctant to agree just due to real world time commitments. I don't want to say "yes" only then to take so long as to come across as stonewalling. That said, I think, if you can accept a slow co-author, it might work but I don't see it as a counter point to the article you have now. I see it as we take perhaps just one or three examples and look at them in detail. In the three example case I would propose looking at one case where inclusion was heavily favored, one where inclusion is heavily disfavored and one where the ratio is balanced and I wouldn't think these have to be exclusively firearms cases. However, that would also totally change the nature of the article as it would be about how different readings of WEIGHT can result in what might appear to be inconsistent conclusions instead of an article about a project guideline being used as policy. As I said, I don't want to unreasonably drag things out but I'm also open to the idea. Springee (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Springee: How would you feel about writing something for the Signpost about your idea? It could be a way to provide an alternative view alongside my submission and perhaps generate some feedback from the community. –dlthewave ☎ 22:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Dlthewave. I'll try to get something together in the next week or so. I do get that you might not agree with the idea but I would appreciate the help in making sure the concept/question is clear. I think the idea of a VP question/comment thing makes more sense vs an essay. At least at this point. Springee (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Springee: You've raised your WEIGHT idea with a few different editors lately and even mentioned your attempts to find common ground with me. At this point, I think it would be most helpful if we could have a concrete idea of what exactly it is that you're proposing. Would you be interested in writing something in your userspace, either as an essay detailing your viewpoint or as a specific guideline proposal, so that folks can provide feedback? This is something that would ultimately need to be decided at a community venue such as Village Pump, and some of it comes down to differences in opinion that might preclude a joint proposal, but I would be glad to look it over and provide my opinion or address any obvious flaws before you present it to the community. –dlthewave ☎ 20:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- If you don't mind, I'll run the proposal by you before posting. I don't believe that this would be a more stringent standard for firearms articles rather something that would generally hold true for all articles. The catch is when people ask for examples. Perhaps private airplane crashes would be a less political example? Thanks for the link to the previous discussion. I had forgotten about that one. Springee (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Request for help with STRING TRANSPORT page
Extended content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Look I'm really sorry if I've posted this in the wrong place as it is not really a personal criticism or a baseless accusation but a request for your help with the changes I attempted to make to an article (which resulted in not only my changes being removed but many other changes which have occurred since today). Any advice would be appreciated. I didn't want to pollute your talk page with the content below but as you seem to really be concerned with the content of the String Transport system page, it helps me rest easier with the knowledge that at least someone else who was generally interested in the subject had read my concerns (and judged them accordingly). Is there anything in it that would be acceptable? Thanks on the beforehand and wishing you the best: String Transport (also known as SkyWay, Yunitskiy String Transport and Rail Sky Way) refers to a theoretical engineering concept and proposals relating to a transportation system. Although these ideas may well relate to complex freight and passenger services, it has not received more than rudimentary practical application outside of the Russian Federation or Belorussia. When its business model has been proposed it has been widely questioned and never implemented. The theory involves an ecofriendly system of public transport using prestressed rails with prestressed cables ("strings") and the concrete inside them. It is engineered for both freight and passenger services and has two main types of track structure and rolling stock. Although there has been testing of this technology, the rudimentary construction in Moscow was considered unsafe and eventually taken apart and The Eco Techno Park facility in Maryina Gorka, Belarus,[1][2] has been blemished by technical faults and accidents. The websites of Skyway Capital refer to different proposals made to possible investors in places like the United Arab Emirates[3][4] but there is little chance that such projects will actually receive commercial realization. Funding for this project has been implicated in a series of scandals related to financial irregularities and pyramid schemes in places where it has been presented as a complex business model including Lithuania and Belgium. Average people whose money would never be required for investment in international projects of this type are encouraged to invest in complex financial schemes[5] and types of crowdfunding.[6] Public warnings have been issued by the Bank of Lithuania and FSMA on the grounds that promoters attracting investments to SkyWay are not in compliance with their securities regulations.[7][8] Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 18:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmarinas86
|
- @Dlthewave: The user:Владимир Малафей is whitewashing the SkyWay Group site; I need your help with this as every time I undo his revisions he changes them back. For example, he has included information about the EcoTechnoPark as an unverified and ungrammatical addition to the sentence 'there is unfortunately no verifiable scientific research'. He has also changed the phrase 'suspicious marketing techniques' to 'new marketing techniques'. The warnings from the banks are unanimous in their declarations of 'suspiciou' (they certainly don't say they're 'new'; they're not). Every change he makes is removing verifiable, painstakingly checked references to real verifiable sources. Someone also keep removing the reference to Yunitskiy in the opening sentences. This misleading. Almost all of the verifiable references include Yunitskiy; if they don't include him no one else is mentioned. These are all bad faith changes but there's no longer anything I can do about it. Thanks for your positive comments by the way; I appreciate it. Hoping your experience at dealing with bad faith editors will help us solve with this problem. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Dlthewave (talk · contribs) That's great to reduce all that content from your talk page without making it inaccessible. I've learned a lot from this experience. And the last two days has seen concerted attempts to whitewash the page without consensus, to fill it with propaganda and to make small bad faith changes that make it sound less credible. Then they tried speedy deletion. Now someone's trying to delete the 'SkyWay Group' with more formal deletion procedures. This seems like a dangerous move and I argumented against deletion on the deletion request page. What do you think? Moreover I've got a keen eye for misinformation and I'm an English native-speaker with editing experience, so do you think that my skills could be used in any other way to help ensure Wikipedia content is not serving the interests of the subjects being discussed? I'd be happy to volunteer in any capacity. I'm not sure how I'd do this or if they'd want me. I suppose just responding how I have been shows a willingness to learn and help others. I certainly believe that Wikipedia is a worthwhile tool with goals that need to be carefully kept in check by informed users. Thanks again for your help –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Dlthewave - if I had known I would get so closely involved with a problematic, controversial, possibility criminal company who employ a dedicated staff of misinformation peddlers, I probably wouldn't have been stupid enough to include my personal name on my contributions. Unfortunately I did and now the sock-puppets have started sending me threatening mails, saying I'm corrupt, working for the competition and am in general a terrible editor and in general corrupt and stupid. When it got so personal I'm stopping doing this because I can't take the absuse and criticism. Now they're on to my qualifications (PhD)... I was a donator to Wikipedia and I came to SkyWay only became my cause because it was a clear example of Wikipedia being used for pseudo-science for financial gain. I believed that it was a worthwhile way to spend my time help ensure a page was free of pseudo-science for particular interests. I spent considerable time trying to improve the article but they've started harassing me and I've decided that since not a single user has thanked me for the many hours I spent translating texts and posting them or my suggestions, they can't think I'm doing a good job either. And then there's the chorus of sock-puppets who personally insult me and send me threatening mails. SkyWay employs a dedicated set of marketers with a history of Pyramid Marketing schemes. Keep an eye on this page; the sock puppets have started again but I'm not going to be participating in the the next deletion request they seem to be currently preparing. Thanks also for all your good advice and support earlier on. Wishing you the best from Belgium, Zachar. (zachar@nachtschimmen.eu)
A barnstar for you!
This has got to be seen to be believed : https://www.swigaptraining.com/skyway-anatoly-yunitskiy-was-awarded-the-international-peace-prize-from-slovakia-via-skyway/ Just out of curiousity, I checked. No one apart from pages and pages of SkyWay propaganda mention the recent ceremony. In fact, as far as I can see no one else has received such a prize. So funny it's scary.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Please review WP:APPNOTE
I've removed your notice here [[1]]. I believe I understand why you feel this might have been CANVASING but I think you will find it was proper notification per the APPNOTE section. The material in question was discussed by four of us (you and I included) just a few months back. Waiting a period of time then starting a new conversation without considering the views previously raised might be FORUMSHOP issue. I don't know for certain but I'm sure it's not favorably viewed. Conversely, notifying all editors involved in a previous discussion of the same topic is appropriate notification; WP:APPNOTE "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". It would only be inappropriate if I notified previously uninvolved editors or was selective in my notifications. Springee (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- What previous discussions are you referring to? I am not aware of any that reached consensus, and my paragraph format was an attempt to address the "indiscriminate list" concerns. –dlthewave ☎ 22:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Springee, please strike the WP:FORUMSHOP accusation. I did not start any new discussions, in fact all of the recent discussions on the topic were started by you. –dlthewave ☎ 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I said might be forumshop but I wasn't sure. You are correct, you didn't initiate any of the discussions. However, we had a discussion here [[2]] to which you were a party. That discussion resulted in the removal of the section. You certainly can object to the removal but instead you simply restored it several months later with no discussion. I understand this was an honest oversight but the effect is similar. A consensus is reached then someone who at least should have been aware of the consensus as a party in the discussion acts against it with out additional discussion. I know we don't agree on much of this material but I also know you are a good faith editor. I'm only bringing this up because I think your warning on my page was incorrect per APPNOTE. Springee (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Firearms content
Dlthewave, you are removing a lot of basic content from a number of firearms articles and I was hoping to make a basic request. Some of the information looks like good removals but other material looks like material that shouldn't be controversial and likely could be sourced with minimal work. Take this removal for example [[3]]. It does read to much like promotional material. However, there are also interesting bits of content such as the operating mechanism. The fact that the frame of the firearm is actually a sub assembly that fits inside of a larger grip (thus allowing the gun to be changed from compact to full size without a new serial number). Even if the text reads in a promotional style (it should not) the content is not controversial and even the mfr's product page should be a sufficient source (for example we can cite Ford's HP claims for cars). I hope you would agree that the technical content, if properly sourced, improves the utility of the article. Rather than wholesale removal would you please tag so others change change things later? I know we don't often agree but I hope this is something we can agree on. Springee (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)Looks like stripping down a lot of WP:UNDUE WP:FANCRUFT to me. Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- What is the boundary between fancruft and operational facts that readers might care about? I think this is one of the reasons why there are so many firearms disputes. Some editors want to see things like "has hammer decocker" etc. Other editors are interested in the crime material. That said, the operating specs etc aren't controversial and articles about the guns are likely to include such information just as articles about cars are likely to say what type of suspension, how many speed transmission etc. Springee (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Something doesn't have to be controversial to be a dull, pointless waste of bits useful only for hardcore fans. Having llooked at DLthewave's excellent edit linked from this page I'd say they were removing precisely that - a dull, pointless waste of bits useful only for hardcore fans of a pistol. And WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here. As does WP:FANCRUFT rather directly. Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- I understand the Project Firearms guidelines have been problematic with respect to criminal use but in reading over the style guide it seems very clear that things such as how the gun operates, features etc are generally of interest.[[4]] Consider the content in the FN P90 and FN Five-seven GA tagged articles. I think the difference isn't the content but simple that it needed to be sourced better. Springee (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- The firearms WikiProject is one that has been taken over by purveyors of fancruft. I don't see, "but the project page liked it" as a compelling argument in favour of inclusion of this level of pointless and irrelevant detail about how the gun functions. Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- I understand the Project Firearms guidelines have been problematic with respect to criminal use but in reading over the style guide it seems very clear that things such as how the gun operates, features etc are generally of interest.[[4]] Consider the content in the FN P90 and FN Five-seven GA tagged articles. I think the difference isn't the content but simple that it needed to be sourced better. Springee (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Something doesn't have to be controversial to be a dull, pointless waste of bits useful only for hardcore fans. Having llooked at DLthewave's excellent edit linked from this page I'd say they were removing precisely that - a dull, pointless waste of bits useful only for hardcore fans of a pistol. And WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here. As does WP:FANCRUFT rather directly. Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- What is the boundary between fancruft and operational facts that readers might care about? I think this is one of the reasons why there are so many firearms disputes. Some editors want to see things like "has hammer decocker" etc. Other editors are interested in the crime material. That said, the operating specs etc aren't controversial and articles about the guns are likely to include such information just as articles about cars are likely to say what type of suspension, how many speed transmission etc. Springee (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that the Firearms style guide represents the opinion of a small group of editors and does not necessarily reflect the views of the wider editing community or even our core content policies. The project seems to prescribe certain different levels of inherent WP:WEIGHT or inclusion criteria to certain aspects such as caliber, features, criminal use, variants, official users, etc, but this is not how weight is determined. We don't include something just because it is "generally of interest". If these items are not covered, or if they are discussed in different proportions by reliable secondary sources, our articles should reflect that level of coverage.
- The level of detail in FN P90 is debatable, but at least it has inline sources throughout. The unsourced content which I removed from P320 is retained in the edit history and editors are welcome to reinstate it if reliable secondary sources are provided and the community agrees that the level of detail is appropriate. –dlthewave ☎ 20:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like to share my experience from the WWII area, where I've removed much unsourced / POV content and trivia. This has in the past caused some consternation, see for example: Talk:Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS#WP:3O & especially the comment starting with "I have reverted the edit in violation of BURDEN and am preserving the material by giving this link..."
- What I learned from that is to save the diff to the Talk page; I add to my edit summary "Will preserve on Talk". That way, interested editors can retrieve the removed material from the diff provided and see if there are sources available. It's always a good idea to remember that WP:V applies across the entire encyclopedia. If there are no secondary sources that are independent of the subject, then the content may be unverifiable, undue, promotional, and / or excessive intricate detail that does not belong. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman: Thanks for that suggestion, it seems like a good way to avoid misunderstandings. –dlthewave ☎ 19:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement warning
As a result of the recent arbitration enforcement request to which you were a party, I am warning you not to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. Should such problems reoccur, you may be made subject to blocks, topic bans or other discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 07:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm withdrawing this warning per my comment at AE. Sandstein 18:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
ARCA
Please note that I have opened a request for clarification from the arbitration committee that involves you. I would be grateful if you would give your views at WP:ARCA#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Gun_control. GoldenRing (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Blanking page of an article during AfD
Blanking the page of an article you started an AfD on just yesterday [5] is a very strange thing to do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- The G10 CSD tag automatically blanks the page. Another editor had nominated the page for speedy deletion, and the tag was twice removed out-of-process twice. The first time it was removed without any explanation or discussion (when contesting a speedy deletion, a reason must be given on the Talk page) and the second removal was by you, the page creator, which is disallowed per WP:CSD. I simply reverted those improper removals.
- When a page is blanked, editors may still view the content in question through the page's history. –dlthewave ☎ 14:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 February 2019
- From the editors: Help wanted (still)
- News and notes: Front-page issues for the community
- Discussion report: Talking about talk pages
- Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!
- Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Binge-watching
- Technology report: Tool labs casters-up
- Gallery: Signed with pride
- From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love
- Humour: Pesky Pronouns
Joppien
Thanks for letting me know, can you make your edit complete and correct please? Your deletion is incomplete Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 March 2019
- From the editors: Getting serious about humor
- News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
- In the media: Women's history month
- Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
- Featured content: Out of this world
- Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
- Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
- Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
- News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
- Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
- From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
- Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
- In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
- Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
- Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings
Signpost barnstar
The Signpost Barnstar | ||
For an outstanding contribution to the Wikipedia community's ability to critique itself in a contentious topic area. 2600:1700:9DD0:3130:CCE8:95FE:ABE2:6C1C (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC) |
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dlthewave closed
I have now closed your AE appeal. The warning is to be retracted (and it has been already retracted by Sandstein), and the page is to be undeleted, which I am going to do now. Happy editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Dlthewave, I'm quoted more than once in the above user page. Currently if a reader follows from our OpEd article to your primary article you list it as a See Also. Given that you are calling it a "whitewashing list" I believe it is a violation of WP:POLEMIC.
- Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.
Rather than start a deletion review I would ask that you unlink it here [[6]] and remove any examples where I'm quoted. You argued that the article should be undeleted because it was a supporting page for your OpEd submission. Since it is no longer part of the OpEd I think it would violate the imminently used part of POLEMIC. I hope that removing my quotes and delinking is a reasonable compromise. Alternatively, I would hope that you would consider removing it all together as other editors may feel the same as I do. If you request I can remove instances where I'm quoted so you don't have to try to identify the examples. Springee (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Springee: The page was just went through a deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 24. Starting a deletion review on a deletion review seems counterproductive. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman:, actually if you recall it only was a review of GoldenRing's deletion as a DS action. The justification for reversing the deletion was only that it was done out of the proper process. It did not ask or attempt to answer if the page itself should remain and a number of the editors who said restore noted that. Springee (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- The word "POLEMIC" appears 12 times in the DRV discussion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Again, that review was specifically regarding if @GoldenRing:'s deletion was allowed per DS. Many of the editors specifically said MfD is the correct place to have the discussion. Some did say it was POLEMIC and others said no. The review was handed off to ACD where it was decided the page should not have been deleted as a DS action. Springee (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- The word "POLEMIC" appears 12 times in the DRV discussion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman:, actually if you recall it only was a review of GoldenRing's deletion as a DS action. The justification for reversing the deletion was only that it was done out of the proper process. It did not ask or attempt to answer if the page itself should remain and a number of the editors who said restore noted that. Springee (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done @Springee: I am respectfully declining you request. Your name does not appear on my Whitewashing list, and any link between it and our joint Signpost submission is tenuous at best. Several editors at DRV did note that they did not consider the page to be a violation of WP:POLEMIC. You are welcome to open a community discussion as you see fit, however you should be aware of the potentially negative optics of opening a new discussion so soon after a related one has closed. If we're going to play Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, I would posit that the disparaging statements in the WP:Firearms archives, which are also indirectly linked from the op-ed, are of greater concern than my simple list of quotes. –dlthewave ☎ 16:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)