Hello, Раціональне анархіст, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
OK. I would note, however, that while meat-puppetry is frowned upon per se (and the bulk of pro-Cuban regime editors are certainly de facto meat-puppets to a large extent as well), the material in question should be judged on its own merits. (If it's garbage, by all means kick it.) I was triggered to revert by lack of a comment explanation.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meatpuppetry was just one of the issues, although that's what started the ANI thread. Also flagged were concerns about WP:COI, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SPAM and in some cases (though not in this article) WP:MOS. Commented a couple times was that most country articles already had a "Human rights" section, and this section addition resulted in undue weight to this one particular human rights issue. The material has value, but likely would be a better fit in the "Human rights in (country name)" articles, such as Human rights in Cuba, although the mentions would need to be integrated into those articles and not blindly copy/pasted as was done in several country articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I blanked the page on the O'Hare case, I always prepare just in case the report is verified, I had no clue they (Google) did that, thanks again for telling me, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in my edit summary, the reason to move the TOC is accessibility reasons for users of screen readers (aka blind). This is also done per WP:TOC and WP:LEAD.
If the TOC is after the first section heading, the TOC becomes invisible to those using screen readers. Also, if there is any text between the TOC and the first section heading, the text become invisible. I understand the frustration with the white space, it is common issue. But, it is more important that everybody can read the text. Bgwhite (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Talk:Flutist, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Talk:Flautist was copy/pasted rather than moved. move reverted, so now this duplicates Talk:Flautist
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion -- this notice was automatic. It seemed most appropriate to me to delete the talk page given the large amount of duplicated text which looks odd in the history (none of it should be preserved), but there's not much harm in just restoring the redirect. Nobody's proposing to delete any of the articles on fl[a]utists. See my response to your merge/rename combo at Talk:Flautist. --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[1]AFD is not a vote: do not carry votes without providing a rationale based on our policies/guidelines, otherwise they will be ignored in the close
[2]The same with similar comments. Read WP:Not notable. You have to explain WHY the subject fails (or meet) our notability requirements.
[3], [4] Guidelines' criteria are not mutually exclusive. Failing one criterium does not mean failing all the criteria, and very rarely people meet ALL the criteria of a guideline.
[5] Please read Wikipedia:Speedy keep. A close for "speedy keep" requires no votes from deletion from other participants.
[6][7] Do not redirect articles nominated at AfD. It is considered disruptive. Even if te consensus at AfD is to redirect, wait the close.
[8] Remember to notify the article's creator in their talk page when you nominate an article for deletion.
I've been bitten on this sort of thing myself -- for instance, I wrote the article on Baen author Ryk E. Spoor, and here's its AfD. If you can't show better notability sources for Walker than "a mention on the Baen.com page for his books" and "a mention on the site that publishes his column", I don't think the article on him will survive -- and from there, I don't think we could use it to support the Throne of Bones article.
It's really a deplorable state of affairs, isn't it? Wikipedia is being buried under an avalanche of plasticine pornstars who survive their AfDs because the direct-to-payweb smut industry has figured out how to game Wikipedia's rules by ensuring that everyone on and off the mattress is festooned with multiple "notable" <snort> awards. Meanwhile, writers of actual merit are ganked in broad daylight.
I don't need to save a copy. I'm an admin: I can access deleted content. If you can find other material to support that Ryk - or Lars - is notable, then go ahead, I'll restore. I'm always willing to retract deletion requests or restore pages in the face of proper sources. But I didn't find anything for Ryk (whose work I like), I didn't find anything for Lars (whose work I haven't read), and I didn't find anything for AToB. DS (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lars Walker until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in th discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Huon (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NO retaliatory actions! Do not seek revenge against the deletion of Walker starting a bunch of AfD against random pornographic topics. This behaviour is considered disruptive and the only result you'll achieve will be to be blocked or banned. Read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The previous deletion nominator of Brittney Skye engaged in this sort of behaviour and less than two weeks ago he was indefinitely banned from WP. Cavarrone07:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your warning and know it looks like sour-grapes, but the Lars Walker AfD episode (it has not been deleted as of yet, though I expect it to shortly given the prevailing sentiment) has simply made me more interested in AfDs (you'll note a lot of activity by me today, with only a portion of it related to pornography articles).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection, the typical author article doesn't have a reception section; only major works with their own articles usually do. Pax14:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colebatch article - body of text is not resolved - show why or how the substantial portion of body of text is actually referenced - it isnt. satusuro00:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Change it back, if you desire. The tag was just old, and it looked like there were enough references. (Without reading into it too deeply, might I guess that simply moving the references to relevant paragraphs within the body would be a satisfactory resolution?) Pax00:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue is a little more complex. It is a WP:BLP - such tags should not be touched, has nothing to do with age - BLP and enough references is not where the whole BLP issue arose from. For a start a whole range of claims are made about Colebatch and other living people in the article that have no WP:CITE to actually back up the claims. Resolution would be where such things as old friend harry butler and others could actually be tied to a ref. No ref, it is is an issue. If in fact you do not have the citations to clarify most claims in the article - better leave such items alone, imho.satusuro00:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Porn AFDs
morning, just a word to the wise. You really need to include reference to checking sources and PORNBIO when you list stuff. It's going to struggle otherwise as the proporn crowd will attack you for being lazy or not doing due diligence as that's easier then defending the subject. SpartazHumbug!10:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um and nominating people who pass PORNBIO is not a good way to tackle the problem of having too many non-notable porn articles round here. SpartazHumbug!11:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your mass reporting porn articles to AfD, such behavior is often taken for action against Wikipedia. Recently: 20 December 2014 - User:Redban has been indefinite blocked for the same behavior than you. Subtropical-man talk (en-2)20:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Redban was a SPA blocked initially for being a disruptive PITA, with said block extended indefinitely due to sockpupperty. Meanwhile, my account had no porn-topic edits until Dec. 24. Therefore the claim of "the same behavior" is countervailed by the facts. Pax20:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong, but your baseless nomination for deletion of Nappi's article smells of retalation towards some votes and comments you probably didn't like it, first of all this one you tried to delete it. If so, desist from such behaviours, I have not to explain why. Also, please don't remove the AfD template until the AfD is properly closed [9]. The AfD close needs to be recorded in the edit summary. Cavarrone07:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to expand a bit on what was written above... we have thousands of non-English topics within Wikipedia supported by many thousands of non-English sources. The English language Wikipedia is simply presented in English, it is NOT restricted to only English-language topics nor to only English-language sources. Please read WP:NONENG. English is preferred, yes... but it not a policy nor a guideline, and when English-language sources are not available, non-English are perfectly acceptable. Please be careful lest you slide down that slippery slope and all your edits become suspect. Regards, Schmidt, Michael Q.08:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Раціональне анархіст, As a result of this discussion on the Administrators’ Noticeboard, I have determined that there is consensus from the community to impose temporary restrictions on your account. These bans prohibit you from nominating articles for deletion and editing articles about or related to pornography for the duration of 30 days. Best regards, Mike V • Talk20:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you look under "WHO quote" on this talk page (third subject from top) I argued more or less the same, I gave an exhaustive explanation of Spanish influenza and Bubonic plague in contrast to the current outbreak, so I agree with you, having said that let's talk it out, there is no point in an edit war between anyone--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Technically speaking, I've only had one "revert" today (the first cut was just the elimination)...but I won't press the issue. But I certainly wouldn't mind seeing you zork it out if it comes back. I think as long as we tag-team sparingly within the rules, it shouldn't be difficult to firm up consensus.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, there was never Ebola in any of those locations (Spitsbergen looked particularly silly). Second, for the same reason the whole United States isn't a single shade. Third (and most important), it was easy to do in Illustrator. If Ebola ever breaks out in China or India, and someone wants those nations broken down into provinces like the United States, I'll probably turn the project over to someone else. Pax11:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just noticed this. I appreciate that you quickly reverted the edit, so I'm not complaining or anything, but I am very surprised by the notion that what was briefly removed was a personal attack. Perhaps you misinterpreted it? (It was intended as a plea for the avoidance of personal attacks.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it is not up to you to censor another's words. And as you realized, an AFD is NOT to be edited after it is closed, except by administrative oversight. If you took Hoary's words as a personal attack on you fine... take it to ANI but do not redact another's comments. Schmidt, Michael Q.06:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa -- Pax did not redact and I was not complaining. I was just a bit puzzled. Perhaps I'm not the politest of editors, but accusations of rudeness don't come so often. I asked here partly because I was puzzled, and partly because I unpuzzledly thought that I'd been fairly clear and that if Pax were to reread my comment in context he/she'd get it and all would be clear. I could explain here and now, but I don't want to bore Pax (or myself). But enough. Pax, have a beer in the name of rationality, anarchism, or both. -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All is well. Glad to know. Schmidt, Michael Q.01:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
{{subst:if|||
{{{message}}}
||subst=subst:}}
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}![reply]
I'm not red anymore
If you would prefer to be red I can delete your user page at your request. Let me know if you want that and I can do it for you. Chillum00:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that was deleted so long ago is back then we do not allow redirects from the article namespace to the Wikipeida namespace. The article namespace is only for encyclopedic articles. We still have the same policy today so I have re-deleted it.
You recently closed reopened an AfD I had closed as keep on Bangladesh-Poland relations. If you have any problems with the way the AfD was closed, can you please bring to deletion review or re-nominate it instead of reopening a closed AfD? Thank you. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are several ongoing Bangladesh-XYZ relations articles up for AfD, and I think all of them should run their full course with the same resolution (ideally they should have been bundled into a single AfD, but alas...). I also believe there exists an obvious canvassing/meat/sock-puppetry campaign going on among the "Keep" votes, and that such should be investigated. Pax21:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really seeing proof of sock-puppeting, beyond the fact that several users commented on related AfDs. If you think I incorrectly closed the AfD, you are free to request additional review at Wikipedia:Deletion review, although I doubt listing it there will produce a different outcome. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't edit war over closures Pax, particularly in debates you participated in. I have made an admin closure of the AfD. Chillum23:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please disregard my previous message to you, I misread the AfD history. It seems you only reverted once. Still not advisable when you are part of the debate, however it is not edit warring. My apologies.(I also seemed to confused two AfDs with each other) Chillum23:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Your POV regarding said lists has been explicitly overruled by an AfD's closing admin, Coffee // have a cup, in his top/front/center decision: "...WP:LISTPEOPLE requires that the person meet our notability policies..."), a position identical to mine in the matter - so I see no rationale in discussing this further on my TP. As I am also fairly certain you have already seen this AfD's closure (given over two days passage between that and your posting here on my TP), I am compelled to assume an attempt at subterfuge and intimidation on your part.
Pursuant, I have again removed your non-notables from List of British Bangladeshis, and would suggest not edit-warring further.
Having a standalone article and having a mention in the list of people are not equivalent to each other. WP:LISTPEOPLE at least 4 points, one of it expresses: "If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to". If you cannot understand these policies well, consider reading them again or ask any other editor about it. It is also uncertain that why you had removed Lutfur Rahman, Akhlaq Choudhury from there? They have articles.OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since Coffee's explanation when closing the AfD was directly in response to your final statement in the AfD, it is as clear to me (as it is not to you) which of us is in actual need of "reading these policies again, or asking another editor about it". (But very well; I'm asking another editor...Coffee; hopefully he'll be along shortly. As he's an admin, I'm inclined to accept his word over yours.) Regards my alleged removal of Lutfur Rahman, that would be because you're confusing him with Luthfur Rahman (two different people???') - right now you have both in the list one after the other.
Concerning the inclusion of Abdur Rahman Madani on the list, you have to know that this (the accompanying ref) is in no way, shape or form a suitable RS demonstrating notability. He doesn't belong. Pax04:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regards Akhlaq Choudhury, the reason I removed him on the 13th was because he had no article by that name at that time. He DID, however, have an article under a different name - how and when did I find that out? Right now, by reading your response and seeing a blue link. My eyes go all squinty (because I have an excellent memory), so I head off to the article and see this: *you moving the article from one name to another (i.e., to the one that was on the list, turning a "dead red" into a "live blue")*! So, you did that, THEN came over here to edit your post on my TP as part and parcel of giving me massive amounts of crap. -- Does it utterly escape you how intellectually dishonest this behavior is? Do you really think other people never click "View History"?
(Since OccultZone brought Akhlaq Choudhury up, I'm requesting Coffee or any other onlooking party go take a look at that article. IMO it is unworthy of an article and should be AfD; he's a non-notable lawyer, and none of the sources in the article pass RS muster. In fact, given the ongoing pattern here, my suspicion is the entire list is shot through with potential AfD cases.) Pax04:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are being dishonest here. Before removing the name, it was your responsibility to check the source and if you had checked the provided source, you would have corrected the typo. I am not getting that why you are canvassing Coffee, it is not going to rationalize your incompetence and it has least to do with your disruptive editing that includes the misrepresentation of policies and removal of names without looking at the sources and without even reading the names correctly. I am amazed at your reading skills that even during the edit war you couldn't understand that "Lutfur" and "Luthfur" are two different people. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am under no obligation to check exhaustively for variant spellings. And why shouldn't I ponder if Lutfur and Luthfur are the same person if Akhlaq Choudhur and Akhlaq Choudhury are the same person? It's ludicrous; you're trying to have your cake and eat it to. (Besides, it's not like these bozos have any RS anyway - a point you are desperately attempting to evade - which is why I'm quite disinclined to do any of your work for you at this point.) Pax05:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only point I find necessary to make here is that WP:LISTPEOPLE requires that if a person is to be on a list they must meet our notability policies (which require a good deal of sourcing), with the only relevant exception to the sourcing rule being if the subject is only notable for one event (in which case they are allowed in the list given that one WP:RS is present). That latter piece requires that they are truly notable for one event though, which means the RS would have to be much more than a passing mention. If those requirements aren't met, then they can't be on a list. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although Mirrortoamermaid has made reasonable contributions to this website, some of his contributions are counterproductive. He has also started several pages on non-notable people, e.g. Simon Freakley and Robert Parker (dancer). Circuit judges are also non-notable; there are currently over 600 circuit judges throughout England and Wales, and they are rank below High Court judges. I don't think Inigo Bing and Alan Taylor (circuit judge) are notable. UI1990 (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Rape jihad, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I placed a holdon tag and posted a comment on the talkpage. If you truly rewrote the article, it deserves a closer look than a speedy deletion. --DawnDusk (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the section on Sudan the article was practically identical to the article at the time of deletion. The AfD was only closed three weeks ago. Whether your version was the same as the version when the AfD was started makes no difference, your rewrite wasn't enough to change the verdict of the discussion. Hut 8.522:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I did read the talk page before I deleted it. What was posted there wasn't enough to make me change my mind. Hut 8.522:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I'm not referring to the old article at the time of deletion; I'm referring to the poor-quality ESL-written article at the time of submission to AfD. I rewrote the article after the bulk of the !votes had been cast, and the closer did not, IMO, bother checking the new version before simply counting !votes. There's nothing in common between the poor ESL version and the rewritten version, and since, in my estimation, nobody actually !voted on the new version, there was sufficient reason to recreate the article. Due to lack of commonality between article versions, G4 speedy was also an improper tag. Pax23:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think an AfD was closed improperly then the right course of action is to talk with the closer or to go here, not to recreate the article. As I've said the recreated version was identical to the one deleted by the AfD with the exception of a section you replaced with a copy/paste from an existing article, so G4 was entirely proper. Hut 8.523:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article sections which are main article'd elsewhere frequently clone the lead of the main article. (By coincidence, the Darfur section was the last piece of the original ESL version I paved over.) In any event, we don't delete articles over technical quibbles in sub-sections, and the new version was given scarce time for further improvement anyway. Pax00:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this user when he says that the article submitted to AfD was a poor, stub-like version much different from the actual article that got deleted (and I say this because that Articles for Deletion discussion just dismisses it as a hapless neologism). What if he were to recreate the article using Articles for Creation? What if he were to use a more formal name (which seems to be the only reason you could legitimately delete the article you just did were it not previously)? Your comments here are giving me the impression that a close enough look wasn't given to this article. --DawnDusk (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Getting the G4 speedy overturned on policy (the article names are similar, but contents-at-time-of-(AfD/or/speedy)-deletion-submission were considerably variant) is an easier first attempt at redress. Pax00:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
---My friend---
I agree with you on a lot of things. However, I feel like you're giving a lot of the guys you disagree with ammo to use against you by coming off biased and upset. One guy said you're carrying a WP:STICK; if this is how people start to see you, it might drain your credibility. I like what you're doing of course and encourage you to keep fighting the good fight. I feel like the community is making a few mistakes here, and I am happy to try to help correct them. DawnDusk (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
---April 2015---
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (2nd nomination). While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Hut 8.519:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Rape jihad, may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!21:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Civility Barnstar
Thank you! I was really impressed by the constructive and non-acrimonious tone and contributions from everyone involved in the recent AFD discussion on the Alliance of Women Directors article. What could have been—with the wrong editors involved—a very nasty debate, turned into a very positive discussion. Even editors who strongly felt that the article should be deleted worked hard to find sources and fix problems with it. This is the kind of positive collaboration people don't hear a lot about in Wikipedia-land and I'd like to recognize it. Carl Henderson (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do, and it's enabled in preferences, so I'm not sure why it isn't showing up for you under Tools. Try enabling it in your prefs, and let's see if I can see yours. Pax05:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion WRT to the english sex abuse cases
If the merge/rename takes place (and even if it doesnt), have you considered making a seperate article on the English sex abuse cases(Rotherham, Oxford, Telford etc.)? They've been covered as a group in enough articles for them to warrant an article as a group, and the role of Islam has been covered in enough sources (like the cleric you cited in the rape jihad article) to warrant a significant mention. This way the information you believe is being "censored" will still be out there.Bosstopher (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice
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 pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (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 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.
The controversy surrounding "rape jihad" is religion centered, not gender centered. There is no overlap between this and the area the GG sanctions is meant to cover. Bosstopher (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly unsatisfactory that the trivial topic of "gamergate" had to be used as a peg to hang the gender-related discretionary sanctions on, but a topic about rape and gender violence is clearly covered by "gender-related dispute or controversy". Fut.Perf.☼14:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy surrounding the issues are religion related not gender related. The kind of person disrupting this article would not be the same sort of person disrupting an article on Gamergate, or Campus rape. From a common sensse point of view the same sanctions shouldnt apply for this article and gamergate. Bosstopher (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was an arb clarification request for the Gamergate decision (archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Clarification Request (March 2015)) on whether a topic such as "campus rape" would be covered by the DS rule, and the arbs very clearly said that yes, they wanted it to apply. If campus rape is covered then so is a topic like Rotherham (both being publicly noted, controversially discussed patterns involving sexual violence). Fut.Perf.☼16:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the controversy surrounding these patterns is different. In the english sex abuse cases the controversy surrounds Islam (i.e. is it a religion that condones rape? Did the government cover it up to be politically correct about muslims), with campus rape the controversy is about the prevalence which is disputed by feminists and anti-feminists. One contoversy is deeply ingrained in gender theory (ideas of rape culture and other feminist theory), while in the other it is for the most part (depressingly) absent with disputes surrounding immigration and Islam. From what I can gather these sanctions were designed to cover the sort of topics reddit manosphere folk and their opponents shitpost over (e.g. Gamergate, Campus Rape, Lena Dunham, Voice for Men, Ellen Pao), and "rape jihad" is not one of these topics. If Pax were to be topic banned under the GG sanctions it would be counterproductive, because (to my knowledge) he has shown no patterns of disruption when it comes to these feminism vs manosphere topics. Bosstopher (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Independently of the discretionary sanctions notice above, I now notice that you apparently have a persistent pattern of falsely accusing content opponents of "vandalism", which you did repeatedly and despite being corrected several times, at the "rape jihad" ANI threads, as recently as today. You have also started yet another topic of obviously tendentious editing with your edits on the Nazi gun control theory. Because of this overall pattern of hostile and tendentious editing, I have blocked you for one week. Fut.Perf.☼21:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of Concerned Veterans for America
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page Star Wars Rebel. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:
Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
I would like to inform you that this article is false and utter rubbish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muneesh_Sappel and should be deleted immediately. In future, we should make it the point that only admin can create this article.
I am sending you because you are in this article’s View History and you took initiative earlier to delete this article and ignored it later. Muneesh Sappel took advantage of this and written more rubbish than his previous articles.
He is using wikipedia page for his publicity and propaganda. I am quiet shocked there is no article about him on Indian newspapers and on google, what you find one …. Is only one liner. Even images on google also posted by him….. not a single newspaper photos.
In his article most of the awards has won by other cast/ crew but he is showing in his article like he won!!!
Please do see his sixth article which he has written again in 2015: He says he is
“Indian and International production designer, art director, costume designer, hair and make-up artist”
but there is not a single hint about AWARDS. In his recent updated version he won so many awards, he has become now Indian production designer, art director and costume designer from previous claiming being INTERNATIONAL production designer…
Now he has become an actor, writer, director, poster design, publicity set construction, theatrographer, production assistant, art director… blah blah….
