User talk:Chrisanthusjohn

Eoghan Quigg

You recently reverted my edit to the above page on the basis that "Derry is the more common name". See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Derry/Londonderry - "Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles." Alekksandr (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, cheers! Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Alekksandr (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emancipation Proclamation

The changes I made are correct. I have read extensively about the EP, and published reviews of four books on it (and I mean in a professional journal, not at amazon.com). Never have I seen it referred to as consisting of two parts, and that's because it didn't. "Officially went into effect" is unnecessary; it didn't unofficially go into effect at a different time. The phrase "returned to federal control" is wrong; the federal government didn't "control" the states. The phrase I substituted, "in rebellion," is from the EP. The date of the EP was not "January 1863"; it was "January 1, 1863." I am going to undo your reversion; please leave it alone.Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but please add reliable sources. And next time please add the comment on my talk page not on my user page. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for the information being unsourced, it all appears earlier in the entry with sources. We could probably delete the paragraph with no loss, but I'm not going to work on that. In any case, the error-ridden version that I fixed was also unsourced. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for the Study of War

Thanks for your edits - generally v happy (particularly with recovering the two useful sources I had inadvertently deleted) I restored the organisations own description of their aims, it is attributed to them so users can judge bias accordingly, but they would generally be considered a reliable source for such information about themselves.

All good wishes, Springnuts (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, my only concern is that political science journals who analyze ISW generally tend to characterize it as a group founded by weapons manufacturers whose original purpose was to lobby for the "surge" strategy so that the defense contractors funding it could make more money. ISW is of course going to try to paint itself in the best possible light which is why I think it would be better to rely on secondary sources. There may be secondary sources who also describe ISW as a non-partisan group but I'm not aware of any. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"...bodies with civilian clothing" is not NPOV

Agreed. However unarmed bodies, bodies of the elderly and bodies of children would all be acceptable under NPOV. Also-- bodies with bound hands.

All of these are among those in the incident.

In addition, people shot (at close range) in the back of the head or in the back.

And also, an unusually high percentage of people shot from behind.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, would be appropriate within the main text, with adequate sourcing, but not as a subheading of that particular image Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

I edit conflicted with VolunteerMarek, the comment in my edit summary was aimed at the sillyness in the infobox. Sorry for that, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to censor or remove encyclopedic content based on the fact that it is offensive to some readers, as you did at Winston Sterzel, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not censored, and attempts to censor encyclopedic content will be regarded as vandalism. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not censoring any information, nor am I engaged in disruptive editing. Information on Wikipedia should be backed up by reliable sources, otherwise it should be removed. Please check the sources and my reasoning for each edit. I only removed information that either had dead links as sources or information that was not supported by the source given. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Winston Sterzel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dude are you trolling? Are you checking the sources at all, because I am. english.china.com/video/life/2649/20150521/377597.html does not load an article. It literally redirects to their home page. I will be escalating this to the administrator's noticeboard. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Chrisanthusjohn reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: ). Thank you. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just some notes

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]