Please note the following guidelines for my talkpage: DO watch or pay attention to my talk page. If contacted here, I will reply here to avoid a divided conversation. Likewise, if I start a conversation on your talk page, and you attempt to divide it, I will cross-post my original statement here and reply here. DO sign your posts with ~~~~ - it makes it far easier to determine who added a comment and when. DO respect the banner below and do not ask for aid in those topic areas. DO NOT discuss FlaggedRevs at all. I will delete all such messages on sight. This includes discussion of Reviewer-related topics. (See the banner beneath, too.) DO NOT ask me to review administrator actions - As of July 11, 2010 I do not have that power. DO NOT nominate me for adminship - I will automatically reject all such requests. Likewise, DO NOT give me reviewer rights. Drink the beer you yourself brewed. DO NOT, if you are an administrator, protect this talk page. We have an abuse filter for a reason. Use it. DO NOT use any slurs whatsoever - I will delete the comment and all further ones from you off of my talk page.
I'm poking around on Meta trying to figure out where that RfC is going to take place but not sure I'm figuring out what to watchlist over there. Can you give me a pointer? Thanks! --valereee (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I have been viciously attacked by one of the members of the R&B group H-Town via their Wikipedia page and I noticed that any revisions I've made have been changed by you or other moderators or admins. However nothing has been done about the perso, DinoFan92, who keeps making edits and putting up false information. He has also put up sections with my full name. I've noticed that he has also deleted entire sections without penalty but when I did the same thing due to his harassment of me, my IP temporarily got blocked. I would like to know what's going on.
A little blue Boriv^_^vOnward to 2020 or Jéské Couriano. I'm not sure what you have against Hadrian. (Who knew people in northern England and Scotland could learn to climb a wall?) Besides it was Trajan that had the column. Anyway I'll try CliffNotes (though I am only remotely acquainted with such, do they use bullet points?):
I have been editing Wikipedia, I guess going on my twelfth year. I think the contributions which I used to make, and am willing to continue to make, can no longer continue under the current environment of new article creation. Contributions include numerous articles and overall organization of Chinese poetry, Japanese poetry, and a start on Chinese mythology topics. I am asking for help because for the first time I really need it, and I am ignorant of most Wikipedia functionality other than reading or editing articles.
I have specifically been subjected to bullying by User:Hzh, and would like some sort of support and help in this regard.
I would like to see some valuable reforms in the New article review process. As an experienced editor in the area of new articles, I would like to contribute in a positive manner towards this. I think it would be useful to Wikipedia for me to share or discuss this in the appropriate forum or fora (although what these would be, I have no idea). However, if Wikipedia will not listen and respond to the issues of its editors, it is likely to stagnate. I would hate to see that. I have enjoyed editing Wikipedia, sometimes, and feel it has been a contribution toward making the world a better place.
Can you please add it on article for me because other biased editior do not allowing me to do
It shares a harsh relation with Tablighi jamaat because Tablighi jamaat is an offshoot of deviant deobandi sect which disapproves the Saint veneration[1] Maizbhandariya (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries are amusing places to hide rudeness in plain sight. Yes, I read the note. Now please pull your horns in and deal with me with politeness. FiddleFaddle10:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you removed lots of references from the article Prakash Neupane as a bad source or trash source. I restored everything which you removed from the article cause I think like you've no knowledge about notability as you removed The Diplomat and Asia Times as trash source. On what basis those are trash source? I don't have any question regarding other sources. Can you explain? Owlf05:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Diplomat source's coverage of him consists of a name-drop and a sound-bite from him and does not discuss him in any real depth. The Asia Times source includes lyrics from one of his songs and is thus copyright infringement. Did you even read the sources before restoring them? —A little blue Boriv^_^v2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-205:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I read the coverage of him in The Diplomat it has been discussed about the whole Nepali hip-hop community and about the musicians for which he has been covered and in Asia times he is widely covered and being a Nepali Wikipedia editor I saw that the author has translated lyrics but not and doesn't fall under copyright infringement. Owlf06:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And about his appearances on Nepal Television & Radio Kantipur it's available on Youtube. I know youtube is not accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia but Televisions and radios don't publish article they broadcast it. Owlf06:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't expect User:Cabejr will guess they can find any reply to their question in the edit summary space, especially after the question has been deleted (special:diff/973537127). May be you could simply add your answer below the question (instead of deleting it), just 'to avoid a divided conversation'...? Posting at OP's talk page may work as well. --CiaPan (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question was posted in two areas on Oshwah's talk page, and based on his contributions, plus the fact that automated translation is generally not 100% legible to a native speaker, I'm not sure how helpful a message on his talk page would be. This is someone who might be more at home on es.wp, not here. —A little blue Boriv^_^vHasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....20:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trolling?
Hey there, at the Sushant Singh Rajput's talk page, Grant's responses are starting to feel fishy to me. They say Well I’m here to change cause of death from suicide (which is somebody’s opinion) to “ Asphyxia due to hanging” but has also said the only official statement came from police which says it’s suicide. To me that’s the only acceptable facts. Here you've been accused of being contradictory and yet Grant appears to be simultaneously arguing for inclusion of suicide and for exclusion of suicide, meanwhile making profound suggestions like I would suggest to keep an open mind for future and let the investigation unfold the details when we've already indicated the article would be updated as new information developed. They've also said things like I see that you’re passionate about this topic, which feels provocative. While it's possible they are totally oblivious about who made these determinations about Rajput's death (medical examiners vs. Wikipedians?) I do feel like they might be trying to get under our skins by trolling, or possibly it's just a WP:ICANTHEARYOU situation. I've opted not to respond to their last comment. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, it might be worth converting the "So, what will be in the infobox?" discussion to a proper RFC to get wider input. I don't mind being the minority opinion between you and NedFausa, but I don't like that the talk page is currently unprotected, we have an obvious problem with SPAs who have an agenda, and there is a lack of input from other Wikipedians familiar with BLPs. Just a thought. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing your userbox about the 09 fundraising banner, I spent the last 30 minutes reading a whole bunch about that particular fundraiser. Was it the "Wikipedia Forever" slogan that got so much backlash? Just curious for more context on this particular topic! Curiosity abounds. MrAureliusRTalk!07:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should change his death cause from Suicide by hanging to asphyxia due to hanging as nothing has been confirmed yet. Well if I'm not wrong you are an Indian right? Von de leorde (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey JC, no disrespect is intended, but I think it would be better to take the discussion with KaveriNadi to their talk page or something, as I'm not exactly sure even what their greater point is, and that talk page is so problematic that tangential chit-chat just seems like an invitation for problems. Feel free to disagree and ignore this comment, I just had an opinion I wanted to express. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
wording from help desk and edit summaries
You are very effective indeed in keeping and spam and other coi! But even dealing with people who are not good faith editors I have found it advisable to avoid negative words like those below in replying to an editor or in an edit summary. Be particularly careful with edit summaries: they can be suppressed, but not changed, so it is therefore advisable to keep them short and neutral.
"your post here, having an identical tone to the article, only damns the draft and your chances of continuing to edit here. "
"promotional trash"
"Revert this shit off. Don't collapse it, 86 it."
I'ts easy to forget; you and I have been here a similar length of time, and it gets very exasperated to keep dealing with some of this. I know that I too have sometime embarrassed myself by lapses. And I know how impatient one can get DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These people have a legitimate concern about how Google answers this inquiry. It is a major screw-up on Google's part. They are coming to Wikipedia because Google is displaying this specific Wikipedia article as the source for Google's bad answer. So, I do not think that blanking posts and lecturing people in edit summaries is the best response. Why not just explain to people that Google is responsible for the error, and that they should contact Google? Cullen328Let's discuss it07:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Each of these people is an individual human being and they should not be pigeonholed into a group without trying to communicate. It is not fair to categorize every one of them as completely unreasonable. This is completely different from the Sushant Singh Rajput situation. Those were people pushing a baseless conspiracy theory originating from the Hindu aversion to suicide. These people are correct and just need a clear explanation that Google is responsible for the error. Since the Wikipedia article is plastered on the Google error, it is not at all unreasonable that people would come here unhappy about it. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jéské Couriano, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't respond at the Teahouse this way. The whole point of the Teahouse is that it's where new Wikipedians get relatively gentle advice and correction, not to be told "all your sources are useless" and (edit summary) "all five sources are crap". You've been here longer than I have; you have to be familiar with WP:BITE. There is a place for blunt communication, no doubt. It isn't the Teahouse. To answer your followup question, yes, in that venue I do expect you to sugarcoat it. It's not difficult to be clear and unambiguous while also offering constructive help. If you could fix your signature so it actually shows your username, I'd appreciate that too. The current version isn't even related to it. › Morteetalk21:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought the style was familiar. (The "new" editor's style, that is). It might not surprise you to hear that Squirrelnet has now created the article Zakariabenlafqih asked about in that thread, using the very same references. I draftified it, and should take a look at the other articles created by Squirrelnet as well. Their contributions log is... interesting (as is their user page!) --bonadeacontributionstalk19:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bonadea Whatever you're gesturing at can be taken to WP:SPI. I'm only asking that the Teahouse be respected as the one place on Wikipedia where more gentle communication is still a norm. If people turn out to be miscreants, take it up elsewhere. (This is also in reference to your edit summary "Wikipedia needs more people who don't hesitate to say it like it is". More people speaking clearly instead of saying "... interesting" would be a good thing. More people telling Teahouse contributors that all their sources are "crap" would not be.) › Morteetalk22:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your appreciative comments regarding my substantial edits to this page in response to your nomitation for deletition. I would have thanked you in the discussion there but it has closed already. Glad the work was productive. Cabrils (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD would be good if he does this again since it gives us G4 criteria for CSD. Good work fellas! Also, I don't know about y'all, but when he moved the draft into mainspace *after* I rejected it, that got me fuming lol. Curbon7 (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the deletion logs, it's an ongoing issue. If I had to guess, I would say it resembles a hypothetical situation where a teenage businessperson has mercilessly pushed their own interests on wiki. I only wish these hypothetical people knew that the harder they push, the harder it makes it to achieve their goals: in the case of Golbin, three accounts are already blocked for socking, and Aaron Golbin is create protected.--- Possibly (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've also just requested the draft and mainspace DebateIsland pages be salted, since the person and the website seem to be a two-for-one-package deal. I don't want to take any chances that this obvious native advertising attempt gets anywhere. —A little blue Boriv^_^vJéské Couriano08:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tarsus_American_College
Hi! I saw Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tarsus_American_College and thought I could ask some Turkish Wikipedians if they could find some sources about this school. Some of the articles may be in Turkish but have English abstracts. Would you be alright looking at any of the sources that are written in English and giving your views on whether they prove notability?
Also in regards to using master's theses as sources, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship states "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." I can check to see if any academic books cited that master's thesis, as I think that would give admissibility to that thesis.
WhisperToMe (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If they aren't anything like the sources which came up via Google - almost all of which were name-drops - I wouldn't mind looking at them, but some of the issue here is that the article proper has serious WP:COI issues, as the AfD caused a lot of single-purpose accounts who appeared to be connected to the school in some way to crawl out of the woodwork. In all honesty, you'd be better off seeing if a relevant WikiProject exists that could assess the sources, though - it will likely take me a while to assess, and if they require technical/topical knowledge I don't have, I'd be little better as a source assessor than any other yahoo off the street. —A little blue Boriv^_^vJéské Couriano07:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough! I'm in talks with people on the Turkish Wikipedia and used your points to make a suggestion: they could re-write the article from the ground up (in other words bypass the content written by "single purpose accounts"). So far what they've found is predominately in Turkish and so they might be in a better position to interpret the sources. I also will tell the WikiProject Turkey on the English Wikipedia about this. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have a happy birthday, Jéské Couriano! Supplied by the Wikipedia Birthday Committee, have one free cake! Enjoy! Best wishes to you on your special day!
HEY YO,
Thanks for the help out there, i'm keen and willing to learn more about using sources.
So far i've removed the sparse and role byline article's on Draft:Zeyan Shafiq
Can you have a look n let me know what else do you think i should do.
Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me09:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey- you reverted my edits. The stray animal belt is a real place where he grew up. I will get more links. It is not an inside joke.
For adding he is a Pisces I can say it more formal. He reached out to me to ask me to make certain edits. He is quoted saying a lot of things. If he was quoted saying that in an article may I do it as a quote as well? and can you give me tips on how to make it proper if so?
Hello. Your comment was far too vehement and comparing routine businessperson puffery to the 16 year old Siegenthaler incident is both incorrect and over the top. It is important to explain and defend BLP policy, but it is equally important to do so in a way that does not bite newcomers or rely on hyperbole. Please be very sparing in your use of bold, italic, bold italic and colored text. Write to persuade instead of to berate. Thank you. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: Charles Williams
Thanks for a thorough review.
Appreciate your help in this matter. Political appointees were added to wikipedia at time of appointment with no individual effort. Assistant Secretary Charles Williams was overlooked. The following are peers, predecessor and successor. Do you know how wikipedia lists some but not all in similar positions? More references were added. Added 4 more references. Maybe going about this incorrectly.
Thanks
Flagship1
Peers:
John Henderson (Air Force Asst. Secretary) Alex Beehler (Army Asst. Secretary) Jordan Gillis (Army Asst. Secretary) Greg Slavonic (Navy Asst. Secretary) James Geurts (Navy Asst. Secretary) Thomas Harker (Navy Asst. Secretary)
Greetings, that is kind of too bad that there has to be some controversy in order to include a fan game project or patch for a game.
it has been a while that i have been thinking about adding or requesting articles based on notable game hacks, mods, and obscure original creations.
Sometimes these creations are found only in some dedicated forums or are just mentioned in youtube videos, and are very hard to find in search engines, another negative is that some people trying to find them end up in dubious download websites and risk harming their computers.
i will take alook at articles similar to AM2R & see if i can fix the NSX article better. My original intention was to request the topic or article instead of making it myself, tho....
Not necessarily controversy, but some sort of coverage. The problem with fangames is that coverage is almost always a kiss of death for a fangame, as the publicity leads the rightsholders to put the kibosh on it (see also: My Little Pony: Fighting is Magic's demise after it made an EVO poll). There's a reason why there're few fangame articles, and why many of them are postmortems. —A little blue Boriv^_^vJéské Couriano21:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for spending the time and energy to walk me through this. I think I understand the distinction now and went ahead and added appropriate links that I believe better establish Choksi's notability.
I also added a bunch of other awards she won. Including the prestigious merit-based Fulbright scholarship. Does this make a better case?
Navnine9 (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Especially with rather bizarre usernames. We've both seen it before. We'll both see it again. I decided to take it at face value and draw it out. You zapped it. I put the draft up at MfD. Up to you whether you make a comment there FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me11:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Thank you for your help at the McCullough article talk page. Since you appear to never have received these standard notices, here they are:
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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.
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 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.
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.
Jeske,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason I haven't said much, and it's because this is very much a high conflict-of-interest situation. The user has a bit of a history of attempting to bludgeon the process, and the nine hours that us helpers in wikipedia-en-help have spent trying to explain how things work have fallen on deaf ears as he completely refuses to ever consider the notion he's wrong. I half-expect him to recruit meatpuppets - questions he was asking yesterday about the AfD process implied he was considering off-site canvassing - and he is presently banned from -en-help for issuing a legal threat (User:Perryprog and User:Jmcgnh have more details on that front). Ordinarily I'd be more active in refuting his points, but I worry if I attempt to do so he's going to end up bludgeoning the AfD more than he already is.
Incidentally, the reason I sent it to AfD after gutting it is because I was filing the AfD while I was dealing with him in -en-help (spoilers: He really hated us helpers' assessment of his sources) and, rather unusually for most of the articles I send to AfD based on them being linked in -en-help, I pinged Primefac to see if he would draftify it instead. He explicitly favoured AfD here. As you might expect, Godsentme1 was livid at me because he wilfully misinterpreted something I said (I said I'd file an AfD if Primefac declined to draftify or didn't respond within 48 hours; he interpreted it to mean "I won't file an AfD for 48 hours if Primefac declines to draftify"). I'd gutted it in hopes that I'd be able to find enough sources to avoid having to AfD it, and the sources used are low-quality enough I considered them not good enough to satisfy WP:BLP standards. —A little blue Boriv^_^vJéské Couriano22:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While still draft I had told the editor that WP:TOOSOON applied, and to let the draft sit until after the album was released and reviewed. I concur one of the more stubborn and beligerent newbies ever to be at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that you are a very experienced editor on Wikipedia but every time you tag a page for any type of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/TFD/etc.), you need to post a notification on the talk page of the page creator. Not only it is part of the deletion process but it alerts the editor to existing problems with their contributions and informs them of the reason why the page might be deleted.
Most of Wikipedia editors take care of these notifications by using Twinkle when they tag pages for deletion. If you set up your Twinkle Preferences so that a) "Notify page creator" is always checked and b) make sure that all criteria of speedy deletion are checked off (I think the Twinkle default is to only have a few criteria selected) then Twinkle will take care of these notifications for you. If you choose not to use Twinkle, then please find an appropriate template to use or write out a notification yourself. Thank you for all of the work you do on Wikipedia. LizRead!Talk!01:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use Twinkle or any other automated tool, and in this case the tagging was triggered by a conversation with the draft's author on -en-help (where I told him point-blank I was tagging it and why). Most of the stuff I tag is either so old that a notification is impractical or because I'm actively speaking to the author of the page in a help forum. —A little blue Boriv^_^vJéské Couriano01:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppets
Do you think that there are enough grounds to lodge an investigation as to whether User:Pecar22, User:Sarah Albany and User:Bindel04 are sockpuppets of User:Amoeba69th? Pecar22 has only provided one edit but uses the same arguments as Amoeba69th. The others have only edited the article on Sarah Azhari but provided similar editing to Amoeba69th. Dan arndt (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Albany's too old to CU and with only one edit any behavioural match would be tenuous at best. As for the other two, as long as they aren't being used to try and skew the debate directly I don't think it's a wise use of time to go after them even if they are sockpuppets. —A little blue Boriv^_^vJéské Couriano06:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working with @Salimfadhley--specifically, to get his feedback--on Draft:B. Riley Financial. My last message to him was one month ago, and, as of today, I haven't heard back. He seems to be inactive lately, so I hope you don't mind that I'm pinging you.
Actually, as I'm writing this, @Salimfadhley just replied! Well, he responded but he didn't address the issue. He wrote, "It is definitely not cool to post an entire conversation into somebody's talk page."
At this point, I'm confused and frustrated. As you can see on Salim's talk page, to save space, I hid the new draft in a dropdown, and I responded to each of his points with specifics. I'm unsure what I could or should have done differently.
I mention this history not to complain, but to underscore my efforts and patience.
So, with apologies for the long message, would you feel comfortable taking a look at my revised draft? I won't copy and paste it here (unless you prefer that); instead, it's still viewable on Salim's talk page (click "show" to the right of the "extended content" bar).
At the time I declined this draft because it seemed that this subject had not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.
The issue for all drafts is whether this subject has been shown to be notable. The way we determine this is by reviewing the sources on your draft. I notice that your draft does have a great many sources, but they seem to be overwhelmingly of a kind that cannot be used to establish notability: Routine coverage, brief mentions, government documents, routine filings. None of these are useful to use.
May I suggest that if you wish to have your article reviewed again, simply reduce to the core of information that establishes it's notability. Remove any source that doesn't meet our requirement and then resubmit. There is no requirement that the editor who previously declined your draft be appeased or consulted. Salimfadhley (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest, @WalksInWelcome, that you reduce the draft down to the core of it's notability. Include only 4 or 5 high quality sources. Get rid of the rest. Resubmit the document. It's probably best not to try to lobby individual editors to change their minds. Also, consider that creating articles about corporations is often regarded as one of the harder subject matters to tackle as a beginner editor. Consider writing about other subjects and then return to this topic if you still have an interest in this subject. Salimfadhley (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jéské. Thanks for your reply at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 11#Christian weston chandler. The discussion was SNOW closed before I even got up to speed. I have not read the alluded-to many AN threads, just the last once cited in the close. I have a little bit of memory of seeing this case before, but barely.
I believe that it is always a good idea for a request to recreate a controversial article should begin with a draft listing the WP:THREE. I later saw that the proponent of recreation did list three sources. I wanted to note, somewhere, here will do, that I have reviewed those three sources and find them not sufficient to justify drafting a new article, not overcoming the reasons not to, BLPCRIME, and WP:HNE.
I also wanted to comment on the comment “there's already lots of awful stuff out there for people to read. By Wikipedia not putting up an article, we are not stopping or preventing any of that. But not putting a good balanced/article to point out some of the evil that was done to her...we are missing out on doing some good. Missed opportunity” that you answered. My answer would have been that the proponent, while meaning well, is failing WP:NOTADVOCACY, Wikipedia does not and must not take positions to correct the real world. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a circumstance where WP:THREE is completely irrelevant. Other than her legal issues (and as pointed out in the DRV, news reports on them are clickbaity) she's not a public individual, and her notability stems almost entirelyfrom the 15+ years of relentless harassment she's been enduring. You could provide all the sources in the world, and she'd still be a private individual who's the target of an extensive harassment campaign. As I said, I dealt with some of this crap almost 10 years ago while I was an admin myself. Even back then there were regular efforts to try and create an article on her to the point titles had to be salted and accounts had to be blocked for furthering the harassment. —A little blue Boriv^_^vJéské Couriano19:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Features for new users coming soon (and mentors, like you, wanted!)
Hello.
Although for some reason you aren't signed up as a host at the Teahouse, I recognise you've made a huge number of contributions there over the years. So I wanted to make sure you're aware of the imminent rollout of new Growth Team Features which every new account will be getting by default. Each users will soon see a new 'Homepage' tab next to their User page. It contains two main elements which might impact on your involvement - and you'd be welcome to get involved and help out directly with one of them.
Firstly, they will be offered a range of 'suggested edits', and encouraged to make simple improvements to pages that interest them. (Being aware of this feature would be helpful for all Teahouse hosts and other helpers if you're likely to offer advice on tasks for them to start out doing.)
There's also a 'Your impact' box to show them how many people have seen the pages they've just edited.
Finally, each new user is randomly assigned a 'mentor' from a list of friendly, experienced editors, like yourself. If they get stuck, they can ask a question directly to them via a Your mentor box, and hopefully get a swift, friendly answer from that mentor. Currently, this feature is given to 2% of new users, but it's set to increase to around 10% in the very near future.
To spread the load on our current list of around 65 mentors, I'm reaching out to ask if you'd like to help out and sign up as one? The workload is relatively small; User Panini! reports receiving four questions a month, on average, all of which were simple ones of the type we already get at the Teahouse, whilst I've had just one in the last 3 weeks. To view a list of every question asked of all mentors over the last 14 days, click here.
If becoming a mentor and being available to help new users on their first few days here interests you - just as have done at the Teahouse in the past - then please consider signing up at Growth Team features/Mentor list. But please only do so if you are genuinely willing to be available to help. Existing users can already 'opt-in' to seeing the Newcomer Homepage features via their Preferences.
Your signature includes an internal link with an underscore in its name. Underscores in internal links are 99% of the time the unintended result of copy/pasting an article title from the address bar, but in your case it's actually ASCII art. I don't know if you've ever had issues with this (I could imagine for example AWB users accidentally removing the mouth from v^_^v), but I noticed my script would replace it with a space when editing a full section or page. As there's not really any way to differentiate between unintended and intended underscores in internal links, I'd suggest replacing the underscore with it's HTML code: _. I won't and can't force you of course. And if you know a way to detect intended underscores (that doesn't involve a whitelist) I'd be interested to know. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is largely moot now that 24rhhtr7 has been indefinitely blocked, but per an Arb decision, you should check to see if an editor has been alerted to DS before issuing an alert. In this particular case, Johnuniqalerted 24rhhtr7 to the AP DS on March 22, 2022, making your alert for AP on March 26, 2022 a duplicate. Now I obviously know you had good intentions, but I wanted to let you know that in the future you should do a quick check before dropping the alerts, as sometimes editors can react unpredictably if they've recently been alerted and reverted it, for example. You can run a quick search in the user's talk page history or check their logs. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Jayla Marie, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
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 "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 deleted 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. — JeffG. ツ10:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it got resolved while I was asleep - some mercenary (who's since been blocked) tried to expand the page into a promotional piece; another user restored the original redirect after your G11 tagging. —Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori18:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good Job, Allow me give you a few pointers
I would like to thank you for your arduous tasks you do at the Teahouse, whilst this is impressive, may I suggest that you begin every response with "Hello and welcome to the Teahouse" this makes the editor asking the question feel very comfortable and this subconsciously appeals to the editor making them know that they are indeed loved and very welcome, of course this isn’t mandatory but merely my philosophy. Celestina007 (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - fellow AfD help desk volunteer here. Your work to identify poor sourcing in proposed drafts is commendable, but I'd like to suggest responding to new editors with a lighter touch. I can tell from some of your responses [[4]] that the non-stop barrage of connected editors is frustrating you, but remember that they are inexperienced and clearly have no idea that what they are doing is wrong. The sources are garbage, but they don't need to be told that. We don't want them to think we're jerks over here, since that will affect how they view the encyclopedia. Think of yourself as a brand representative. Maybe next time someone makes you frustrated with poor sourcing, before writing a harsh response, you might take a quick breath, and think about how great Wikipedia is, remember what it was like when you were new, and then rewrite the note with a more neutral response. See you at the help desk! TechnoTalk (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's less the barrage of connected editors and more that those editors don't do even the simplest iota of research beyond looking for articles to ape. And I will not sugarcoat it for them. The best way to help them is to be as blunt and as clear as possible, not mealy-mouthed. —Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori08:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tone at the help desk
Hi - Fellow AfC help desk volunteer here. Your insights and understanding of policies and guidelines are helpful, but I'm writing to you again about your tone in responding to other editors, such as here. Please remember that even though we are all volunteers, we represent Wikipedia to newcomers, and don't want them to think we are being rude. It will affect their perception of the encyclopedia. Please try to limit the harsh language in the future. If you are getting frustrated by newbies who don't understand how things work, please consider taking a break to recharge. Happy editing! TechnoTalk (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the WP:Teahouse interactions with Gelowiki, that is because they have a highconflict of interest and are trying to write an article on an 11-year-old child with little concern for the subject's privacy and safety. They have been told this in no uncertain terms on multiple fora and refuse to take any of what they've been told on board. I am not going to use kid gloves if they've repeatedly been told not to mess with the candle and they use it to set the drapes on fire. —Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori00:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though to answer the perp's question ("Why did you delete my page?"), the reason provided for the deletion was promotionalism, not privacy protection. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, I had the page sent to Oversight because it contained far too much information that could be used to locate the girl. I asked another admin (Writ Keeper) to delete it in the interim via private channels, and they opted to delete it under G11. —Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori01:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you said that to Me2638 at afchelp. The thing to Gelowiki at the Teahouse was kind of similar, but it was a different subject, and that comment may have been justified. User Me2628 looks, to me, like someone who is trying in good faith but they are fairly new. @TechnoTalk might have a point... 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jéské Couriano, as an AfC reviewer I do read through the AfC help desk inquiries and have learned quite a bit through your responses, especially your source analysis. We often must consider sources with which we are unfamiliar and I have used your approach as guide for how to assess them so just wanted to say thanks. S0091 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské, have you contacted oversight about the material you removed? It really should be suppressed and removed from public view entirely.
@Ilovemydoodle expecting people to put the reason why they redacted part of a comment in the edit summary is ridiculous - it draws attention to the redacted material and makes it harder for oversight/revision delete to clean up the resulting mess. If you have concerns about someone redacting part of a comment then ask them about it before you restore inappropriate, oversightable material onto a highly visible public page. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not until you reminded me; I've had a full plate RL today. And you pretty much described my SOP for suppressable material - redact it with no comment beyond stating I'm redacting it so as to limit any possible Streisanding which could spread that material far beyond where it already unnecessarily is. —Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori12:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An editor asked "I want to ask if there is a way to produce a graph that shows the stock price of it during these last 2 weeks?" You answered "no" which is incorrect. Take a look at GameStop short squeeze which describes a very similar situation, and the same graphing techniques can be used to create graphs for this article. Please do not answer "no" when the correct answer is "yes". Cullen328 (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse tone
Funny that I also came here to write about the Tea house, but I guess I'll have to change the section header a bit. Anyway... Jéské, you obviously have a deep knowledge of Wikipedia, and also of your specialty topics. And it's great that you volunteer at the Tea house. But, (Aha! I bet you knew there was a but coming...) your responses, although accurate as far as they go, sometimes have a preachy or impatient tone. (Please accept this attempt at constructive criticism, from someone who can be preachy and impatient . ) I found this response to the entry WP:Tea house § Wanted to Created a Company Page accurate, but harsh. Maybe just go a little easier on them; they're often newbies and might consider becoming an editor and writing about something else. Or maybe they won't, but one never knows, and a harsh first experience at Wikipedia probably won't seem very encouraging. Other than that, I really enjoy your comments at various Talk forums and Rfc's. Keep up the good work! Mathglot (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion that a person who views Wikipedia as an ersatz Facebook or as a billboard has no interest in editing elsewhere unless you make it crystal clear, with no ambiguity, that they have no idea what they're doing. —Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori18:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The next time you post a diatribe like that at the Teahouse, I will pageblock you indefinitely from the Teahouse. Your conduct is unacceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read every word of your inappropriate diatribe and I read every word of the behavioral expectations for editors who answer questions at the Teahouse. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Be polite and patient with all editors who visit the Teahouse. You were neither polite nor patient. You were antagonistic and brought up many things that had nothing to do with the original question. You were blowing off steam. Cullen328 (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Is "ranting and raving" mentioned anywhere in the blocking policy, out of curiosity, or is there a specific section that allows you to block anybody you think isn't "being polite and patient with all editors who visit the Teahouse" ? I'm also rather intrigued, do you think threatening to block a long-term editor and effectively forcing them away from aiding at the Teahouse is conducive to the long term viability of the Teahouse ? Your threat reads like you're running the Teahouse as some sort of private fiefdom, demanding people do things a specific way, and as we know from how the Teahouse came into being, Wikipedia has never accepted these private little fiefdoms. Nick (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, I am surprised that you are defending Jéské Couriano's disruptive editing at the Teahouse. I have warned the editor about this previously. All I am asking is that the excessively hostile comments stop. If it continues and I pageblock, then the matter can go to ANI and the community can decide which of us is editing on a disruptive fashion. I am confident about the outcome of any such discussion. Esperanza ended several years before the Teahouse started and there is zero connection. As for your fiefdom accusation, I consider your comment to be without merit. Cullen328 (talk)
If you simply follow the Teahouse behavioral expectations and provide accurate answers, then I will have no problem with your contributions in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the next time that you are "as blunt as a truncheon" in the same or similar fashion at the Teahouse, I will pageblock you for disruptive editing, and we will see where it goes from there. Cullen328 (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't going to post again, but I thought the edit summary at this AFCHD comment was really funny; you should consider adopting that somewhere on your user or UTP as a motto, or userbox, or something. Wry self-awareness is a good thing. Unfortunately, the folks at that board won't get it, but I did, just in case you were wondering if there was an audience for it. There was; and thanks for the chuckle! Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments on my request. Albeit it went exactly nowhere, it was useful to get input from someone beyond the "Nope!" and "so create an account" replies offered otherwise. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw on IRC that you were trying to reach me on #wikipedia-en - sorry for missing your ping! You disconnected from IRC only 10 minutes before I saw them, so I obviously couldn't get back to you. If you still need something, don't be a stranger. ;-) Just let me know or simply ping me again on IRC. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)05:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Shahi Kabir for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.
If you don't want Shahi Kabir to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Calvin Richardson. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
You might not much care what I have to say; I've only been editing for a couple of years as an IP and an account. But...
When you are decoding references for (usually new) editors, which is quite helpful, you must get frustrated at repeated non-sequitirs or other repeated poor sources. And that shows in your notes on the sources. But the OP likely doesn't understand any of that yet, when they are reading your list for the first time. But halfway through the list, they start seeing a lot of "yet another fucking non-sequitir" or whatever.
Maybe the OP fully understands what you are saying, after they read the first couple of your notes--and then they are hit with cussing, as if they kept making the same mistakes after being told what was wrong. But that's not the case--they are seeing your list all at once, without a chance to go back and say "I get it; I'll fix the references". It just seems rude to cuss at the editor on their first reading of your explanations, before they have a chance to implement your advice. If they keep doing the same thing to the article after seeing your whole decoding, then by all means, cuss away. Just my two cents. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
My reading of this comment is that there is a valid reason that the user is opposing a redirect/merge; the user is writing that the article does not duplicate the scope of an existing article in its current form (are a discrete entity that are not a subset of any other subject) and that the scope of the Twitter Files will grow beyond the Hunter Biden-related items (TTF releases are forthcoming concerning other heretofore unconfirmed or private communications and decisions e.g. the banning of the account of The Babylon Bee satire site). I understand the urge to remove the comment because of its final line, but it isn't the case that the whole comment is off topic. Would you please self-revert? — Red-tailed hawk(nest)22:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That I can do. For the record, I'm incredibly sensitive to the wording of arguments on that AfD; even if they are on-topic inflammatory ones like that should be flat-out discouraged or refactored; I still remember the shitshow that was MKUCR 2021 and am very concerned this will metastasize into the AP2 version of it. As for your reverting of me earlier, that I will admit is a misread on my part. —Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori22:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should discourage people from making inflammatory AfD posts and that uncivil comments in deletion discussions should be mitigated. That being said, I wish there were a better system in place to clerk this sort of thing rather than to summarily delete comments in their entirety... something like a {{personal attack removed}} but for general incivility might be worthwhile. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)22:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Compounding the issue is that a lot of the comments that have been removed/refactored thus far are ones that fall square into AP2's wheelhouse. I've also been dropping AP2 sanctions alerts as well since, again, I'm worried this will be the AP2 MKUCR. —Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori23:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
December 2022
I warned you a couple of months ago about inappropriate aggressiveness towards new editors and have not noticed any such misconduct since then at the Teahouse or the Help Desk, and thought that perhaps my message had gotten through. But no. I just noticed that you have described yourself as a bastard helper from Hell at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk.
Consider this a final warning. The next time you pull a grotesque stunt like that, I will block you indefinitely, and you will need to convince another administrator that your misconduct will never happen again if you want to be unblocked. Stop acting like a jackass. Cullen328 (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cited a source that says pretty much that while making that edit. In December 2020, PTA had issued notices to Google and Wikipedia on account of disseminating sacrilegious content through the platforms. PTA said it has been receiving complaints regarding misleading search results associated with “Present Khalifa of Islam” and unauthentic version of Holy Quran on Google Play Store. (emphasis added) Dec 2020 is when WP:CALIPH first became an issue, and it's pretty well documented at this point that we've been taking some of the blame for Google's behaviour. I'm looking for a source that says something more concretely, but so far the only source I can access that mentions the Ahmadiyya at all is the Tribune source. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 13:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, reverted the wrong thing. Redwarn's been acting up for me, might switch to Ultraviolet because it's so buggy. Sorry again. Roundish ⋆tc)20:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem; both the helpful IP and I had been making similar mistakes simply because of how fast the editing was happening. Apologies for the more accusatory tone. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 20:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is going to restore the hyperbolic edits made before the sources started to come out - those remain WP:BLP violations. There are also discussions still ongoing about how best to present Pocalyko's involvement at Talk:Michael Pocalyko; I would sooner allow those discussions to play out as the article now falls into a contentious topic area and I have no desire to be dragged to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement by partisans. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 16:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean comment that have also been made by not one, not 2 but now three mainstream press outlets. But since its about a issue that you consider partisan (even tho its not), but since you feel it is you can label it "contentious"; just as you have thru out Talk:Michael Pocalyko, everytime theres relevant sourcing, its you in the comments finding another reason. 2600:8806:3105:E500:1D83:1C26:3430:F300 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to double-check your reading comprehension; I've generally been on board with every source presented thus far. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 16:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you can't beat them start throwing insults. Great Strategy. Your literally in almost every thread arguing with someone every time a new source is posted. And while you might not be an administrator, you largely were responsible for the Page protection and for dragging it out, so go ahead and continue trying to appear coy over the situation. 2600:8806:3105:E500:1D83:1C26:3430:F300 (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if your going to lie about it, there no point in having a "talk".
The first comment was of the line "hasn't gone through a professional editor", shortly after you requested protection for the page "I've put in a request at Arb Enforcement to have the XCP extended here",
then when a new sources poped up from queerly, LGBTQ mag, Into and Dazed, you said "This is synthesis",
Vice news and Rolling stone comes out, suddenly now its contentious.
As you are now blatantly mischaracterising my edits, I agree there is no further point. Stay off my talk page. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 17:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did it mainly because he kept complaining nobody was looking at his sources (and kept accusing Materialscientist of reverting based on his not including sources, which was not the case). As you can see from their user talk page, the complaining about sources was a pretense. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 16:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit requests are allowed for non-ec editors in the topic area. It's one of the few edits they're allowed to make dealing with the topic. This is likely to become more common as some talk pages are getting ec protected. I suggest you decline with minimal comment, and revert duplicate requests. Thanks for taking your time to address the edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also feel free to revert any that are non-constructive. There's obviously some discretion there, but anything polemic, repeated canards about "say x is terrorist", "y is genocide", "z is the capital of a", or obvious NPOV can all be reverted. You can also report repeat offenders at ANI or AE, depending on if it's blatantly disruptive, or borderline non-constructive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A kitten for you!
this is so helpful! I understand wikipedia more now. thanks!
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.
Hi. I would like to continue my conversation with you regarding my help request to say that what I actually was asking about (and should probably have been more clear about) is that I'm unsure what to do considering that I would actually want to use the username previously associated with that now-vanished account, but I'm unable to do what I decided upon: retiring this account and making a new one to use from now on with that username, because I can't make a new account with the same username as that now-vanished account. I still have the credentials for that account, but I haven't tried using them to log in.
Ideally I'd remove any mention of my real name from Wikipedia, but as I talked about in my previous help topic, even a courtesy vanishing doesn't remove every mention of your name from Wikipedia, and it's not supposed to be used for such purposes anyway, so I settled on retiring. Compared to renaming this account, at least it removes any association from my old username and my desired username.
I also have to mention just in case that renaming this account was actually what I was intentioning to do when I vanished the other account, but I never got around to doing it until now and have realized that I prefered retiring.
I'm afraid that wouldn't be possible, as I use the same name across other platforms, and I like that consistency, plus I'm not really sure how to begin to do that in the first place. Ștefan Tărâță (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LTA outing
The LTA is now offering me to go to a specific address to commit acts of violence so that they could stop outing me. This off-wiki behavior is disgusting. Eyesnoretalk💬17:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say it was a delight to see you commenting to an editor I was doing a ref breakdown for - your very helpful critiques have been my inspiration when I wander through AFCHD. Thank you for your great examples! StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, they have a lot to work on. I went for the sources first because they looked very wrong at a glance, and I thought there was no point even suggesting they try to fix the other major problems if there weren't any good sources to get an article from. Sometimes I wish the article creation pages had a huge this is a really terrible idea if you're only just starting to edit Wikipedia warning, it might help... ah well. StartGrammarTime (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)m.[reply]
I have restored the version of the article 166 Medium Regiment (India) before editing by ODSTsog. As far as I could see, edits made by other editors, including you, during the period when ODSTsog was active, were essentially reverts of ODSTsog's editing, rather than substantially new edits, but if I have inadvertently undone significant contributions of yours then please accept my apology, and, of course, restore the contributions. JBW (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're good. I came in to the Indian Army thing relatively late (it had been going on for almost a month at that point) and we're still finding new accounts being registered or crawling out of the woodwork. That this also falls into a contentious topic (IP) makes me less inclined to do more than just target the vandal I know about than to make an editorial judgment on content. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques07:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Protection
@Jéské Couriano:Please, protect List of leaders of Hamas, as an Arbitaration enforcement, as the fact newcomers should not edit this type of articles, along the fact there is a lot of sockpuppetry (if you’re asking why I know a lot, I edited Wikipedia when I was in a I.P.). Protoeus (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and I seem to have trouble with identifying which Forbes articles are written by staffs with oversight, is there some sort of a mark or something in their page that helps to identify them as such? Am I blind? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes Staff articles will always be fine, as those will always be written under editorial oversight. Contributor articles that were run in the print editions of Forbes will have a note to that effect either right after the header or as a postscript to the article, identifying the specific edition it ran in; anything run in the print editions went thru the outlet's editorial process. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques15:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed decision in the Historical elections case posted
Hey JC! Thank you for your clerk work at RFPP/D. When you note that a requested reduction in protection is complicated by the fact that the protection was a logged contentious topics enforcement action, please direct the requester first to the talk page of the protecting admin. AE and ARCA are both good options, but we do generally hope for folks to talk to the protecting admin first—in all cases, and contentious topics especially. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think MGBD has created another sock puppet named Mr.International35. Both of them have similar interest in this particular article, and have similar behaviour on editing, (i.e., Restored MGBD's edits) sounds like a WP:DUCK. If you have time please do check in this page. - Lass121212 (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the subject of that note and the poster of that note have been sock-blocked. It appears that you had mirror-image socks fighting with each other. That is confusing because left and right are the same with socks, so that you can't tell which is the mirror image. But they are both blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that I learned of this thru AfC/HD. There would be a Streisand effect if I went straight to #wikipedia-en-revdel or emailed the Suppressors; I started the MfD so that there's both a paper trail and an unambiguous explanation as to why it's deleted. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques19:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. An interesting unpleasant situation. The child is trying to publicize himself. I think that what you did was the least bad option. Thank you for explaining, and for nominating. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have hesitated to give this reminder since I am technically WP:INVOLVED, but I and other editors in the ideation phase of the EC level pending changes are not finding your recent comments super helpful or productive. There is no need to rush to oppose or support something at this moment. You can and probably should wait until the finalization of the proposal and posting to one of the other forums before you jump into the bandwagon. I have made this mistake before in previous discussions and proposals. AwesomeAasim21:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read anything I've written in re an RfC being required, or are you dismissing it simply because I have no respect for the entire concept? A comprehensive RfC on the matter would need to be what the discussion needs to be looking at, rather than just assuming what is being proposed is a given as seems to be the case, because there is an existingconsensusagainst its existence, and there needs to be proof that the consensus has changed before anything further. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques21:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know, I don't think it's productive to keep reverting on the roblox guy's talk page. An admin will probably revoke their TPA soon enough. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Your comment on my RFPP request does not scream "I'm here to collaborate". I would encourage you to engage with fellow editors in a manner that might aim to inform them of the proper venues to discuss certain topics without implying that they've made some sort of egregious error. Thanks Jéské. :) 71.210.42.253 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule, anyone unfamiliar with Wikipedia whose first edits are to pages under a contentious topic designationare making some sort of egregious error - they're choosing one of the worst and least-friendly-to-the-uninitiated areas to edit in, where their edits are going to be scrutinised and potentially weaponised by people who show far less restraint. I usually recommend users edit in areas not listed at WP:General sanctions#Active sanctions until they are more familiar with Wikipedia and how its consensus model operates. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques20:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is well taken, although we are not simply talking about editing a main page, but a talk page. Limiting the discussions that occur on talk pages, even for contentious topics, is antithetical to the mission of the encyclopedia outside of some brand of blatant vandalism or trolling. Otherwise, how are editors generally supposed to engage in an intellectual analysis of the topics at hand? I have requested that El C downgrade or remove the talk page protection, I guess we'll see how it goes. 71.210.42.253 (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to tworeferrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:
First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.
All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.
Details of the balanced editing restriction
In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.
This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future.
Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed.
They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace).
This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive.
Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.
If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.
Sorry to bother you, but as you have been active on this page before...could you have a look at it, and maybe have a kind word with User:4rju9. I am just going out of the door for the weekend. Thanks in advance. Lectonar (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Woah dude, i have given you reason so many times and fair explanation behind my actions but that even made sense, but you guys are not listening to anything, you guys care about small things that have no effect in the world. But you don't care about real serious matters as a wikipedia writer or editor, i was trying my knowledge best to update those wikipedia pages, but i realised that without reliable sources no change would be possible so i started digging for sources and references. But the problem is even when i find sources these guys are rejecting the changes for no reason without their own research about the source and references not taking anything seriously but when something else other that of a wikipedia moderator they just keeping messing arround like here complaining about me behind my back silently without even mentioning me, dude i thought you could be of some help and guide me regarding the wikipedia but you're not worth it.
And @Jéské Couriano i Respect Wikipedia and its environment I'm just trying to update those pages as it will add value to pages and wikipedia in some way because the current information there is not zero percent of what there should be I'm currently doing my research and finding sources. I'm just a mew member here if i can find some sources then these so called editor can find even more what they don't care about providing value to any wikipedia pages and annoy them who tries to do so. Regarding the complaint he was here for. I've already explained it in the talk page of the mentioned page and I've also explained it to him in my talk page but after continuous attempts of explaining and validating my reason with him. Still he's being ignorant and troubling me with all these while I'm trying my knowledge best to update the pages and find reliable sources. 4rju9 (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Verified Editor do not edit the page and don't care to dig for sources to provide accurate information on the article and wikipedia. But when a new Editor comes they all gather and troubling him.
The other editors are not doing anything about those pages that's why i came to contribute on those pages because they matter to me. And as I'm new ofcourse there can be mistakes that I'm continuously fixing. Please if there can be no help then don't trouble me instead @Lectonar. 4rju9 (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4rju9: Responces like yours are what prompt me to go from ignoring an issue in a topic area I don't care about and wouldn't otherwise edit (such as South Asiansocial strata) to getting to the bottom of why what is going on is going on. For one, "Verified Editor[s]" aren't A Thing. For two, other editors may be actively avoiding those pages because they are in a contentious topic, where there is increased scrutiny of editors and less tolerance for sophistry and vandalism. Contentious topics are quite possibly the worst place to learn how to edit, especially if there is an ethnopolitical aspect to it (as with the Indian Subcontinent). —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques23:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being racist for no reason. I've given fair sources for my changes but they're ignored, I've given explanation regarding why i reverted my edit request still it is ignored. If you don't care about the explanation then why did you ask for it? And why are you guys keep reverting my edit request when you don't want to merge it and don't consider my sources valid what's the point of keeping the edit request valid?
If I had known that this kind of racism would exist here, I would never have come here. I had come here only to contribute but I got to experience the worst of the worst here. 4rju9 (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
for what purpose were you reverting my edit requests and kept troubling me? I have given fair reason and explanation so many times? What is the point of this dumb edit war that reputed Editor doing instead of all the serious matters they're concerned about an edit request that I don't want to be merged anymore? 4rju9 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly tell me how can i withdraw my edit request? As the editors are not letting me remove it myself then what is the other way to do it? 4rju9 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4rju9: I and everyone else reverted it because it's poor form to revert off edit requests that have already been answered (even if you're the one that made the request); it's better in all cases to let it be archived. You cannot withdraw it because someone has already responded to it. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques21:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but i want to request a withdraw for my edit request and it has been copied multiple times which looks like a spam, and the edit request older than me is still haven't archived it was created on 2011. that is why i want to withdraw mine. there has to be an formal way to withdraw my edit request? 4rju9 (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
