Hi. Since you were mediating in the Shusha article, could we have a formal closure of this RfC? The time is due, as RfCs typically last 30 days, and I consider myself too involved to close it. Brandmeistertalk15:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude: unfortunately there's a lot of work to be done. As I mentioned in the merge discussion, it's 3 different articles/article sections compiled into one, so there's a lot of overlap and duplication that needs to be ironed out, the sources need to be checked for consistency and the lead/background sections need to be rewritten. The problem is that the text is now taken from older versions of the articles, so it might be best to start again from scratch rather than trying to manually add all the changes over the last 3 months – but that would mean doing all the tedious work I've already done all over again (for example, the bits from longer articles using <ref name="X" /> needed to have their references reinserted where the refs were defined in other sections, I reordered everything chronologically and I made a start on cutting duplication). I put it to one side because of IRL commitments, but if you're willing to work on it too I can give you a hand and we can split the work. Jr8825 • Talk16:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825: I'll see if I can't get started from scratch. Just to confirm, the merge is of the following three articles, right?
Also, once completed, obviously the first article will become a redirect, but for the second two sections, do we plan on removing those or just condensing them and adding a tophat? ––FormalDudetalk21:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was working with a book and website references these past days on the Owain Glyndŵr article, saw your interest, I appreciate the thanks. I thought I'd add a note on your talk asking if the new reference suffices to the {{by whom tag you added, I'm glad did a reference check, as I found a perfect webpage to reference for his wedding. Also, do you take an interests in the topic, or simply Wikipedia articles ?
Cltjames (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cltjames: thanks for the message and your work on the article. I've read a few books on medieval Welsh history and Glyndŵr's article is on my improve-in-the-future list, so I'll try to keep an eye on its development (and may stop by to tidy things up occasionally). Regarding the sources for the 1383 marriage date, neither of the ones currently cited are very good (they aren't reliable sources – the Glyn Dwr society is WP:SELFPUB and the parish website is written by "Bill" – not a subject matter expert). What's needed is a source written by an expert, such as the book you have by Rees Davies, a well-regarded historian of medieval Wales. The best reliable sources for medieval history are books printed by major publishers; you can also use academic articles that are peer-reviewed (in journals). You can try out the WP:Wikipedia Library (or your local library) if you're looking for these! Jr8825 • Talk18:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cltjames: just following on from my previous message, you may find the National Library of Wales website useful, as it has a free online catalogue of Welsh academic journals, and I can see the Montgomeryshire collections contains a few articles on Glyndwr. Just be cautious with using older articles as they may have a less academic tone. Jr8825 • Talk16:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.
The topics proposed for revocation are:
Senkaku islands
Waldorf education
Ancient Egyptian race controversy
Scientology
Landmark worldwide
The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:
India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
Armenia/Azerbaijan
Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.
I have corrected the quotation from the guardian article. have a look at the edit I've just made. Please do not delete anything currently present on the current article. thanks TG11TG15 (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TG11TG15: the bullet points you've copied without attribution are summaries of the report's proposals written by The Guardian's writers. They need to be rewritten/paraphrased from scratch as there's no justification/need for copying their text. If a specific quote from a copyrighted source is necessary (in this case, it's not), the attribution would need to be explicitly made in the article text by using wording such as "According to The Guardian:" or "In the view of Severin Carrell, Scotland editor of The Guardian:". However, if analysis can be summarised in our own voice, it's always preferable to using direct quotes. Jr8825 • Talk16:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TG11TG15: thanks. I'm not sure whether this content is really within the scope of the article (proposals by an opposition party are not as noteworthy as actual government legislation – we don't, for example, include the Liberal Democrats' proposals for UK reform). However, the copyright issue does now seem to be resolved. Jr8825 • Talk16:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.
Hi Laurel Lodged, I think the wording you suggested leads to an inferior first sentence, and it looks as though another editor has had the same thoughts as me, as they left a hidden note pointing to MOS:AVOIDBOLD. In this case, I think the most relevant guidance is MOS:REDUNDANCY. Hope this clarifies things, Jr8825 • Talk10:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: yes, but bolding is not mandated, MOS:REDUNDANCY outlines situations (such as this one) where it isn't appropriate or desirable. WP:BOLDITIS is an explanatory supplement that goes into more detail about these exceptions to the general rule, and I think there's a good case for saying it should apply here (unless you can think of a more elegant solution for bolding the first sentence, without it being superfluous). Jr8825 • Talk10:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
can you remove the supporting countries infobox thing again? when i merged yours and my edit, for some reason it undone yours edit, so, you can go back there and do what you wanted to (just dont undo my edit so it wont remove what ive added) sorry for the inconvenience. EpicWikiLad (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825: no problem, i was also fixing something that was put by people there (chechnya is a constituent republic of russia, not a separate country), im glad to help. EpicWikiLad (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
I have seen you have taken out the Involvement of the EU in the Revolution of dignity with the remark: "EU involvement as a party to the conflict not supported by source"
Hi JK. Yes, I did skim through the source, which is why I said in my edit summary that it doesn't support including the EU as a "party to the civil conflict", which it was previously being (mis)used to support. (As an aside, infoboxes should only really be summarising information contained in the article body.) What the source does say is that the EU and several individual EU states involved themselves as mediators in efforts to resolve the crisis – but that's not the same as saying they were on the side of the protestors in the internal unrest. It also says there were inconsistencies between the approach of the EU as a whole and individual states, particularly after the Russian military intervention began. It describes the EU as engaging weakly, and says the EU attempted to avoid confrontation with Russia. I have access to the source via my university. If you'd like, I can send you the PDF. Jr8825 • Talk10:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message AbsolutelyFiring. I'd prefer to leave this to another editor, even if it'd largely be a SNOW formality as you suggest, as it's a reasonably well-trafficked page and I imagine another experienced editor will come along to evaluate it soon enough, particularly as I haven't been keeping close tabs on it. There's no particular rush, and it's less impactful than the previous page move (split discussions follow a more informal process than move requests), which also had wider participation. Hope this helps, Jr8825 • Talk20:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Jr8825: Apologies for the intemperate outburst at your tag (on an overlong lead). It is just that the page is so disruption-ridden right now that it is hard to figure what has been undertaken in good faith and what has not. And even when it has, there is always the copycat factor to consider. It is better to simply post on the talk page. Rest assured that your message has registered and I for my part have begun to remove the repetition. Please hold on. If in a couple of weeks it still looks too long, please post on the article's talk page with some suggestions on where and what to cut further. Best regards and many apologies again. Fowler&fowler«Talk»04:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: no worries. I've been watching that page for the last couple of weeks and appreciate the effort you've expended in maintaining a scholarly approach in the face of nationalist POV-pushing. Sorry if my tag felt like it was stepping on toes; I hoped it might redirect focus away from the nationalist warring and towards creating a more succinct neutral summary. I understand it was probably unhelpful in this case, particularly if it's something you and others are aware of. I did slap on the tag with the intention of following up myself, and if I can find the time I'll still try to give a hand. One initial impression, given the size of the lead relative to the body, is that perhaps some sections of the current lead can be directly integrated into the body to expand it, and a new overview can perhaps be written from scratch, which might help us to summarise the academic consensus in a more authoritative manner? Best, Jr8825 • Talk11:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, as you noticed, there is a disconnect between the lead and the article body. That is because the body was written on the fly with poorer sources and richer POV. Anyone and their brother who saw a snippet in the news felt honor-bound to add it to a long list of other snippets. ... A large number of controversial South Asia-related articles have this form. Many have ample citations in the leads which balance the various aspects needing fixing. The citations, moreover, have ample quotes (from paywalled sources) for someone to blend the lead material and NPOV-balance into the article body, as you've stated, maybe even rewrite it. Only then can the lead be rewritten succinctly to reflect a summary of the body.
So, the steps are: 1) rewrite the lead reflecting the latest sources and current NPOV, 2) revise or even rewrite the article body using the lead and its sources as template, 3) rewrite the lead to be a succinct summary. Stage 1 has been completed. Stage 2 usually takes longer, and many such articles never get beyond stage 1. But at least there is a informative lead in place reflecting the latest consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Mackensen, and apologies for taking so long to get round to this. Template:Llanidloes and Newtown Railway (2) appears to be an alternative version I created while testing out ideas for Template:Llanidloes and Newtown Railway, which I made around the same time. That template is used in the article (collapsed at Llanidloes and Newtown Railway#Locations), has since been updated with a extra details by other editors, and is a bit more elegant. The (2) version looks obsolete to me, so unless there's anything in particular about it you think is worth integrating into the main template (I'm happy to make adjustments) I'll go ahead and tag it under CSD. Jr8825 • Talk20:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe timely publication can help nudge countries and companies away from collaborationism behaviour, hence the sense of urgency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I0ving (talk • contribs) 14:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@I0ving: sorry for taking a while to get back to you. Unfortunately, I agree with the comments that the reviewing editor left on your draft – that it overlaps with 2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus, and would consequently be considered a point-of-view fork. Your best option would be to go to the talk page of the boycott article, and discuss any changes you think are necessary there. All Wikipedia content must be well-sourced, but additionally, as language such as "collaboration" is accusatory, our policy of neutrality states that we should avoid making such claims in the article voice and directly attribute it in-text to a reliable authority to show who is saying that X company is "collaborating" (the exception would be if reliable sources are unanimous that something is factual). We would also need to balance out opposing views.
An important thing to bear in mind is that trying to right great wrongs using Wikipedia, or using it as a space for advocacy, even if well-intentioned and value-based (for example, trying to pressurise companies into taking a stance against Russia's aggression), is likely to get in the way of constructive editing. We have a massive positive impact on the world as Wikipedians, but these positive effects come from maintaining Wikipedia's reputation, quality and neutral tone, so that readers trust what they see (and consequently don't fall for misleading propaganda, such as Putin's). You don't need to leave your values at the door, but there's no rush to get things done here as we're all volunteers, and you'll find things much easier if you try to put yourself in the mindset of being an editor first and foremost. I hope these suggestions help you, Jr8825 • Talk14:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 816 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 847 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
On June 13 you made a Bold edit here [1] which was Reverted by Cinderella on the next day. By BRD that means that both of you were to Discuss it in order to establish consensus on the Talk page prior to any further edits. Instead, you went ahead with another revert which appeared to be against Wikipedia policy for BRD. My revert was to follow BRD and allow both of you to establish consensus on the Talk page following BRD policy at Wikipedia. Once consensus is established on the Talk page then all the editors will see the outcome and follow it. I'm not sure that going to RFC was your best approach here though that is up to you; thirty days seems like a long time to wait in order to resolve an issue that could have been discussed directly on Talk. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
Backlog drive
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
TIP – New school articles
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
Misc
There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 15239 articles, as of 18:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC), according to DatBot
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
I did think I could hear a quack. But I wanted to respond regardless, as I dislike having legitimate objections being tarnished by association. Jr8825 • Talk13:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NPP message
Hi Jr8825,
Invitation
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
I do not see what's wrong with my edit, you said "there are multiple sources with quotes provided" so provide them, which ones? You also said:"It's also inappropriate to stick a cite needed tag in the bibliography" and I honestly don't know what you mean, I only added the tags to the lede each of them with an explanation, and asked for them in the talk page beforehand. Hank the Sniper (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hank the Sniper and sorry for my slow response, I've been bombarded by commitments in real life. I'm also sorry for the tone of my edit summary, which I rushed. I made a mistake saying that you added a cite needed tag to the bibliography when reviewing your diff. That said, adding multiple tags in the way that you did is called tag bombing, and considered very unhelpful. It's a common mistake for editors to add lots of issue tags wherever they think there's a problem, but tags should only be used moderately where doing so will directly aid improvement of the article -- it's better to discuss things on the talk page, as you were doing. In this case, lots of cite needed tags to the lead of an article (particularly this one, as it's highly-trafficked, has already undergone extensive peer reviews, and is commonly the target of disruption by denialist editors) creates the impression that the lead's content is unauthoritative and/or unsupported, when in fact it's appropriately sourced in the article body per WP:LEADCITE. Although adding lots of tags (and re-adding them a second time after they were already removed) was unhelpful, that doesn't mean your feedback is necessarily wrong/unhelpful, the best place to address things is on the talk page. I haven't had the time to read the threads you've started but I hope you found the discussions productive; I'm happy to read through them and provide a second opinion if you think this wasn't the case. Best, Jr8825 • Talk11:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
The first ever Vital GA Drive by the WikiProject Vital Articles has begun. The drive aims to improve Coffee and Land to good article status within 45 days, from 1 September to 15 October 2022. The Vital GA Drive is WikiProject Vital Articles's first step at achieving its ambitious goal: all Vital articles achieving good article status by 2032.
Hi Slatersteven, I presume you're referring to my participation in the RfC at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I'm sorry you feel I was too forthright in responding to your arguments, and accept your message as friendly and helpful advice about the potential for bludgeoning if I continued to participate with a similar level of intensity going foward. However, I don't believe my contributions so far equate to bludgeoning and I'd like to explain why.
Reflecting on my participation in the discussion so far, I shared my own thoughts and asked two editors if they could clarify their !votes. In your case, it wasn't clear what your rationale was (you pointed broadly to previous discussions, and I think it's reasonable to request a brief explanation of what you're taking from them) and in the other case, their choice of wording and the complexity of the RfC format caused ambiguity. After you gave brief reasons for your !vote, I offered counter-arguments engaging with the substance of your points. As is commonly done in RfCs, I put this in a new "discussion" thread below the survey and invited others to respond in kind, in order to avoid drowning out newcomers' !votes. My points were unique (not repeating what had already been said), substantive (not just rhetoric) and aimed at facilitating further detailed discussion, so this wasn't bludgeoning. I respect your position that you've now adequately expressed your argument; other editors can choose to respond to my points if they feel there are additional points to make. My response to the other editor was similarly based on respectful engagement with their points and policy-based counter-argument.
I'm aware of how disruptive bludgeoning can be. Over-energetic participation is something I'm mindful of because I'm passionate about our project and I tend to hyperfocus on topics because of my ADHD. I try to step back when I think I'm rehashing points or monopolising the conversation, but I'm not perfect. I'd agree at this point that I've given my perspective on the issue and the arguments raised and have little more to offer, beyond responding where genuinely necessary to direct replies to my points, or perhaps engaging with major new arguments that may emerge, or changing my view. I expect to play a more minor role in the RfC going forward.
I think my contributions so far have been in line common RfC etiquette and not unreasonably excessive. In my defence, I'd point to the process of deliberation outlined at WP:PNSD (the not-vote supplement): constructive engagement with opposing views is a key part of the collaborative process – unless we try to understand and question each other's viewpoints then all we're doing is polling. In particular, I'd point to WP:ALLARGUMENTS as a model of discussion very similar to how I responded to your arguments. I hope this addresses your concerns, but if you have more specific suggestions or advice I'm happy to hear it. Jr8825 • Talk16:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just me, nor is it your "forthrightness" it is the fact you are clut4ing the RFC (it seems) with a reply to every post that says nay to your preferred option. I am waning you now you ae approaching bludgeoning, before you step over it. You need to step back and let the RFC run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree about the appropriateness of my previous contributions, but I don't think there'll be any problems going forward as I've said above that I accept your advice and intend to reduce my participation. Jr8825 • Talk17:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven has asked me move this related discussion to your Talk page from the Invasion article Talk page. I'm supporting Slatersteven in the assertion he makes against your edit conduct both for the edit which he discusses as well as your edit warring over the past several months. You apparently have a long edit history of edit warring with other editors dating back at least to 15 June when you were edit warring with Cinderella157 here: [2]. Your understanding of BRD appears to be rather mistaken and your edit was corrected at that time. Still, you appear to have made the same BRD edit error over this last week-end just now on the 2011 Russian invasion of Ukraine article where your edit was rolled back by another editor, largely because you seem to lack a capacity to assume good faith in other editors like Cinderella and myself.
In addition, you now appear to be edit warring on the Invasion Talk page concerning the section title which was added by the person who started that Talk thread; Wikipedia convention is to keep the title of a Talk page as it was started, in this case by myself, and which you appear to be edit warring about in order to put it into your preferred format. I've requested on the Talk page there that you restore the original title of that thread, which you appear to have ignored.
Your history of edit misconduct seems extensive and Slatersteven asked me to re-post it here from the Invasion Talk page for purpose of discussion. My comments there stated: "My appreciation to Keith D for taking time off from his week-end to update the edit request. There are several issues which have arisen in the last day or so to point to questions about the edit conduct of User:Jr, both here and on other threads on this Talk page. When I visited his Talk page with questions about his recent edits, it was unexpected for me to see him having another edit dispute with Slatersteven concerning his conduct/misconduct on this Talk page. Now when I ask him to cooperate with a BRD request, he appears to balk at it and require the article to go through a roll back in order for discussion to continue under Wikipedia policy. Although User:Jr is an experienced editor who contributed early on to this article on the Invasion, more recently over the last 2-3 months, his edit appearances have been sporadic with some active days of editing, and then disappearances for several weeks at a time. About 2-3 months ago, he appears to have started a somewhat questionable RfC on a topic which seems to have been of little interest to most editors; that RfC was unproductive almost from the very start (June 15, currently in Archive #9)."
Another editor, User:S Marshall, has written about the misuse of RFCs by editors and possibly he can comment here about the RFC you started on the invasion article which did not seem productive or useful. The RfC is currently in Archive#9 from 15 June. Your use of that RFC seemed to use up editor resources without providing useful insight.
The question of your knowledge of matters regarding the Invasion itself and the situation of your having little knowledge of the importance of the 'first phase' to 'second phase' distinction is troubling since I've provided multiple links to articles dealing with Phase Two though you have not responded to a single one of them. Your own comment stating that there was "little meaningful journalism" about Phase Two could not be verified and you apparently were not aware of any of the multiple links which I provided for you to read and acknowledge. Your lack of knowledge of this basic term in international journalism about the Invasion is troublesome and puts into question your relative ability to edit the article.
Slatersteven can read this entry here and decide if Jr's extended history of edit warring and refusal to follow good faith guidelines warrants further concern. My original thoughts were to discuss this as a possible Page Ban or Page restriction, though Slatersteven appears to feel it might be put on formal ANI for discussion. If Steven decides to file noticeboard about these matters combined with the ones which he has already discussed with you above, then he can ping me for support on the noticeboard. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. My invitation for you to share your concerns on my talk page asked for "actionable/practical suggestions for things I can do better". Copying your original message from the article talk page isn't this. In my initial reply to this message, I explained that because you didn't provide diffs of my alleged misconduct I felt you were casting WP:ASPERSIONS (a 3-month-old diff of you accusing me of misconduct doesn't count; as it happens, I said at the time I disagreed with your reading of the situation). I should have made it more explicit at the time, but I consider these unevidenced accusations -- "edit warring over the past several months"/"Your history of edit misconduct seems extensive"/"situation of your having little knowledge" etc. -- to be personal attacks. I initially avoided saying this because it escalates things, and hoped we would return to a content-based discussion. I asked you to stop discussing my conduct on the article talk page (as had another editor). I explicitly said I felt were breaching NPA after you wrote this. You responded today with another attack on the article talk page ("I'm requesting that you reconsider your previous refusal to edit by AGF"). I've invited you to join me in refocusing on the content.
There are things I think I could do better. I'm a passionate editor, and my episodically intense (as in high participation, and enthusiasm for policy-based debate) engagement with topics can sometimes be overbearing, but there's no rule against this per se, and it's largely a function of my ADHD. I do, however, always try to be considerate, collaborative and self-reflective. In this case in particular, as I said on the talk page, it was foolish of me to make a bold change and then immediately carry out series of large copy-edits. However, a reasonable editor appreciative of WP:OWN would have opted for a partial revert after I explained the problem. It's because I don't engage in edit wars, and you don't consider others, that this is now lost. I expressed my disappointment and quickly accepted it. I can live with it, but instead of expressing concern or remorse, you then decided to start a thread about my conduct and engage in utterly baseless attacks, such as saying I have an "extended history of edit warring and refusal to follow good faith guidelines".
By all means start a noticeboard thread. I'm still prepared to turn the other cheek, as I see it, and go back to discussing content. It'll save us all time, and I personally think you may be at risk of a WP:BOOMERANG (unless I'm entirely wrong about all of this, which I suppose is a possibility). If you do start a noticeboard thread, I will link to this (diff-supported) explanation, though, and I'll ask editors to read the two relevantthreads and come to their own conclusions. Jr8825 • Talk20:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you are doing the same thing by creating a content-fork of discussion on the Invasion TP by starting a 'new' section already started by EarnestKrause - drop/delete that one and continue on his original thread please - you're making a very confusing hash of the TP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.29.1 (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything to add to my explanation on the talk page: "The original thread about this has unfortunately been derailed by a long-winded discussion about reversion and conduct, rather than the substance of the proposals themselves. I'm starting this thread with a clearer breakdown of the changes to facilitate discussion and make participation easier."Jr8825 • Talk19:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
