Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Theroadislong were:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Tacklebox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, NotQualified!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Douglas Gore, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hello, NotQualified. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Tacklebox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Android Studio, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Pitt also dated Shalane McCall[1][2][3] when he was 24 and she was 15 who co-starred with him on the show Dallas. When asked about his favourite sex scene in W magazine's Best Performances issue, Pitt said 'it would have been in the show Dallas [with McCall]. I had to roll around in the hay in a barn. I don't think I had a line. I was just rolling and frolicking.' [4]
i definitely did not 'attack' or 'threaten', and 'disparage'? i sourced everything i said which can be fiund in the articles, i didnt add my opinions NotQualified (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ted Cruz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democrat. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.
I replied to you on my Talk page, where you asked me a question. Did you receive an email alerting you that I had replied there? Or is it necessary to reply on your Talk page for you to receive an email alerting you? Thanks.
In case you were not alerted, this is what I wrote:
I am confused. First of all, I did not receive an email telling me that you had replied on your Talk page; I checked myself. Can you explain when emails are sent and when they are not?
Second, is there a connection between your brad pitt edits and your lincoln edits? I've never visited Brad Pitt's Wikipedia page, and I still don't know what lincoln edits you referred to. Maurice Magnus (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
when i opened your message i received four random links to my brad pitt edit and you mentioned four footnotes, i was deeply confused myself and im not really sure whats going on right now NotQualified (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) NotQualified, your edit to Assassination of Abraham Lincoln was removed by Shearonink, not Maurice Magnus. Shearonik explained why in the edit summary: Not an improvement for the lead section/in infobox attack on Grant didn't fail - it never happened/sentence in lead was too long,had too many clauses. Also, if you want to notify another editor when making a comment, use WP:PING. Schazjmd(talk)15:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i mustve clicked on the wrong user profile then? i read that summary but it wasnt clear enough if the info as a whole was wrong or just wrongly placed NotQualified (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The automated portion of the edit summary explains that Shearonink was restoring the version by Maurice Magnus. Anyway, when you've been reverted, the best thing to do is start a discussion on the talk page to get input from other editors. Schazjmd(talk)17:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Political capital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Bush.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Great Replacement. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Doug Wellertalk08:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you dismissed the inclusion of a critical piece of info on the grounds of your only personal views being "the sort of people who believe in that stuff would find another excuse for xenophobic conspiracy theories". it frankly does not matter how deplorable a view is, and i feel the Russell's teapot quota has been fulfilled where it was up to you to re-clarify your stance rather than say i failed to assume good faith. again, it appeared you rejected the inclusion of critical info on the grounds you didnt like it. maybe i interpreted wrong, in which case apologies. but a conspiracy theory about being demographically replaced not including figures relevant to that seems, well... biased... sorry if my tone is harsh, just sorta tired. i think we can talk there and re-clarify stances as we're both acting in good faith however. NotQualified (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again you seem confused and I have no idea what you are talking about. I removed text that said "a clear reference to the plantations of Ireland under British rule which still scars the Irish psyche." with no citation. Doug Wellertalk13:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NotQualified! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Great Replacement that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Your unsourced text was clearly not a minor edit by our definition.Doug Wellertalk08:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here[1] you wrote:
"In 2013, Mandelson told the Blairite think-tank Progress: ‘In 2004, as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them.’ [1] This was the first ever admission from a high-ranking Labour member that Labour intentionally dismantled immigration control in order to replace working class voters who had turned to the Tory party. This example is often used as proof of a wider Great Replacement Theory across Europe by right-wing groups."
The first sentence after the quote is original research interpreting the quote, the second is of course unsourced.
This is yet another example of your editing about this issue. I'm going to give you a contentious topics alerts for post 1992 American Politics as you don't seem to have received one, although the article itself mentions it. Doug Wellertalk07:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i will look into this. thank you. about 1992 american politics, mandelson is a british politican so i am unsure why this affects american politics. please clarify. NotQualified (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the last edits i made related to post 1992 amercian politics was to obama adding he attended jury duty? prior i believe was mentioning obamomics is a portmanteau ages ago. are you referring to british politics? NotQualified (talk) 09:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i will get solid sources. i feel the CT alert is overkill, especially as ive shown you personally sources i had but didnt know if were reliable, i definitely did jump the gun in writing and i shouldve just linked the source in the article, even if unreliable, as where i received the info but again, thank you. for other wikipedians, i try to follow the rules and if i screw up it's never malice. apologies and thanks.NotQualified (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's standard, everyone who edits in the area should have one unless they've been involved in a WP:AE discussion or given someone else one. And your focus is mainly on one issue within the topic area, you should have had one earlier. Doug Wellertalk13:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Wellertalk07:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We enforce our policies and guidelines more strictly in CT pages. You are showing a lack of good faith there and some might see it as bludgeoning as well. Doug Wellertalk19:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lack of good faith??? i started a 5 day long consensus gathering on WP:SYNTH just to confirm that sources do not have to have the article's name in verbatim to be valid after you said as such and that id be banned for not complying and now youre arguing im bludgeoning?? the people on WP:SYNTH are aware of the context, they still disagreed. let it go and stop this hounding. i am not acting in bad faith, i have listened to your concerns. NotQualified (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i am not talking about 'hounding' as in a wikipedia rule. just informally. do not worry i am not accusing you of that. was unfamiliar it was wikipedia terminology NotQualified (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Formal warning for BLP violations
Hi NotQualified. After verifying a recent thread opened at the BLP noticeboard about an edit to Gordon Brown, I arrived at your talk page to check if you were aware of the fact biographies of living people are under our contentious topics system. Not only you should be aware of that, but I noticed that this is not the first time you've been warned for problematic edits in the area. For that reason, I'm giving you a formal warning, which I'll be logging under CT/BLP. Be more careful in the future. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈23:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hey! yeah i thought the telegraph was a respected source according to the wikipedia policy so i included it and made a talk page notice about the inclusion. wasnt trying to cause annoyance or anything! NotQualified (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"but I noticed that this is not the first time you've been warned for problematic edits in the area."
the mandelson debacle? trust me this has been a dogfight for months that ive lost energy in it. if i recall in that instance the source was there but i didnt add it (cant recall why) / forgot to. it was a daily mail opinion piece which was responded to in the telegraph. that was just an accident. NotQualified (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> Be more careful in the future.
for anyone reading this, i sourced an opinion piece in the telegraph that asserts that a government official informed the bbc that the brown administration had blocked investigations into child rape. while the claim may be genuine (and i guess is being investigated by wikipedians), it was too "bold" to add without first gathering consensus via talk page. NotQualified (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My logging of my warning to you (here is the diff) means that another misstep is likely to result in sanctions (such as a topic ban or a full on block). And by "repeated incidents", I also mean this draft, which was eventually deleted as an attack page. Our policy on biographies of living people is one of our most important ones, and one I take very seriously. If you continue to show an inability to follow that policy, you will eventually be blocked. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈01:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"another misstep" right hold on what occurred was a potential breach here, not an outright definitive one. i sourced but the source is being doubted. your diff doesnt reflect the potential-ness, it makes it out that i definitely did something wrong.
> which was eventually deleted as an attack page
oh right gore, ages ago. yeah that was my first brush up with BLP. the claims there were all sourced and i hardly have a motive to smear some random corpse butcher. if i recall he just wasnt noteworthy of an article and i couldve written it more "impartially", however it's not my fault the verbatim of the sources themselves were gruesome due to the nature of his crimes... still i learnt from that, then i accidentally didnt add my source one time, and now im being investigated a year plus later into a potential misstep into a claim that was 100 percent made by the man in question and that was sourced by a respected source citing the BBC as being knowledgeable in it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5GM3fkM_uk and i even made a talk page to discuss if it was cool as i added it. look man, im not an avid or intentional rule breaker and a full on block for another "misstep" would be, well, excessive. NotQualified (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> one I take very seriously
do not conflate this into being rash about judgements. what was written is being investigated, and it was not some baseless slander but a genuine claim from a government official on the bbc radio. NotQualified (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit. While you don't need citations in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE, it does need to be verified in the body, which it is not. You should also be aware there have been past discussions to gain consensus over the content in the first sentence; so making these changes without first gaining consensus, on such a contentious topic, is ill advised. CNC (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
right okay hold on then this is a different matter, it isnt that im wrong but i need consensus. i was "too bold".
on a matter of what i wrote and about "it does need to be verified in the body":
youre taking me up on this by saying "journalist"? thats a BLP violation? so if you release multiple documentaries on a news topic, youre not a journalist? what "organisation" is an authority on what a journalist even is, thats a genuine question, who do i have to cite in order to refer to someone as a journalist? i think having in his article that he has produced multiple documentaries is in itself proof it is verified in the body, if not what is? NotQualified (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No this isn't a different matter, I was simply trying to provide you some additional context. I see that only appears to be a distraction though so ignore. "who do i have to cite in order to refer to someone as a journalist?" You cite a reliable source, nothing else, not your own interpretation, nor your own original research. CNC (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and that formal warning was given because the telegraph wasnt deemed a good enough source in quoting a crown prosecutor, what i wrote was factually true, nazir afzal did say what he said about brown's home office. i disagree with the assertion that it was even a valid BLP violation, what i wrote was objectively true and sourced from an article that sourced a BBC radio interview NotQualified (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mind you, the telegraph is deemed a valid wikipedia source and i have very choice words to the editor who awarded me said violation. i have detailed them in my response for all to see, i do not think it is at all valid. NotQualified (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I actually thought the warning over the Gordon Brown incident was incredibly harsh, however it's beside the point and this isn't about that. If you have been formally warned for BLP violations you should be extremely careful in that contentious topic area to avoid being blocked. Your edit to the Robinson page did not suggest you were being cautious at all. CNC (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i added "journalist" to an article about a man who has released multiple documentaries. unless theres an official definition on what a journalist is that wikipedia operates under and i was in violation of it, i would argue it is beyond self-evident and self-confirming that someone who does journalism is a journalist. do you want me to make a talk page on this NotQualified (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> I'll be honest, I actually thought the warning over the Gordon Brown incident was incredibly harsh
... this really just goes back to who is a "reliable source" on who qualifies to be a journalist. another journalist...? if you want me to operate under finding a single article that refers to him as a "journalist" under the WP verified sources that can be worked with, sure.
what about his "documentaries", in your view should someone who makes documentaries be called a "documentarian" or should it be written he is a person who has made documentaries but he does not qualify as a documentarian despite producing documentaries because no one in WP verified referred to him as such. i have opened a talk page into tommy about his "documentaries", not specifically this but more just listing them NotQualified (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article on WP:RS, you will understand what is considered a reliable source. There are numerous examples at WP:RSP and sources are regularly discussed at WP:RSN. In ssummary, it's the WP community that decides whether a source is reliable or not, which would therefore determine if someone is described as a journalist or not. I'm otherwise not here to discuss edits you want to make on the Robinson page, this discussion is about adding unsourced material to BLP, and you've already started a discussion about this on the appropriate talk page. CNC (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i have read this a year ago in a debacle about mandelson, i know wikipedia has a list of sources.
"it's the WP community that decides whether a source is reliable or not, which would therefore determine if someone is described as a journalist or not."
right so i need to find a source that refers to him as a journalist that has due weight, i cant infer he is a journalist from the sources referring to his work as documentaries. this is heightened due to his controversial nature and locked page.
> "adding unsourced material to BLP"
for future editors, i added in verbatim "journalist" (nothing else) to his opening sentences on the grounds he has produced multiple documentaries detailed in his body. NotQualified (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on MOS:OPENPARABIO, you would need multiple sources referring to Robinson as a journalist, per "reflect the balance of reliable sources", in order for it to be WP:DUE and to avoid a WP:FALSEBALANCE, as his other descriptions in the first sentence are covered by multiple reliable sources. So to clarify, a single reliable source referencing Robinson as a journalist would not be due nor balanced. Describing Robinson as a journalist, because he has produced documentaries, is otherwise not verbatim. CNC (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello NotQualified! Your additions to Oldham Council have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions)03:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
right, is this due to the huge block quotes? for the stuff i took from the source i tried changing a couple words but seemingly thats not enough, this was in response to me being told i didnt properly represent the views of the sources so this time i stayed extremely close to what was said and now im being told i was too close NotQualified (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The block quotes were a problem but they weren't the biggest problem. You copied and pasted directly from the source, at most you changed a couple of the words. You've admitted it yourself. when i instead virtually copy paste verbatim text from multiple sources. Even when you said, 'vitrually copy paste'. emphasis on 'virtually'. i have changed wording somewhat except for quotes. i was previously told i didnt properly represent sources so i stayed extremely close to what sources said, that's close paraphrasing which is still a copyright violation. You have to put what the source said in your own words, not theirs. — The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions)15:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding North Korean involvement in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Russian Invasion of Ukraine.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Please remember that WP:AGF is Wikipedia policy. Accusing other editors of "bad faith" edits isn't in keeping with that policy. You need to restrict your comment to content, not to other editors or your perception of their actions. You're editing in a contentious content area, it's important to keep in mind that your edits will be subject to more scrutiny than in less contentious areas. It's important to stay within the lines. Guettarda (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also say you're over the three-revert rule on that article. Have a look at your edits. If you agree with me that you've made more than three reverts, I recommend self-reverting and stepping away from the article for a bit. Guettarda (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
my final two reverts dont qualify:
Reverting obviousvandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
This isn't obvious vandalism. Having been a Wikipedia admin for 19 years, I can tell you that this isn't "obvious vandalism". The only problematic language is "far right activist", and that because it's unsourced. Guettarda (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if they sourced it, i wouldnt have reverted it. his page had to be raised in protection due to violations and i see original research of an egregious claim being added to the lede, of course im reverting, and that doesnt add to three revert. im only on one. NotQualified (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nope, not respecting this. they literally listed nazis and then said a comedian was among their ranks, did not cite their sources for egregious claims of tony being a far right racist, violated edit warring rules, expressing desire to see them fired?
i have listed a set of rules this individual has violated. do not accuse me of incorrectly identifying bad faith, they have been reported and should be dealt with swiftly. NotQualified (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
an editor with over 10000 contributions is not accidentally doing this, especially as the page had to be raised due to recurring vandalism a minute before their edits NotQualified (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they literally listed nazis and then said a comedian was among their ranks
it's [[WP:NOR]], they shouldnt write absurd claims on a BLP or its talk page. if they were a new editor, id expect they were not familiar with the rules. this person has 10000+ edits. seriously? far right racist in the lede without a source while there is a neutrality warning tag and a talk page to discuss for consensus. NotQualified (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the error you accidentally added to the infobox on Robert Reich's article for you :D
I've been looking through your contributions, and a bit of friendly advice from someone who's done something similar to what you're currently doing: don't step into contentious topics just yet, especially ones that are still developing. Yes, I'm referring to the NK troops in Russia. This isn't me having a go at you, I'm just saying maybe just leave the issue until sources have confirmed the purpose and such. The article is extended-protected, so there's very little chance of vandalism. Sirocco745 (talk) 01:59, 31 October 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.
That's the thing I'm not sure about but I get what you mean. It was specifically Jess Philips' handling of Oldham that got Musk so angry at her, I think it could be re-written to include that NotQualified (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So was Labour blocking, all sources were linked under the Failsworth Independent remark. In fairness, I should've pasted the source closer to the remark. NotQualified (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I didn't see that my apologies, the sources where 2 paragraphs removed from the quote, in future I would put them closer to your quote it also may be beneficial for you to source on visual edit by using " <ref " it should open a reference inserter which will allow you to generate an automatic title and date for your quote so it is not just a bare link. Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) == January 2025 == Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring'#User:Hemiauchenia by User:NotQualified (Result: No violation). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Wellertalk09:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, I have written very extensively (but not even exhaustively which I will detail to you step by step if needs be) on how they've operated in bad faith. I know we are supposed to assume good faith, I did. This user is acting poorly and has repeatedly been complained about by other users for their repeated bad faith edits on child sexual abuse in the UK. Looking at their logs, they report mainly on right wing authors who have discussed at length child sex abuse (e.g. Douglas Murray), child sex abuse it self, or the peripharies of Islam. I am operating on the grounds this user is definitely not a good faith actor (not because of their topics of discussion but because of their actions, I'm just adding context of what this person posts on)
Just to be clear, I know you want me to "comment on content", the problem is that this users obstructs content to begin with or refuses to engage with it through instant reverts and nonsensical revert logs. I'll give you an example, they said they had consensus that "moral panic" and such was agreed upon when discussing child rape by muslims in the UK in response to me adding the non-balance and weasel word tags (this response has literally no relation to weasel words which they also reverted just citing in verbatim "No." but I digress) so I read the very long discussion they tag and it is just a merge request with most people disagreeing with the content.
That's one example of many I have, I can spend the next three hours with you discussing bad faith by this user if you want. I find it deeply disturbing they have such a log count on the above topics given their behaviour.
I literally went line by line with in line template tags because the article was that badly written just to explain to them my problems and instead of engage with that they revert again and cite my "right wing bias". Do you understand how frustrating this is, this is beyond accidental.
I understand you want me to be cool and I'm sorry but this is not a discussion on apples or houses, this is about mass child rape. I cant comment on content when thats something they refuse to engage with or provide. I met this user yesterday and I have already so much to say. NotQualified (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to clarify that in fairness to them the merge does specifically make light of the term "moral panic" but not weasel words, and furthermore I believe the section has a bias and I went in-line line by line to show that, it's not just "moral panic". NotQualified (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
January 2025
Your edit to James McMurdock has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Diannaa (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am deeply confused here. What did I write that was copy and pasted? I think I'm being flagged for copying quotes, which in case, Sky News does not own other people's words. Quotes are not something a newspaper gets to say is theirs. NotQualified(talk)22:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were some quotes, but I didn't remove any quotes. I removed "Labour pushed to make mandatory Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for any prospective parliamentary candidates in the future. McMurdock said he would "support that motion", though no Reform MP voted for it in an early day motion when it was laid in parliament."Diannaa (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah, i thought as i cited sky news in text directly people would understand this was a sky quote but in retrospect that wouldve been silly. thanks for this. i tried to change up some of the language but looking at what was written vs whats in the article it's pretty close. cut too close to the bone as they say. it wasnt intentional, thanks! NotQualified(talk)22:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
