You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I don't think where you placed your RfC on the talk page helped it gain attention. It would have been better placed at the bottom of the talk page where most people look for new discussion. Anyway, I repeat, when you open an RfC it is customary to wait for it to be closed before making related edits. You appear to be rushing matters.
Also, please address further discussion of this matter to me on the talk page of the article. A ping or namecheck there will attract my attention. Oska (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brexit and the Irish Border:deletions
You have clearly been around here long enough to know that deletion of credible content is the last resort, not the first. I'm at a loss to understand your reasoning, since the material is certainly credible and was widely reported. I have reverted your deletions, this time tagging with template:cn as you should have done. --Red King (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Red King: "One of the three most important areas" is not encylopedic, NPOV language. It is a subjective assessment; different parties will perceive different areas of negotiation as important. I see you added references, good for you, but they still do not support that language. There were three separate negotiation topic groups established, yes, and one of those was for the border but that might just be because it is a difficult and intricate matter to negotiate, not a mark of its importance over other matters. I don't agree that that language should be in the article (which is why I removed it, didn't just ask for a citation). Your reversions have re-introduced interpretative bias into the article. Oska (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate your logic, thank you for explaining - though I still think that your edit was unhelpful. The media certainly considered these aspects as important. They were listed in May's A50 letter, so certainly not incidental.
I accept that it is a leap of logic to go from a decision to have dedicated negotiating strands on these points to declaring them the most important. How about "most difficult"? --Red King (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Red King: Thank you for these replies. How about "one of three focus areas identified for special negotiation" or something along those lines? I think that better reflects the references. "Most difficult" would still be a subjective interpretation and we could only quote someone saying something like that, not put it down as objective fact. Oska (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Red King: I've seen your later edit. Thanks for accommodating my concerns. One last point, just for completeness. Looking at the first source, the agreed terms of reference pdf, under point 3 of "Negotiation Structures" you can see that the Irish border wasn't actually one of the three groups. They were 1) Citizens' rights, 2) Financial Settlement and 3) Other Separation issues. Presumably the Irish border comes under area 3. But they then go on to say "In addition, a dialogue on Ireland / Northern Ireland has been launched under the authority of the Coordinators." The other two sources misinterpret this, it appears, but the first source is the canonical one (as it's the two parties' formally declared terms of reference).
Anyway, I'm just commenting on this for completeness and before I move on. I'm not interested at this time in further editing of this article. Up to you if you want to act on what I've said here. Cheers, Oska (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
US Regime Change RFC
Thank you for your contribution to that RFC survey. I guess you saw the outcome. As a more experienced Wikipedian, I am wondering if you would consider modifying the proposed text according to the specifications of the closing editor and resubmitting it. My writing is apparently too "POV". Best, GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GPRamirez5: thanks for alerting me to the outcome of that RFC. I'm sorry but I don't have a lot of time for Wikipedia at present. I'm still making edits but mostly only copy-edits of articles I read day to day. I don't think I could take on getting involved in the rather intense wrangling over additions to that article at this time. Oska (talk) 11:55, 26 August 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.
My sincere apologies, Oska, for posting from an iPhone while waiting for all-day medical appointments, and not catching up and retracting soon enough. I hope you will accept my apology and corrections here. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recently initiated Draft:Yasmine Mohammed as stub article. Pl. do have a look at the article and if interests you then join in expanding the same with suitable references.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 edit comments reverting my edit (twice) have only used emotive language and not given any good justification for your reverts. You are welcome to better explain your reasons for reversion here, as they have not been satisfactory so far. Oska (talk)
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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
It's dumb. And I've just looked through my contribution history and the only other edits I can find that are in any way Covid related are from February 2020 where I did two non-controversial additions to COVID-19 pandemic on cruise ships. So I've actually shown little interest in editing articles on Covid. Oska (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexbrn you have shut down and then deleted my questioning the appropriateness of this notice on your talk page. I never delete anything from my talk page and I find it dubious behaviour from people who do. Furthermore, I find it very disappointing that you are not prepared to justify your actions when asked to do so. Oska (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May 2021
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. 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!Alexbrn (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey bud. We are having another value judgment discussion over on the tether talk page. Trying to get to the bottom of the right thing to do rather than emotive argument I hope. You enunciated the value judgment really well before. If you would like to chime in please do. Thank you!DaxMoon (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turby wind turbine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
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.
Your very header was "Hope you're happy to get subpoenaed", and then you talked about "restoring libelous statements to a Biography of a Living Person". My italics. Did you follow my link to the policy Wikipedia:No legal threats? See especially the sections "Perceived legal threats" and "Rationale for the policy". All you have to do is explicitly assure me below, or the reviewing admin (by using the unblock template I indicated above), that you have no intention of taking legal action, and you will be unblocked. Saying "I clearly made no 'legal threat'" isn't quite the same thing. Bishonen | tålk13:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
