This is an archive of past discussions with User:TarnishedPath. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, my edit to Bob Hawke was to add a link to the notable historical event that Hawke attended (as noted in the caption). I’m not sure why this was reverted as vandalism. 159.196.100.171 (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
My apologies. I didn't realise the event was commonly referred to as "Apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples". I thought it was commonly referred to as "Apology to the Stolen Generations". Just looked at the page now and confirmed your edit was correct and I've self-reverted my edit. TarnishedPathtalk08:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
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.
I have previously tried to correct inaccuracies on the page relating to the above person. The changes were to correct inaccuracies. Almost the next day this changes were reversed. You have asked me to talk to you before changing anything else. So here goes. The first paragraph suggest she was at an "an anti-trans rally". This is not true. it was a rally in favour of biologically based sex rights. It further says Ne0Nazis attended this rally. They did not. It was a separate rally close to but not part of the rally Moira Deeming was attending. These factually inaccurate points are repeated in the Anti-Trans rally section of her Wikipedia entry. These entries slyly seek to suggest Ms. Deeming is in some way linked to Neo-Nazi groups. I would appreciate if these false claims were removed or I can remove them and you can then if you not allow these slurs to be repeated. Many thanks for your time. Clanrickard (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
@Clanrickard, I invited you to discuss the topic at Talk:Moira Deeming. That is the appropriate place for such a discussion to take place. However to answer your request, Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say. If you edit in the way that you suggest you are going to then I can guarantee that you will have people reverting you because what you plan on doing is contrary to what is conveyed in reliable sources. If you believe other editors and my reading of reliable sources is incorrect, please feel free to discuss it in the article's talk page. TarnishedPathtalk11:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Untrue. The statement that Neo-Nazis attended the rally she was at has NO references backing it up which is required for a Wiki entry. At the very least if you are going to allow this to stay then I should be able include Deemings rebuttal that these Neo-Nazis had nothing to do with the rally she was attending. Clanrickard (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
There was only one rally, which the neo-nazis attended. The reliable sources do not reference multiple rallies like your edits claimed. Now again if you think other editors and myself are misinterpreting the sources, the article's talk page found at Talk:Moira Deeming is the appropriate forum to discuss it as it could be anyone who will revert you if you make the changes that you suggest you will. I've already called your attention to the article's talk page previously so I heavily suggest you take any content discussions there. TarnishedPathtalk12:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I have done so. And no these Neo-Nazis were not at the same rally. This is a wilful misinterpretation of the facts. I have put up a post in the Talk page so hopefully my suggestions will be taken on board. Clanrickard (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure. Caution is advised because that policy and the related items that the section links are taken very seriously, but at the same time I tried to phrase my post above in a way that made clear I understood that harassment isn't your intent here. As I noted in my reply in the article talk page, the suggestion that the photo creator's affiliation or political views somehow makes the photo unusable, is not correct. So there isn't a great reason to be including those links at all. VQuakr (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I get you. I did read an exception in that policy about where an editor has identified themselves but I've removed the links that were there out of caution anyway. TarnishedPathtalk23:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
@VQuakr. I disagree with your assertion that "the photo creator's affiliation or political views" should not factor into an image's usability. In isolation I would agree that a user's affiliation or political views should have no bearing on their editing; but in this case, since usability arguments regarding the image involve COI and non-neutrality facets, these facts about the uploader are not only appropriate to include in the discussion but practically necessary for establishing those things. In fact almost all COI of interest editing revolves around the user's affiliations virtually by definition of what a COI is. If I work at Kraft foods, it's a COI of interest to edit the Kraft articles. If I am the head of the Democratic National Committee, it'd be a conflict to edit political articles about Democrats and Republicans. etc. Why? Because of my affiliations. This case is no different than that. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not aware that evidence has been presented that anyone affiliated with the subject has substantially edited the article. Regardless, working for Kraft and being head of the DNC are false equivalences since I believe the concern TP noted was that the original image author/copyright holder is right wing, not affiliated with the org. VQuakr (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Or he just knows how to make a buck off of the Right, but yes, people with right-wing views may promote MAGA. Frankly I'm not seeing any evidence from a web search that they are affiliated with PB or any other org. But again, even if they were they still haven't substantially edited the article. To continue the Kraft analogy: if Kraft freely licenses a nice-looking, professionally-produced photo of some mac and cheese, we're not going to avoid using it just because it's by Kraft. VQuakr (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Hello TarnishedPath, we need experienced volunteers.
New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dr vulpes was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at 2014 Isla Vista killings instead.
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:Elliot Rodger 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, TarnishedPath!
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! Dr vulpes(Talk)19:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello @TarnishedPath. You have currently done 3 reversions on the Nick McKenzie article. Another one within 24 hours will put you in violation of the WP:3RR rule. Furthermore, you did not receive a consensus to make the edit in the first place. Please do not perform another reversion. Mkstokes (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say you performed 3 reversions in the last 24 hours. Your reading comprehension skills here and on reading reliable source material have been noted several times. Please don't put words into my mouth. I said you've done 3 reversions. That is not "patently incorrect." WP:3RR also includes those using the 24-hour rule to game the system. Note that "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Mkstokes (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
To violate WP:3RR an editor needs to revert more than 3 times within 24 hours. I suggest you read the policy. As I've only reverted 2 times in the last 24 hours you placing a warning of WP:3RR on my talk page is incorrect. Now please at least read policies before leaving messages on people's user page's which refer to them. TarnishedPathtalk12:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I did read the policy in detail. It says, in part, "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior." You have 2 inside and 1 just outside the 24-hour window. I would surmise that is why the Nick McKenzie article hasn't been reverted since my last reversion. Please don't be obtuse. It doesn't suit you by half.Mkstokes (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Learn to count. The 1 you refer to is not just outside the 24-hour window. It is a number of hours outside the 24 hour window. Now, you have no justification for warning someone about WP:3RR when they have only reverted 2 times in the last 24 hours. Now go away. TarnishedPathtalk13:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Notice of request to protect the Nick McKenzie article from factually inaccurate edits
My apologies. I don't know what I was doing. It was late at night, just before I logged off for the night. I've correct Liberal Democratic Party {Australia) and Avi Yemini. Someone has already done Thomas Sewell. TarnishedPathtalk22:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi TarnishedPath. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:
Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. signed, Rosguilltalk03:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Avi Yemini, 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.
Hi @Buidhe, I noticed that there's been no Articles for Creation banner added to the talk page when it passed AfC, like I've seen for other articles. Would it be possible to get one? TarnishedPathtalk05:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
If you look at the talk page history, one was added to the talk page along with duplicate wikiproject banners, so I undid the automatic edit. If you want the AfC banner back, feel free to restore it. (t · c) buidhe06:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop a note that I thought the way you managed the Talk:Nick McKenzie discussion was top notch. Great job! Slacker13 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are warned to remain civil and to refrain from future edit warring.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)03:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was:
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:Franco Lino 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.
@65.88.88.200, most of the stuff you've done is good but you've added australiaunwrapped.com as a source back into the infobox and that source is unreliable because it's a blog. Also The Forward article doesn't mention Avi or Avraham once, how is that of any use? I'd suggest remove material related to those two sources. TarnishedPathtalk01:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
It's fine. No need to apologize. I don't care. Just had no idea what was going on. And? Did you get the answer you were looking for? And of all the users here to do it on, why did you choose me?MaskedSinger (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
My book "Bush Runner" is actually two words, not one. The full title is Bush Runner: The Adventures of Pierre Radisson. ("Bush Runner" was my attempt to translate courrier du bois".) Thanks for the fixes.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jamiebuba was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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:Neeraj Gupta (Sculptor) 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, TarnishedPath!
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! Jamiebuba (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GMH Melbourne was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
None of the sources are independent of the subject. They are all from organisations associated with the article's subject.
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:Franco Lino 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, TarnishedPath!
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! GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Sexual assault denials
I was going to respond on the article but I respect your perspective so I brought it here. I'm curious what you think about my question. The Assassination of John F. Kennedy is a featured article so it's a worth topic of WP:OTHERCONTENT. There are a plethora of reliable sources covering Lee Harvey Oswald's denial that he shot JFK, but it's not mentioned in the lead. Do you think that's talking the official POV of the US government? Don't you see how it's false balance to elevate Harvey's denial? There's no real logical debate the assaults in Israel happened or who caused them. Hamas' denial is in the article. I'm perplexed at the idea that not mentioning it in the lead is taking the POV of Israel. Do you think this is POV is politically motivated? Nemov (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it comes down to a question of creditability. I would put the creditability of Hamas's denial a bit above that of Oswald's, while noting that the lede is not confined to one paragraph and that the RfC in question doesn't specify where in the lede the denial would be placed. Currently it is in the last sentence of the first paragraph, however further discussion might clarify that it should be somewhere else in the lede.
I think all too often in this current and past conflicts in the PIA area creditability is given to Israel, and any Palestinian/Arab militants are discredited by default and this is not always warranted and is a POV. Already during the current hostilities Israel has been shown to have lied on the number Israeli civilian casualties and been ordered by the ICJ to stop engaging in genocide (how to say they're engaging in genocide, without saying they're engaging in genocide) and yet Western media and by extension Wikipedia editors are all to happy continuing on with this narrative that Israel has creditability by default and the other side doesn't. I think a slightly more critical attitude, i.e a NPOV is called for. TarnishedPathtalk02:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not getting in the weeds on credibility of two sides of af conflict. However, no reasonable person is denying these abuses happened. Just like no reasonable person denies JFK was killed. There's still a lot of people who don't think Oswald did it. The US government has lied a lot over the history of the US. We go by reliable sources and not "what I think about Western media." When you start down that road you sound like someone attempting to correct a great wrong.
It's disappointing, but most of your response reads like someone who can't see this from a NPOV and I was hoping that wasn't the case. Happy editing. Nemov (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I have no interest in major rewrites of PIA articles to tell a completely different narrative or RGWs. I see others getting involved in that and I'm not interested. I edit much more on BLPs/politics than I do PIA content. When I do edit around PIA it's usually more likely to be a RfC (lately anyway) and I don't fool myself in thinking my !vote is going to change the world. I'm not seeing the possibility of putting a Hamas denial towards the end of the lede for example as being FALSEBALANCE issue like I would as putting stuff promoting the COVID lab-leak anywhere into the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. TarnishedPathtalk13:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Warning of Concerns Regarding "Bad faith" Adminship
No further comments are required here.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello! This message is being sent to warn you about your renewed campaign against Mkstokes. As you were previously warned by Ivanvector, "But please don't harass editors even if they are sanctioned, unless you want to see your names beside logged interaction bans at WP:AELOG." You provided feedback that information should be excluded from the Fani Willis article per WP:BLP. When corrected regarding your understanding of that policy, you erroneously called that a "personal attack." When corrected regarding what Wikipedia designates as a personal attack and politely asked to validate your reading of the WP:BLP policy, you used your administrator privileges to suppressed the conversation. This is the only warning. Per WP:ADMINCOND:
Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators should follow Wikipedia policies and perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia through behavior such as incivility or bad faith editing is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors.
Administrators should bear in mind that they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem with poor conduct.
Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested.
Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee.
Your action to suppress honest, reasonable, and cogent arguments rather than providing a reasonable response to them is unbecoming of your position. Further actions in this regard will immediately be reported to the appropriate process for adjudication, starting with Administrative action review.Mkstokes (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
@Mkstokes, you need to undo this immediately. This is your only warning. I'm going to be extremely charitable and suggest if you remove this whole conversation that I'll act like it didn't happen, because I'm going to suggest this doesn't look good for you. TarnishedPathtalk13:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your extreme charity. It is noted. I stand by my assessment. As noted "...editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries..." I did so and you not only didn't respond appropriately, you made an unfounded accusation and then acted to suppress my comments. Another administrator had to step in and reverse your suppression/closing of the discuss because you are NOT an "uninvolved editor." Now, you are threatening me to remove my warning by suggesting this doesn't look good for me? No, I will not be intimidated and will trust the process, come what may.Mkstokes (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Spinster300 was:
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:Neeraj Gupta (Sculptor) 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, TarnishedPath!
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! Spinster300 (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, could you help with closing the RfD on David Lammy talk page and summarising because it seems there's a consensus on a change to British politician but I do not want to make a mistake and have bever done this before. Erzan (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
CVDX already had the AP2 notification in 2019; they do seem a tiny bit like they're looking for a fight and might respond poorly to being overly-templated. Hilariously I noticed your post only because I'd gone to see if they'd got the AP2 notification probably stemming out of the same edits. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I missed that. I looked at their user talk history and didn't see it. I learnt from a recent experience with another editor that I should leave CTOP notices early so that if action is required I don't have to wait for diffs after I've left a CTOP notice later than I should have. So now the first second I see something even slightly divergent from consensus operating I leave a notice. TarnishedPathtalk20:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
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 Disambig-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. 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.
Thank you for figuring a way I can help Wikipedia by your recent advice though on my talk page. It's a good humor having you and don't forget to alert me always. People make mistakes and I am not an exception—still maintaining improved future edits! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!07:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Please don't add them to talk pages, especially comments that are not your own. Doing it to articles is already seen by many as a dubious practice (and banned from the Donald Trump and Steele dossier articles) as it just adds bloat and makes large articles much larger. That creates accessibility issues for many readers. Doing it to other's comments on talk pages is not justified. Doing it to dead URLs is very welcome, and no one every complains about that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Won't do it again. Had no idea about the Donald Trump and Steele dossier articles to be honest as I've not edited the Steele one and barely edited the Trump one. TarnishedPathtalk15:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I think you should ping all editors who participated in the previous RfC. The last discussion was a continuation of the RfC closing discussion thus all involved editors should be pinged. Springee (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
At present I've pinged everyone from that thread. It's just hit 12am at my end of the ocean. Pinging everyone from the previous RfC (and if I'm to be fair the 2 RfC's before) will take a bit of time. I'm willing to do it tomorrow. TarnishedPathtalk14:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
@HiLo48 I'm not sure if you're using it, but there's an WP option that will tell you were in the world an IP editor geolocates to when you're looking at an articles edit history. The second I saw UAE, knowing BRS is one of the articles that editor repeatedly goes back to, I knew it was them. After I ran the editor interaction tool it just confirmed it. TarnishedPathtalk07:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Yep. I'm familiar with geolocate and similar tools. I just admire your persistence in following through on all this. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@HiLo48 as I said, I've had them stalk me accross Wikimedia Foundation projects to vandalise my User page on another project so I have little patience for their behaviour. TarnishedPathtalk07:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Do you think there is any way to semi-protect the Elliot Rodger article? People are already adding unsourced information and I just know it is going to be vandalized soon. The 2014 Isla Vista killings article is Extended-protected so I wonder if we could do this with the Rodger article. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
If anyone called for page protection for the article at the moment I don't think it would be successful given the amount of activity. You can make a request anytime you like at WP:RFPP, however I don't think you'd be successful at the moment. TarnishedPathtalk01:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Ps, I've restored some of the material you've removed with sources I obtained from the article about the Canadian incident. TarnishedPathtalk02:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I recently reverted the inclusion of the criminal parameters in Trump's infobox citing legitimate policy concerns. As of now, this happened less than 24 hours ago. You reinstated them without consensus soon after.This amounts to tag teaming and distorts the consensus building process. Also, violates the spirit of the arbitration restriction to follow the BRD cycle set for the Trump article. It would be a courtesy to respect the process and revert your reinstatement. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk15:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Somebody added these parameters and I appropriately reverted them within policy and guideline. You then reinstated them without consensus (you can't cite an unclosed, one-day old RfC as consensus for anything). This created an edit war situation where I couldn't revert what you reinstated but you also technically avoided breaking the BRD restriction because you didn't originally add the parameters, someone else did. That's what I meant by saying it was a form of tag teaming in this context, but if there is a different understanding of it I will strike the accusation. Either way what happened was disruptive. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk16:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
While I'm pretty sure I've seen the use of "tag team" to describe what has occurred here before, I will strike it because I don't believe it was coordinated in any meaningful way. But, I will reiterate what occurred was disruptive. It's all resolved now anyway. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk20:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Iamreallygoodatcheckers, my single revert was no more disruptive than yours or anyone else's single revert. I really don't see what the need was for you to come to my talk page, rather than just discussing it in the article itself. TarnishedPathtalk03:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
It is because your revert was a violation of BRD by reinstating major content changes with no consensus that had been challenged, and I had put in my edit summary not to add back without consensus. These things cannot be said about my revert. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk10:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
My revert was within what is specified by the Active Arbitration Remedies notice. Again my single revert was no more disruptive than yours or anyone else's. If I put a note in my edit summary for others after me to not revert my change would that have made a substantive difference to my edit? The answer is no and neither did it to yours. Again, I'm not sure what inspired you to come here which was unable to be dealt with through normal conversation on the article's talk page. TarnishedPathtalk10:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Nick McKenzie archive
Please let me know who decided, when and with what authority that this discussion page for McKenzie is now archived. Sentaso (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The article's talk archive is for archived discussions which previously occurred on the article's talk page. If you wish to start a new discussion Talk:Nick McKenzie is the appropriate place.
It appears you don't understand some aspects of WP:BLP.
A quote of yours from the Mckenzie archive "if McKenzie is not named, then what is the material doing on a WP:BLP about McKenzie? TarnishedPathtalk 00:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)"
BLPs do not always need to explicitly mention the subject's name as long as the information can be clearly and unambiguously attributed to the subject. Sentaso (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I will definitely work on secondary sources for POLENET. I do want to add that the article started with one reference from a Harward geophysics technical paper. There is one secondary source from the start. Starlighsky (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Why does your Edit Summary implementing the recent Hunter Biden RFC have a link to the Internet Engineering Task Force instead of the Talk page that contains the RFC? DonFB (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
@DonFB Hi Don, I'm away from my PC in another city from my home. Consequently so I'm editing on my phone. When I left the edit summary I stuffed up the link to the RfC and didn't realise until after I'd already submitted it. If I was at my PC I would have copy and pasted it. As to why it goes to Internet Engineering Task Force, I have no idea. TarnishedPathtalk22:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
RfC assistance
Hello again and thank you for the earlier advice for the RfC on Hayes Barnard Talk page. Based on the consensus, would you agree that it would be a sufficient time to close the RfC? No responses since May 17, and have received 4 'No' votes in total. I see the WP:CR and am considering this as next steps or if I should wait out the full 30 days. Thank you in advance on any advice you have for me. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@JesseGoodLeap, it’s been going for 23 days at present? I can’t tell for certain because I’m overseas away from my home, away from my PC, and only have my iPad and phone. I’d say there’s no harm in letting it go another 7 days, as it doesn’t appear that editors in other threads have contributed. I don’t think those discussions demonstrated a solid policy basis on behalf of those other editors but I think you should leave it at least until the RfC tag expires given the previous contention. When the RfC tag does expire, if all the !votes are still unanimously no, don’t take it to WP:CR because you’ll most likely be told to do it yourself. TarnishedPathtalk13:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ratnahastin was:
WP:TOOSOON
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:2025 State of Origin series 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, TarnishedPath!
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! Ratnahastin(talk)10:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
@100.36.106.199, I don't know how I ended up inserting that sentence at the top of the page. I can only guess that it was a sentence that I Ctrl-C, Ctrl-F and then Ctrl-V to find the place in the page where the erroneous curly brackets where and I must have Ctrl-V an extra time and ended up inserting it at the top of the page. I just looked at the code and it seems its not at the top of the page anymore, so someone must of corrected it. Regards, TarnishedPathtalk00:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to revert you
I just can't believe that a speedy close within a day based solely on the author's indignation is a valid close. I guess I better go ask someone to be sure, huh. But no. At minimum somebody needs to explain to me how this is ok. Elinruby (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby, I thought better of the nomination given the speech by Trudeau connecting the fires (even if it is only speculation). I've successfully nominated articles for deletion a couple of times based on WP:NOR but it is going out on a limb to nominate for that reason alone. TarnishedPathtalk07:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby, if you ever want to nominate any article/redirect/draft/category/etc for deletion you can do so easily using WP:TWINKLE. If you wanted to nominate multiple articles in one AfD then you would do all the coding by hand. TarnishedPathtalk07:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
New page reviewer granted
Hi TarnishedPath, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.
This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Polygnotus deleted that she attacked alleged neonazis.Actually she attacked tourists, bystanders etc. That is why I suggest you revert that part. I already added sources:
The Guardian, Euronews and Politico.
Plus if you take a look at the Talk Page, you can see that UserNorden1990 already enlightened him that the attacks took place AFTER the neonazi event. 84.225.152.139 (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
She was accused of both. That's what the sources say. We as editors can make editorial decisions about what we do and don't cover in articles and what prominence we give different material, in line with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Now go away and stop trying to get me to do your bidding. TarnishedPathtalk13:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your civilized and good faith assuming answers! That is how a really Wikiperson talks! I learnt a lot from you! 84.225.152.139 (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ANI
I don't think you should be (1) voting in proposals, (2) making proposals, (3) talking about it in the public forums on WPO, while also (4) closing subthreads. Please revert your closes and let someone else do that. Levivich (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
FYI, and speaking only for myself, I don't really want to work here with anyone who spends time participating in public off-wiki forums shit-talking about editors. If you got something to publicly say about someone else here, say it here, or else say it in private. What really irks me, more than the public-but-off-wiki shit-talking, is people who do that, and then come on-wiki and close threads, propose sanctions, vote on stuff, etc. Publicly gossiping about people on websites is crass. Wikipedia editors aren't like celebrities or public figures where it might be crass but at least tolerable to engage in gossip. Why would you participate in a public forum where people are shit-talking other volunteers here? I don't get it, and I wish you would stop. I think less of you because of your participation there, and I really do hope you stop. Levivich (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich, you really need to fucking drop the WP:ABF about everyone that has a WPO account. I have all of 12 comments there and I haven't talked shit about other people, nor do I intend to. I only created an account so that I could look up the comments of other users, otherwise I would have browsed without an account whenever someone referenced something there. TarnishedPathtalk15:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
You have posted in the WPO thread dedicated to talking trash about Lightburst. It's not ABF, it's holding you accountable for what you actually wrote and where you wrote it, I'm not assuming anything, I'm reading what you're actually writing (and where you're writing it) and responding to that. You're simultaneously proposing sanctions and closing threads. Not cool. Please do not participate in public off-wiki trash-talking of other editors, or at least if you're going to do that, stay away from those editors on-wiki. Levivich (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Nothing you write displays anything other than a blind dislike of anyone who has a WPO account. You've not provided any evidence of me talking shit about anyone and just assume because I've casually written all of 12 comments that I must be part of some homogenous group. Pat yourself on the back. TarnishedPathtalk15:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm criticizing you for participating in a thread that is dedicated to trash talking an editor. Do you understand this? Not for participating in WPO, but for that one particular thread. Levivich (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
You criticising me participating in a thread without criticising the content of my actual words is ludicrous. Do you understand that? What's even more ludicrous is you reverting closes that I made on that basis, when they have been and will be closed by other editors with exactly the same reasoning. Do you understand that? TarnishedPathtalk15:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
No, it's not ludicrous. By analogy, one cannot hang out in a skinhead bar and say, "But I've never said anything racist!" I'm criticizing you for the online company you keep, for palling around in a thread dedicated to trash-talking one of your fellow editors, even if you haven't done the trash talking. But what you have done is try to put your thumb on the scale by participating in that thread, and then making proposals for sanctions here, and voting on other sanctions... and even closing threads. You are absolutely a participant in the harassment of Lightburst that originates on WPO, even if you haven't written anything negative about LB on WPO. You are helping to effectuate the will of your fellow WPO forum-dwellers on this website. It doesn't matter that the thread was closed by other editors with the same reason (obviously, both the threads you closed were going to be closed for the same reasoning). What matters is that someone hanging out in the trash-talking forum, and making the proposals to sanction the editor who is being trash-talked, should not also close the threads in the same discussion. As the saying goes, it's not just about the end result, it's not just about actual impartiality, it's about the appearance of impartiality. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm with User:Levivich on this one. User:TarnishedPath, I would re-read through WP:NAC, particularly point #1 of the "inappropriate closures" section. — AP 499D25(talk)02:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi TarnishPath, just want to clarify something in regards to your recent edit. Although I agree with your removal of content, your reasoning is faulty. Student media is not automatically an unreliable source, and any competent Australian tertiary student media would almost certainly be reliable when it comes to the NUS (see WP:RSSM). Not saying that the specific outlets cited in the article are or aren't usable, just wanted to bring that policy to your attention for future reference. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
@5225C, in principle I agree with you that a student paper is capable of being WP:GREL and I should probably not have generalised in that manner. There are of course student newspapers that are over a hundred years old and which have boards of directors which are required to approve all content. It's also clear that an undergrad is not necessarily less qualified to be acting as a journalist than a lot of professional journalists who are completely without tertiary training in the field. A review of some of the reporting in the Australian tabloids lays that bare. TarnishedPathtalk07:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Re: SPI
I recognize that you filed at SPI pro forma to provide a paper trail of the continued socking and there's nothing wrong with doing so. The reason I commented is that I did not see it mentioned anywhere in the SPI that the IPs were blocked. SPI has a perpetual backlog (there's around 200 cases in various states of activity right now) and I wanted to make it clear to SPI clerks and admins that this particular filing was ready to be closed and archived without further administrative action. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
@Trainsandotherthings, from memory, at the time of filing of the last one (I updated it for the 2nd IP at one point), the IPs had not as yet been blocked. I notified @Daniel, at the same time as filing the SPI and he would have blocked them shortly after. I'll keep in mind to update SPIs though when IPs are blocked. TarnishedPathtalk00:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. I had a previous SPI stay open for over a week after the offending IPs were blocked, until I posted on SPI talk asking for it to be closed to cut the backlog. I always try to keep User:Tamzin/SPI is expensive in mind when at SPI. We don't want a clerk and/or CheckUser to try and go through the motions of processing a case only to realize partway through the accounts are already blocked and they wasted their time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Jacob Hersant, 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.
You have been repeatedly accusing other editors of POV-pushing on the Imane Khelif talk page. I have already warned you that this conduct is unacceptable, especially in a WP:CTOP. Please mind WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:ASPERSION, or I will report you to either ANI or AE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you. EvergreenFir(talk)05:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to keep harassing you TarnishedPath. I apologise if i was antagonistic or it wasn't my place to tag you on the page. I was just looking for a second opinion but I understand and won't do it in the future. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
No problemos, and agree. Should be deleted, absolutely. I sent a COI report to our new COI email overlords earlier today as the editor has a clear conflict of interest that I established. Will be interesting to see if anything happens in that space. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
They have an article that made it through AFC that reads like a resume. Looks well-sourced on the surface but I will have to evaluate the sources when I have time. TarnishedPathtalk08:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
AFD success
Hey, I saw one of your recent AFD noms, and I thought I'd drop by to say that about half the pages you've sent to AFD during the last year have ended up being kept.[2] That's a significantly lower 'success' percentage than average, so you might want to be more careful with your noms. It might be that you just need to be more thorough with your WP:BEFORE searches. Some people find that it helps to assume that the community's standards for inclusion are a bit broader than your own, or make more use of the {{notability}} tag for subjects that have a lower chance of getting deleted.
AFDs are "expensive" in terms of community time, so I encourage you to only use AFD when you are reasonably confident that the article will actually get deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I have tended to go out on a limb sometimes, especially when I've considered that an article is unmitigated WP:OR and then discovered that others don't share my view that it is strong enough reason for deletion. TarnishedPathtalk00:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
For something to really be OR, there has to be no reliable source in the world, anywhere, in any language – not even one written by the subject themselves – that has ever said whatever is in the article. If it's really OR ("Here is my personal analysis of Darth Vader's breathing disorder in The Movie"), but the subject is maybe notable (e.g., the subject is mentioned in the news occasionally), then I'd suggest that you try Wikipedia:Stubbing to get the article down to something that isn't completely made up. AFD is not the only way to get rid of bad content, and it is often not a reliable way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I've stubbed articles in the past. I'll take your advice and do it more often in circumstances where I don't feel an AFD would lead to a likely outcome. TarnishedPathtalk01:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
So using this data source for debates where TP was the nominator (ie. Vote is "Delete (nom)") between 30 August 2023 and 30 August 2024, and excluding the two debates which are "not closed yet", I get the following:
Delete (12) 43%
Speedy Delete (1) 4%
Merge (4) 14%
Redirect (5) 18%
No Consensus (2) 7%
Keep (1) 4%
Speedy Keep (3) 11%
Delete/speedy delete/merge/redirect being 79% and no consensus/keep/speedy keep being 21%. Nothing for me to be concerned about purely based on the numbers, in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I took a long break between August 2014 and July 2023, with only sporadic editing between. My overall stats are somewhat skewed by the figures from 2014 and to be honest I shouldn't have been editing then given what was going on in my life at the time. TarnishedPathtalk02:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@Daniel, Merge and Redirect are generally considered forms of Keep, because nothing gets deleted. That puts it, by your count, at 47% delete and 53% not-delete.
Disagree entirely with that. Merge and redirect are more often than not alternates to deletion that are used where consensus clearly exists to not retain the content (making the AfD entirely justified) but a different outcome was proposed and accepted by the closer and consensus. Daniel (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion, I guess. I think that an "alternative to deletion" is not deletion; you are entitled to think that it's deletion if you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
It's a grey area. Sometimes articles are brought to AfD because the nominator previously attempted to BLAR the article but was reverted; in that case a redirect outcome should be seen as successful. I'm not sure what continuing to press this is meant to accomplish. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)16:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Stephen Jolly BLP
Hi TarnishedPath.
In reference to your removal of content in an article, Stephen Jolly. The facebook post doesn't allege criminal activity, it explains why the party voted to suspend membership. The post is from the official Victorian Socialists page and as such is both appropriate and reliable. It speaks to the view of the party, not to the veracity of the claims. I would invite you to read the post. Crying BLP to remove facts is not on, I would draw your attention to "crying BLP" in particular "if an objectionable statement has a reliable source, it cannot be removed repeatedly without regard to the edit warring policy."
Jolly's suspension from the party he helped found is significant, relevant an undisputable objective fact, as is the nature of the allegations that lead to his suspension and resignation. 54 charlee 9 (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Facebook posts by Victorian Socialists are not reliable for anything other than claims about themselves, let alone reliable for alleged crimes committed by third parties. The Victorian Socialists alleged that Jolly committed family violence, which is a crime in the state of Victoria, Australia. I'm going to remove the material again and if you restore it you will swiftly find yourself before WP:AE for engaging in WP:BLP violations after you have been notified that it is a contentious topic area. TarnishedPathtalk03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
The claim is about themselves, it explains their decision to suspend his membership. Rather than removing the material you could find a way to describe his suspension that is less contentious? His suspension is a fact. 54 charlee 9 (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
such as"Jolly resigned from the Victorian Socialists in September of 2019 after the party executive voted to suspend his membership", referenced by the age article 54 charlee 9 (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
The Age makes no specific claims about Jolly's conduct. The Victorian Socialist Facebook post does. The Victorian Socialist post clearly makes specific allegations about Jolly's conduct. As an unreliable source, material covering it does not belong in a WP:BLP under any circumstances. TarnishedPathtalk03:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I have no issue with that sentence being in the lead. For future reference though you didn't need to add the reference again as it was already in use in the article. Look at my edits for how I made repeated use of the reference. TarnishedPathtalk03:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
This is just a follow up re: what we discussed briefly at COIN. I thought it better to take it here rather than allowing the thread to be derailed.
First of all, let me say that I agree with you on the general subject of ICOC.
However, I really don't think that it will ever be possible to get a broad consensus over issues such as COI or blocks for questionable editing. We are seeing that at ANI and COIN.
The strongest argument you have for your point of view is in relation to material being retained due to the existence of RS sources. I think a lot of people have pointed that out in one way or another both at ANI and COIN, even those who disagree with the proposals in those threads.
I've been following the developments at the ICOC talk page and in the various threads at ANI and COIN for some time now. Basically the underlying issues and disagreements over that article have been going on for too long, they are a time sink, they are not going away and some kind of resolution is required. That is why I suggested earlier today the possibility of some kind of brokered compromise version of the article, perhaps achieved by arbitration(?). I just think that is an option seriously worth considering given that the policy arguments are basically on your side, even if the COI situation is contested.
Thanks for the suggestion. There has already been RFCs on some of the issues and some editors seek to repeatedly misinterpret the closes or just ignore then and repeatedly bring up discussion pushing for changes on similar items which have already been disucussed as in the RFCs. Once you're at that point it's behavioural. TarnishedPathtalk00:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I think the article is due for a trim in some sections that are duplicative or based on WP:ABOUTSELF sourcing. Beyond that I do think some of the issues repeatedly raised in talk have already been addressed in RFCs and some editors are seeking to misinterpret RFC closes to suit their own preconcieved ideas. I literally don't know why I waste my time there. I only ended up there after seeing the last discussoin on COIN and I don't often edit any other religoius articels aside from RFCs which I've been notified of by the bot. TarnishedPathtalk23:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Personally it is a topic which I had resisted making any comment on for about 6 months. My impression was that there were a number of non-conflicted editors who were essentially facilitating the actions of COI editors by adopting various straw man arguments or other forms of sophistry. Having commented now on both the ANI and COIN threads I see that my impression was correct. Axad12 (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello, TarnishedPath. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 16:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
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.
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wikipediocracy-related conduct and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Ah, I see - where it continues on p. 4, it has a slightly different headline to what's on the front page, where the article starts. But I think it's best to use the first headline. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
@NebY thanks for cleaning up after me. I think the error might have been mine for not specifying a non-standard archiving name and presuming the script would automatically know. I will use more care in the future. TarnishedPathtalk11:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Aha; Archiver might be great in other ways (I've not used it) but it does seem a curious design choice not to look at the page's |archive= and |counter=. I've seen OneClickArchiver used on ANI without apparent problems, and of course Lowercase sigmabot III just keeps going. NebY (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I was just reading the documentation for both Archiver and OneClickArchiver. It seems that OneClickArchiver does look at the archiving templates on a page to determine the archiving location. Archiver automatically looks for the highest number to archive to, e.g. Foo/Archive x or Foo/Month Year. Anything else outside of that isn't suported for Archiver. I just asked the maintainer and they advised that they have no intention to add the functionality. TarnishedPathtalk11:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The entire context of what I wrote was an ongoing behavioural issue which was continuing past explicit requests to strike aspersions and maintain civility. Either the accusations made were inappropriate or they weren't, but instantly slamming the door on that discussion doesn't feel right considering ANIs have been successful for less. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
OK, I've undone my close but I still don't see "chronic, intractable behavioural problems" and if you get any editors stating the same I'd suggest to let it go. TarnishedPathtalk15:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
lol we had an edit conflict here, I'd literally closed it, refreshed the page, the close didn't appear, I tried to close it again, and was told it was already closed. :D Valereee (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
If you look at the edit history I stuffed up my first attempt at restoring the material that Jamie had removed in the university section. I didn't intend on reverting all of their edits, just the first two out of three, as I was assuming good faith when they wrote "unsourced commentary" in their edit summary at Special:Diff/1254498510. As I did end up reverting everything I reinstated their third edit. I hope that all makes sense. As it turns out that the material is sourced, so I will self-revert now. TarnishedPathtalk10:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Checking in
Hey, I wanted offer another apology now that the election results are out. I appreciated your courteousness and frankness in your comments to my election page. If you ever see me do something like that again, please tell me or notify someone else as soon as possible so that they can take action. I'm very sorry for any distress I caused. Keep up the hard work. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
@Pbritti, thank you for reaching out and once again thankyou for your candid response. I also would like to apologise if you felt aggrieved at my comments elsewhere. You weren't the subject of my comments but I could understand how you would feel aggrieved nonetheless as the person I was responding to had made you the subject of their comments.
No need to apologize for anything at all on your end. Your well-wishes are appreciated. I don't know if I want to go through RfA anytime soon and I look forward to aiming for a five FA year in 2025 (alongside offline life). ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
“Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.”
I believe you are the moderator of the Imane Khelif talk page. I request it be opened back up for discussion of the reliable sources that have published news about her new lawsuit. LockheedChomsky (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Heya! Thanks for starting the new move request over at Talk:Great Replacement. I'm very happy to support. Looking over the previous move request which I started back in 2022 though, I noticed that my comment looked a lot like yours.
Here's what I wrote:
The title was changed from The Great Replacement conspiracy theory to Great Replacement as the result of an RfC just over 3 years ago. In that RfC, it seems that the primary argument against using "conspiracy theory" in the article title was WP:COMMONNAME. Since that time, however, it seems that a preponderance of reliable sources have shifted their usage, and that "Great Replacement conspiracy theory" or some very close approximation is now the norm. Some examples:
The title was changed from The Great Replacement conspiracy theory to Great Replacement as the result of an RM about 5 years ago. In that RM, the primary argument against using "conspiracy theory" in the article title was WP:COMMONNAME. Since then, it seems that reliable sources have shifted usage, and that "Great Replacement conspiracy theory" or similar is now the norm. Some examples:
I would argue that this level of copy/pasting from another user's comment is inappropriate, and might even trigger suspicions of socking. Again, I appreciate you opening up the new move request, but please be more careful about this kind of thing in the future. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
...at Imane Khelif and left an edit summary. In it, I was referring to this. This seems to show the current rag sheet publication is not itself notable in a way that can be reliably sourced. Thanks for all the work you've put into this article. I hope it simmers down soon. JFHJr (㊟) 03:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
@JFHJr thanks for the correction. I keep seeing posts in my feed on FB regarding Khelif that are straight up fake news (stuff stating that she has to hand back her Olympic medals because the IBA has disqualified her, which is straight up idiotic because the IBA don't have that power) and that appear to be generated from troll farm/s, so while I share your hope, I'm pessimistic. Once certain groupings decide something is going to be part of the broader culture war, they generally keep at it. TarnishedPathtalk03:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
and that's really a shame because I was thinking about possible nominating the article for WP:GA but that's not really possible while all this disruption is happening. TarnishedPathtalk03:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Give it time. We've no deadlines. It's never too late to GA, and this woman's encyclopedic story will keep developing. Sorry you even look at the 💩 feeds (pronounce that how you want). I'm here to help, so please don't hesitate to ping me re this article if it appears I'm not already looking. JFHJr (㊟) 03:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Can't speak for anyone else, but a lot of people have the Israel article on their watchlist, and the editors that you backhandedly accused of canvassing(?) are all regular editors likely to be watching the "Israel" article. Do you have any information or evidence that there was canvassing for this RFC? Andre🚐02:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
@AndreJustAndre, there's been an IP and another account which is 8 months old, which previously only had an edit or two in the ARBPIA topic area and which isn't ECR, arrive at the RFC. While not all people !vote no would have been canvassed (and I apologise if that's how my edit summary came accross) it appears that there is at least some canvassing occurring. TarnishedPathtalk03:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
TP, as a long term editor you should know that you're edit warring to restore material recently added to the lead is not acceptable. You have an open RfC about the material and per NOCON the material stays out until there is a consensus to include. Springee (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Please don't be pedantic. The version you restored isn't a stable version, it's your latest version. Since you started the RfC you have said there isn't a consensus for the version you restored so why restore it? Springee (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
@Springee, the version I restored may be reduced from what was in the article up until the 23/11/2024 however that does not diminish that there was stable content in the article up until the 23/11/2024 and that its removal with the claim BLPRESTORE was incorrect given that consensus at BLP/N prior to that date established that there was no BLP issues. Again WP:STATUSQUO and WP:ONUS apply here and if you really want to be that pedantic we can restore to the 23/11/2024 version which is larger, which I'm sure is not what you are arguing for. TarnishedPathtalk01:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Not conducting a full review, but noticed the GAN and thought I'd leave a note. I would fail this as not meeting WP:LEAD. As far as I can see the lead doesn't cover any of the body sections. Meanwhile, the characterisation as far-right and as a political activist, along with the information about rebel news, are not in the body. CMD (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
The lead should cover everything important enough to be given a section, even if only briefly. With such a short article, you may be able to cover most of it. There is no reason to keep the lead short, I'd aim for three reasonable paragraphs. Aside from that, I get the impression they are Jewish and this is important to them, but this isn't stated anywhere. CMD (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Elliot Rodger
Do you think I should request another extended-confirmation lock for the Elliot Rodger article? A lot of accounts keep adding bullshit nick names without sources and multiple sockpuppets have kept returning. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Personally I think that all articles in contentious topic areas should be WP:ECR, but I'm probably out of step with the rest of the community. You've got a very low chance of it being granted given that some of the most recent stuff looks like it might be in good faith. You're better off discussing it with editors, when they're not IPs or socks, and if they are socks I think you know the process by now. TarnishedPathtalk08:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but if you're going to use that as an excuse to justify not doing anything about what is obvious antisemitism, then something's wrong with you. Many of those sources are antisemitic propaganda, if not all of them. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
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.
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.
Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
Could you please explain your behavior here, specifically why it is acceptable for you to repeatedly accuse others of acting in bad faith / violating a number of bad faith centric guidelines, and why you believe it is acceptable to demand that someone you have accused must strike their opposition to your accusation or else be in violation of yet another WP:PAG?
You have freely accused me of violating WP:PAG, in this instance of violating WP:CANVASS. I called the accusation false and briefly explained how the action is itself diametrically opposed to the accusation you asserted. You provided no attempt at substance, and instead have claimed that I called you a liar and are demanding I retract what you have claimed to be an WP:ASPERSION. I would like an explanation as I cannot make sense of this whatsoever, and it has diverted a mainspace talk topic into a tangentially related sidebar. Thank you. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the thread, TarnishedPath is entirely correct. In your main comment, you accused TarnishedPath of violating WP:CON, and of ignoring other editors to force through their point of view. When they very reasonably asked you to explain how they were violating WP:CON and noted that you’d only pinged some of the involved editors, you immediately accused them of 3 separate policy violations; of trying to get you to violate bludgeon, of assuming bad faith, and of lying about you canvassing. Reasonably again, TarnishedPath asked you to withdraw those aspersions. Respectfully, I think only you need to explain your behaviour, Razgriz. GraziePrego (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Respectfully, you are flatly incorrect across the board.
1) I did not accuse this user of anything in my initial comment. It is another user who I have accused of violating WP:CON elsewhere in relation to the topic, a fact which Tarnished is fully aware as they have been very actively participating in each discussion of the issue across multiple pages and NB's.
2) I pinged every single user involved in the highlighted topic. Not "some", ALL. Including a user who only posted one single message in the topic. Absolutely undue to frame the action in such a way as to obfuscate that core fact.
3) They have repeatedly, for several weeks now, accused me of violating half a dozen different WP:PAG, asserting actions by me have been done in bad faith immediately even with little or no cause to assume such. My 3 accusations are in line with their own methodology in handling such issues (example: when I cite a PAG in relation to a users actions, Tarnished has issued multiple statements to me telling me to not WP:ABF. So when citing a PAG in relation to my actions, especially one which factually does not apply, saying the same to them is justified and fair and due).
4) If we wish to dispense with politeness and context and just get down to facts, then yes Tarnished has lied in asserting I committed WP:CANVASS. However, I at no point stated that Tarnished is a liar, because unlike some people I actually do WP:AGF instead of leaping to extremes.
So you double down by asserting it is uncivil to ask you to address your own WP:INCIVIL behavior, where you yet again called my character into question and asserted I had performed a bad faith action? Bold move Cotton.
Unlike some people, I actually believe freedom of expression is a human right, and that it is a two way street. Taking this to WP:AN/I does nothing. As strongly as you and the other user feel about me, we witnessed first-hand that it all ended up being a giant waste of everyone's time. Furthermore, if an action did take place, it would be towards an outside entity (admins) restricting your ability to express yourself, and I do not want that. That is unproductive and often does more harm than good in my view.
So instead, I am treating you like an adult and telling you to either interact with me with mutual civility, or don't interact with me at all. Failing that, don't dare to take offense to getting to taste your own medicine when it is pointed out when your behavior violates WP:PAG. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Probably worth tacking this whole thread onto the existing extensive ANI thread about Razgriz’s behaviour, as it seems to be more of the same things other editors have already noted as being of concern. GraziePrego (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
In light of the fact that your assumption regarding the initial comment was verifiably incorrect, what EXACTLY do you believe I have done here which "seems to be more of the same things", as you put it?
I revived a talk topic, I pinged EVERY person in it, I explained WHY I was pinging them, I offered a summarization of the talk topic, I ASKED if these other participants in the topic would agree with that summarization, I made a vague reference to this being part of an issue with a different user (NOT Tarnished) and giving a highly simplified summary of the reason it is at issue.
Tarnished then casually accused me of violating WP:CANVASSING, after having spent the better part of a month now accusing me of violating a half dozen other WP:PAG and accusing me of "following" them to another page (where I didnt even know he was or ever interact with them).
So that is acceptable. On WP it is perfectly allowable to find every opportunity to accuse another user of acting in bad faith for several weeks, but it is not permissible for an accused user to confront the accuser and combat their accusation? Gee, guess I missed that essay somewhere, can you direct me to it please so I can educate myself? Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
On 25 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article SDSS J0849+1114, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that light travelled 1.06 billion light-years from a trio of galaxies in the constellation of Cancer, where three supermassive black holes were colliding? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SDSS J0849+1114. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, SDSS J0849+1114), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
