User talk:Chas. Caltrop

Welcome!

Hello, Chas. Caltrop, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wedding at Cana

Hallo, Chas. Caltrop! Perhaps I should further explain my edit: "looting" is something individual soldiers do for their personal gain. Those of low rank, that is. If you claim that Napoleon "looted", it either sounds farcical or expresses a strong value judgement. Wikipedia should be neither comical nor moralising. There is also a fundamental problem of factual correctness: the 1797 appropriations did not benefit the personal wealth of Napoleon but made the objects seized, property of the French people. The French revolutionary armies were accompanied by special représentants du peuple who systematically took all objects of scientific and artistic interest and had them transported to the collections in Paris. Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS / MOS:BOLD / WP:LASTNAME

I'm just clarifying some questions about Edward Said. I hope to learn some things in the process. I had taken out the bolded mention of Said's full name in the body. I cited WP:LASTNAME (which says to use the full name on the first mention - which is in the lead - and only the last name subsequently, unless there's some reason to suspect that confusion would result from doing that). I also think that MOS:BOLD is pretty clear (after describing the use of bold in the lead or to redirects to specific sections, it says, "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases.") I'm thinking that it's redundant to describe a polyglot who speaks three languages, just like it wouldn't be necessary to characterize someone as a bilingual individual who speaks English and Spanish.

These seemed like straightforward changes, and I would usually make them without a second thought (or would suggest them to an editor during a Good Article review - which this article has already passed). I figure that most people don't revert changes just for fun, so I must be failing to consider one or more points with these edits. Can you let me know what those are? I appreciate it - and your work to keep one of our Good Articles up to standard. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to EricEnfermero,

Yes, but, as you pointed out: it is optional (one or the other), and I exercised that option as a common sense, formal beginning to the biography. The Introduction (the lead, in newspaper jargon) is separate and apart from the biography proper. Without the Introduction, the biography article should be complete, in itself, therefore the full name of the subject is indicated; after all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so, spelling out the facts is the norm in encyclopedic writing. You need not believe me, fetch a newspaper or a magazine and compare that loose language (filler between adverts) to the Standard language of an encyclopedia article; thus, our war of reverts was for nought.

Moreover, in real life, parents usually do not address their child by surname, usually by name: Baby Edward or Baby Said? Common sense trumps the rulebook, it is in the MOS explanations. Therefore, in my experience, the changes, from a full name to a surname, tend to be edit-war provocations in behalf of a third party (usually an important Somebody with a public image to protect); your editorial contributions history supports my opinion. As you might know or might not know, the Wikipedia MOS recommends editorial common sense in producing an article, rather than the martinet’s supremacy of the rules over reality: the factual content of the biography of Edward W. Said.

If you are legitimately interested, follow up.

Cheers,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious ...

Your username showed up on a list I'm watching, and I wondered whether it's a real name, or an homage to the character Charles Calthrop in The Day of the Jackal (1973)? —ATS 🖖 Talk 19:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to ATS,

Why, yes, my nom de guerre is in homage to that fellow. It is good news to meet someone knowledgeable of good cinema.

Talk with you soon. Ciao.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent film. In fact, the reviews of the time said it was very much faithful to the book, so I never bothered to read the book. Only yesterday did I confirm that the character was in fact there. Cheers! —ATS 🖖 Talk 20:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement notice

One or more of your edits are currently being discussed at Arbitration Enforcement here. Thank you. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation at Israel Shahak

To enforce an arbitration decision and for 1RR violation at Israel Shahak, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This block is for WP:1RR violation. The full report is at Arbitration Enforcement. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Hi! I'm here about this revert. I just wanted to ask what factual errors I had introduced, because I only intended to change the curly quotes to straight quotes per MOS:CQ, remove the spaces between the periods in the ellipses per MOS:ELLIPSES (since the MOS states that "A quotation is not a facsimile, and in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting" and that "Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment provided that doing so will not change or obscure the meaning of the text"), and remove the spaces around the em dashes per MOS:EMDASH. If I could fix whatever problems I caused, I'd like to request permission to revert back. Thanks! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White savior narrative in film

Regarding your attempts to change people of color to "colored people" at white savior narrative in film, it is not necessary, as evidenced by the Wikipedia article using the term POC. Please stop trying to insert it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transformational grammar

You DO realize that the first part of the second paragraph is not an actual sentence, right? --Calton | Talk 09:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Babbitt

Just wanted to stop by and express appreciation for your excellent edits on Babbitt to improve the content and style. I think that significant problems remain, several of which you identity, especially POV (often creditable observations but still POV) appearing as fact/NPOV. More extensive sourcing here might help. Also, the overall approach is partially essay/critical analysis rather than encyclopedia article. Again, I believe some tweaking and sourcing could help there, and when time permits I'd like to start seeing if a few minor edits and rewordings can help the article further. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo!

Chas,

Re: Reduction of cognitive dissonance: I don't know if you always use such high-falutin' language, but, damn!, you put that boy/girl in his/her place! Glad you're on our side in the Wikipedia wars. Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A reply to Paul M. Lieberman:

Belated thanks for your support, yet my factual reply was self-defence against traducement.

Let me know what you think.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dunning-Kruger "weasel words"

See Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A reply

Dear Just Plain Bill, if you have to ask, then you are, indeed, out of your league. The “Harvard” of the Midwest failed you. None the less, thanks for the entertainment.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This substance-free reply laced with a gratuitous personal attack should disqualify you from editing here.Wukai (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Marxism

Please don't re-attempt your changes to the Cultural Marxism section without discussion on Talk:Frankfurt_School first. Due to the ongoing controversial nature of the topic, we like to get consensus on major changes there before they are implemented. Thank you for your cooperation, and further discussion is always welcomed on the talk page. --Jobrot (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification for the Administrative Incident Notice board.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Jobrot (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

There is a report on AN/I concerning you. You can find it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Words most show the man when confronting the Other who is not the Self

(1) Investigation into the behaviour of User:Chas.Caltrop

I'm writing to clarify the validity of the edit history of this user User:Chas._Caltrop. This user has a very strange style of editing and interacting with others. Their edit summaries are extremely uniform (mostly "CE; completed the sentence"), they seem to have little use for consensus or civility, and appear to have been re-structuring articles to their liking since April 2016 (they may have been confirmed too early, without developing the proper skills).

They've recently blown up at me personally; pasting as if from another user (on my talk page, and The Frankfurt School talk page). I've discussed and confirmed this with that user here. This strange overreaction by User:Chas._Caltrop appears to be in response to my politely warning them on their talk page that they should form a consensus before making drastic changes to The Frankfurt School page (due to its controversial nature). I believe this editor is attempting to intimidate me, and that their longer term behaviour may be detrimental to Wikipedia's cultivation of long standing content.

At the very least, they've failed to come to terms with WP:TPG, WP:CIVIL or WP:CONSENSUS.

This user has come to my attention due to their edits on the Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory page. Where they've broken the section anchor a few times, at one point had multiple "Cultural Marxism" headings, and would prefer the section contain difficult to decipher sentences like:

Proponents of conspiracy-theory Cultural Marxism claim that the existence of liberal social-ideologies — such as feminism, anti-white racism, and sexualization — are real-world negative consequences of critical-theory, despite such unresolved social problems dating from the 1920s.

...as you can see, they're also including some strange political terms, eg. anti-white racism and claiming it is a liberal social-ideology?

Anyways, their political language and editing style is strange, as is their failure to use talk pages correctly or respect consensus. They seem completely incongruous with Wikipedia's general ethos. I would like to see them banned from further editing The Frankfurt School page, and request they be investigated further (by someone more skilled and responsible than myself) for WP:Tendentious editing. Particularly if they are doing so in partisan 'teams', as this note on their talk page suggests.

Thank you for any help you can render with this strange issue (I've certainly not seen anything like this before). --Jobrot (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears other users have also had simmilar issues: 1, 2, 3. --Jobrot (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: It seems this user has now started causing similar issues on the Critical theory page, edit warring, inserting their subjective viewpoint, and malforming copy (see the edit summaries here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critical_theory&action=history). Indeed, on the related talk page they appear to be trying to provoke other users as well.

I suspect this user is very gently trying to vandalize Wikipedia over a long period of time with a somewhat political motive. It's an ongoing problem which has effected multiple users, and who knows how many pages. It will continue on this way without intervention or a remedy of some sort. I personally would ban them for violating WP:VANDALISM, WP:EDITWARRING WP:CIVIL, WP:TPG, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TEND, but I am not an admin. --Jobrot (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the articles cited above, but this same user embarked on a fundamental and unconstructive rewrite of McCarthyism, adding 26,000 characters, which is about 6,000 words, without word one on the talk page with the exception of a smarmy response to a note from me on the page. It required considerable time and trouble to undo his general cluelessness, in particular an RfC in which the unanimous verdict was that his rewrite stank. (See this section and the one following it.) He has a complete contempt for other editors, as evidenced by his condescending posts and failure to participate in discussions. He didn't even deign to speak up in favor of his own rewrite. I think that Caltrop is not here to edit constructively but seems to have his own personal vision that he attempts to advance. I recommend a good long hiatus from the project, perhaps permanent, as he is a net negative. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

he is a net negative. - agreed. A copy editor who introduces obvious mistakes in grammar and flow (whilst claiming to be improving those things), is a very strange phenomena. There's a lot of this sort of thing (the bold text being what Chas. Caltrops introduced): "The critical theory school of thought was established by primarily by..." - "Max Horkheimer said that a theory as critical insofar as it..." ...and then there are the more political edits, such as changing "Concern for social "base and superstructure" is one of the remaining Marxist philosophical concepts in much of contemporary critical theory." to "Despite such intellectual evolution, contemporary critical theory retains the social concerns of Marxist philosophy, with the base and superstructure of society.[4]" (inverting the meaning almost entirely). Also there's the ironically fact they've deleted headings of the Anti-intellectualism article to serve their own politics (removing much of the left liberal perspective).

Still, very early on in their edit history they greatly expanded the plot summary of The Turner Diaries! Interesting that they've gone from that, to plying their deletism to left-wing articles and perspectives. --Jobrot (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, my mistake, they're not entirely deletionist, here they've introduced famed libertarian economist Murray Rothbard's opinion as an expert on the socialist Sino-Soviet split. This editor is WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons - and hence needs to be banned permanently (WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE). --Jobrot (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have a rewrite in progress, for no apparent reason and not a word on the talk page, at Sino-Soviet split. See [1]. I do not see these edits improving the encyclopedia. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with Chas. Caltrop's behavior. The way in which this user interacts with other users is definitely irritating, but at the same time, it wasn't so bad that I thought there would be any point in complaining about it. The main problem I can see with his edits is the insistence on using vague, generalized edit summaries such as "grammar, flow, npov", no matter what article he is editing, and no matter what the changes that he is making. The vague edit summaries don't justify or explain those changes, and they make it that much more difficult to see what is really being done to the articles concerned. The user could at least be encouraged to use more informative edit summaries. I have noticed that his changes at at least one article (on The Turner Diaries) introduced outright factual errors, but I have not followed his editing closely enough to see whether that is typical or not. Looking at some of his edits, I have the impression (which may or may not be accurate) that some of his changes are semi-random in nature and are being made simply for the sake of changing the article in some way, rather than being properly thought-through improvements. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here we are. Short of arbcom, there is no other place in Wikipedia where one can raise issues of this kind. I am in agreement that complaining about such users rarely results in any positive outcome, but fortunately someone stick their neck out and did so. Clearly this user has created headaches at multiple articles. We can kick the can down the road or not. The user in question has been notified of this discussion and has been active while it is pending, indicating to me that he would consent to whatever action is taken. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be done about this editor. An indef block would be ideal, but failing that, he could be limited to adding new sourced material, with an accurate edit summary, and prohibited from copy-editing or removing other editors' work without first gaining talk page consensus, for a period of say 6 months. This would give him the opportunity to improve his editing skills while protecting the encyclopedia, and avoiding wasting other editors' time. zzz (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely be in favor of a requirement that Chas. Caltrop use accurate and informative edit summaries. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Chas. Caltrop still making edits that other editors have to revert or clean up.

So I recently tried to bring attention to the long term edit history and behavioural issues (WP:CIVIL, WP:TPG and WP:CONSENSUS) around one Chas. Caltrop (talk). In the ensuing discussion 3 other editors came forwards unprompted with complaints about this user. No admins commented on the situation, and no administrative actions were taken (nerry a warning).

I'd just like to point out that Chas is still making edits that are regularly reverted (Diff 1, Diff 2) by editors who have tried to communicate with Chas - but been met with insult and derision ( talk:Chas._Caltrop#Weasel_Words, talk:Chas._Caltrop#Sentences) (there you'll find separate editors who have not yet commented on these discussions). This course is not the first time someone has tried to highlight this user's behaviour.

Am I to understand that those who pass themselves off as Copy Editors are above the requirements of politeness for Wikipedians - even though their edits generally have to be reverted, cleaned up by others, or are unconstructive/tendentious/damaging to Wikipedia as a whole? Perhaps I'll do some sloppy, politically biased copy editing of my own. I'll make sure all my edit summaries read "CE, completed sentence"; as it seems to provide impunity as an editor regardless of how poorly the end result is. If the goal of administration is to ensure Wikipedia is kept to a high standard, then every now and then difficult to interpret, borderline cases such as this will occur; but they do still need to be actionable (for the sake of the community, and for other editors to feel they've been heard). I understand that this is not a particularly thankful task, and that the violations aren't a particularly obvious breaking of the rules - but it is an ongoing issue and it is damaging (at the very least time wasting)... and the more it is ongoing, the more damage is manifest. Does anyone want to try to bring some deft sanity to these discussions? To at least make this feel like a community, rather than a bunch of peasants yelling at an ivory tower. --Jobrot (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The key to success on ANI is to make the clearest of points, as thoroughly as is necessary, with the least amount of words, including a fully adequate number of WP:DIFFs with brief explanations. You failed to do that the first time, and you've failed even worse now. No one wants to read your whining and sarcasm, and no one wants to take the trouble to figure out what you are talking about, especially when you've presented so very little evidence. What you need to do is immediately and clearly make your case and then stop typing. Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SO help me do that! Meanwhile Chas continues to make WP:TEND edits that require reversion: [Diff 3] They are WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. This user is doing this accross multiple pages (which I've linked to the edit histories of, and now made two AN/I posts about - and other users have also made complaints and had similar experiences with this user). --Jobrot (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The immediate issue here would appear to be Chas. Caltrop's edit warring at Dunning–Kruger effect. As visible from the article's revision history, Chas. Caltrop made an edit there that another editor reverted, then repeated essentially the same edit, and had it reverted again by another user. I can confirm that this is rather typical behavior for Chas. Caltrop, which appears to be what Jobrot is complaining about. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(3) User:Chas. Caltrop for the third time!

First AN/I report (29 October 2017): [2]
Second AN/I report (18 November 2017): [3]

Will someone please tell me again why this editor -- who has been reported twice in the last six weeks -- is allowed to continue making POV edits mixed in with his ultra-pedantic grammar "corrections" (which generally take normal writing and make it stilted and extremely formal)? This is an editor who does not respond to complaints, just deletes them, [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. (The one time he did respond, it was to denigrate the intelligence of the person making the complaint. [9]. As far as I can tell he has never engaged in an actual discussion with anyone, except by way of acerbic (and inaccurate) edit summaries. In fact, they did not respond to either of the previous AN/I reports,

This is not a collaborative person -- I think they rather fancy themselves as an intellectual who is above the rest of us in the hoi polloi -- and also a person who is extremely crafty about sneaking their POV into articles (they edit articles about Communist- and Nazi-related subjects).

The previous AN/I complaints got very short shrift - this editor needs to be dealt with, because he's sucking up the time and energy of other editors cleaning up after his "corrections", and when they're not fixed, they're subtly biasing our articles on those controversial subjects. (Diffs aren't really necessary: just pick a handful of edits from their contrib list, you'll get the idea.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User notified. I ~~am notifyling~~ have also notified all editors who participated in the earler AN/I reports about this new one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me correct one statement I made above, Chas. Caltrop did reply to one other editor on his talk page, but the response was haughty and superior, as of a teacher replying to a somewhat slow child. [10] Such a response might be understandable if the comment being replied to was particularly inane, but that was not the case, it was a perfectly reasonable question, politely asked. [11] Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no stricture against deleting usertalk messages, or even against being haughty a couple of times on one's own usertalk. Unless someone can provide diffs of repeated long-term problematic editing, this filing is likely to go the way of the last one. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a stricture against not communicating. I've seen a number of people blocked because they never responded to anything on their user talk page. And while it sounds nice to say that being "haughty" isn't disallowed, in point of fact, if someone can't edit collaboratively, they don't belong here. Collaboration requires communication, and a willingness to engage without insulting your interlocutor. Chas. Caltrop clearly does not have that. He knows that his edits are impeccable and correct, and anyone who dares to contradict him or revert his edits is either ignored or insulted. We can do without that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is the least bit sanctionable. There's no policy against deleting usertalk messages or responding in a way you don't like. Softlavender (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The haughtiness was not limited to his user talk page; it may also be seen at Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect/Archive_2#Weasel_words? in the part I collapsed, attempting to shift the focus away from his tendentiousness and incivility. The incivility may have been a passing flash, and the opaque edit summaries may be getting slightly better. That being said, I still see Chas. Caltrop as a high-maintenance editor, difficult to collaborate with, and needing a lot of cleaning up after. I agree with Beyond My Ken that any random selection of this editor’s contributions is likely to show the problems as described in this iteration of the filing. To claim otherwise would be consistent with the style of a sea lion. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is the least bit sanctionable. So far no one has provide diffs demonstrating repeated long-term problematic editing. Softlavender (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe BMK should re-present what was listed in the previous ANI discussions, but I found clicking through just an assortment of Chas. Caltrop's edits provided plenty of examples of edit-warring to retain the same overwrought language, sometimes with grammar errors included for measure. Regardless, the lack of appropriate edit summaries is certainly problematic. Grandpallama (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-summary remarks like "knowledge of the subject is required" do not bode well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A reply from Chas, Caltrop

Sorry plaintiff gentleman, but I have followed the rules, thus this third circumstance. Ideological differences, rather than editorial differences, characterise your misrepresentations of my editorial participation; (they edit articles about Communist- and Nazi-related subjects) is meant to communicate which character flaws of your editorial enemy to the ANI Administrator?

Moreover, Beyond My Ken, the editorial expansion of the Horst Wessel article is about objectivity and full facts, because it is written with an in-crowd style that presumes the reader has a Nazi background; thus, the logical identification of Goebbels as the propaganda minister, which you reverted because . . . "everybody" already knows the Nazis as well as you and your cohort? As it stands, the Wikipedia article about the Nazi Stormtrooper Horst Wessel is a letter of recommendation, it even includes some job-titles ("Commander of squads and districts") he held in discharging his Nazi duties. Incidentally, squads are led by squad leaders; companies are led by commanders; you restored factual errors.

Such pro–Nazi boosterism is what you have continually protected by falsely accusing me of cheating and pov-pushing, yet, when the ANI Admin asked for specific evidence of wrong-doing, you dismiss the requested Diffs. In the Talk Page, editors already complained about the deliberate pro–Nazi tone and the deliberate osbcuring of facts; you use (forbidden) weasel words “some sources. . . .” to hide the fact that Herr Wessel was a pimp. Why? Because the reliable source is Jewish? That is not Kosher of you, Beyond My Ken, given that herein you claim victimhood when the Editorial History indicates otherwise. All of my edits are plainly explained; you must do the comparative reading; I do. The comments I made to you are factual: In the Leninism article you reinstated factual errors, in the Dunning–Kruger article you reinstated grammar errors, by twice claiming that I am pushing an opinion.

The Editorial History facts and the Wikipedia rules contradict your ANI complaint — especially when you dismiss my rights as a Wikipedia Editor, thus: Diffs aren't really necessary: just pick a handful of edits from their contrib list, you'll get the idea. Let me see if I "get it": Some Wikipedia editors are more equaler than other Wikipedia editors.

Beyond My Ken, why are you gaming the system? This statement of yours: “(Diffs aren't really necessary: just pick a handful of edits from their contrib list, you'll get the idea.)” is a gaming of the system, because you, personally, have therein unilaterally decided that, in the case of Chas. Caltrop, the Wikipedia rules of correct procedure do not apply, because you say so.

Let me know.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's no use, everyone around here already knows that I'm fanatically pro-Nazi. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Chas, Caltrop's edit summaries are completely generic, and bear little or no relationship to the edit he's actually made. It looks to be that he just scrolls down his list of summaries and picks one almost at random. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chas. Caltrop does make one valid point above: in his edits -- which typically consist of numerous changes -- there are good things among the bad, so one has the choice of either laboriously going through the entire article, fixing the bad stuff and leaving the good, or just reverting and losing the good. It was the second choice I've made recently, but other editors have chosen the first. My choice was based on the ratio of good-to-bad elements. Since the bad elements, in my view, outweighed the good, I chose to revert. Other methods would be appropriate in other circumstances, but the real solution is for Chas, Caltrop to be do only good stuff -- but, again in my opinion, he does the good stuff in order to sneak in some of the POV bad stuff, on the assumption that many editors will just let his edits go. Given the history of his editing, I can't countenance that decision anymore, so when I see that there's bad stuff in his edits, I'm likely to delete them, to protect the articles from his POV and from his stilted ultra-formal style of "encyclopedic" writing (which you can get a feeling for from his reply above). In short, Chas. Caltrop and Wikipedia are not a good combination, since his style does not suit that of a popular encyclopedia (it's more suited for academic papers and journals), and his insistence on pushing his POV runs counter to WP:NPOV, a basic Wikipedia policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, you need to provide evidence of disruption in grammar/stiltedness if you want any action in that area. What, for example, is wrong with this edit, and why do you insist on the implied criticism of "certain writers" instead of the neutral discussion of the facts? I've not checked Charles' other edits, but if this is representative, you need to step away and stop disrupting things. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Nyttend, I won't be "stepping away" and allowing an editor to harm Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that would be good and/or helpful and/or appropriate, but I feel like the response by Chas. Caltrop pretty well illustrates exactly the communication and language issues that BMK has described. BMK did also link to the two previous ANI discussions, where diffs were provided. Grandpallama (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their response includes battleground behavior, insinuation someone is a nazi, and that they have the truth. That's a pretty good list of reasons they shouldn't be here (Tivanir2 editing from phone.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B108:C778:61D0:EFD0:78E2:DE71 (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a block appeal, that reply from CC above would get me slapping a WP:NOTTHEM decline. Just sayin'. (And the more I read it the more I cringe at it. Wow.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His allegedly stilted style doesn't worry me, but other aspects of his editing do. Take a look at this current teapot-tempest. I'd admit that I raised my opening objection in a somewhat pugnacious way, but (surprisingly) nobody seems to have objected to that. Instead, CC (a new name to me) raises rather incomprehensible objections to my pre-announced edit to the article, after reverting. (The only [apparently] clear objection is that I replaced sourced material with unsourced material. But sourcing isn't necessary in an introduction; and he cites very sloppily.) Nothing so terrible in any of this in itself -- certainly my thoroughgoing revisions have been reverted by other editors, and sometimes on reflection I've embarrassedly concluded that those editors had been right to revert. But it's worrisome if it's part of a pattern. -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken asked me to comment. I think there is almost nothing of substance to be said about this editor and his edits that hasn't already been said. The use of vague, generic edit summaries that do not explain the actual changes being made to articles is irritating, but I suppose people cannot be blocked just for that. Chas. Caltrop should definitely be blocked if he continues to insinuate that other editors are Nazi-supporters without real evidence, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was summoned also. It seems Chas Caltrop's edits may be generally better now than they were when I first encountered him, when they were appalling. But he definitely needs to use accurate edit summaries, and not change things like "US" to "U.S." pointlessly. zzz (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* BMK, the prior two ANI cases were useless and the one you brought here doesn't provide diffs of long-term disruption and POV editing. To get a response you are going to have to do the work and show the community clearly that there is a problem. I realize that is a lot of work, but people not doing that sort of work, is how people can persistently disrupt the project, which is what Chas. Caltrop appears to be doing. Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use the talk pages of articles

The kind of editing you did at Phyllis Schlafly needs prior discussion, not edit warring. Why don’t you use article talk pages? Just plain Bill (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a section on Talk:Apartheid which you can use to make any arguments you wish to make to justify the changes you wish to make to the article. You will find it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me: You've got it backwards: you made the changes, you justify them.

You: Sorry the tag that you deleted, says otherwise. Removing the tag proves bad faith

Strange, the tag actually reads This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding or removing subheadings. Could you point out where that text means "My changes must be accepted unless you persuade me otherwise"? English *is* your first language, right? --Calton | Talk 16:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above comment has been dishonestly edited by Chas. Caltrop to make it look like I was shouting. I was not! --DanielRigal (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Reply

What can I say to self-contradiction? You do not know it for a fact, but you know it to be true. . . .

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have edited my comment before "replying" to it. That is plainly indicative of bad faith. Also, you do not seem to want to engage with what I said at all. Maybe my own words are too confusing for you? Tell you what, I'll just use warning templates in future.

You seem to wish to conflate the two issues. I hold no opinion on your alleged edit warring (First issue). I do abhor your use of misleading edit summaries (Second issue). --DanielRigal (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never do something like this again, Chas. Caltrop. Read WP:TPO. If you ever do that again you are likely to be blocked. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Reply

What can I say to self-contradiction? You do not know it for a fact, but you know it to be true . . . especially in an Editor's Talk Page.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Please stop your long series of edits which in no way improve the article The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. There are somewhere between fifteen and twenty-five recent edits of yours with edit summaries like, ‘’CE; full facts, narrative flow’’ (or similar) which make trivial changes of wording or sentence order, some of which are not harmful but neither are they an improvement, and others of which are detrimental. What is your goal, here? Are you trying to rack up a large number of edits or are you genuinely trying to improve the article, because I am at a loss to see any overall improvement to the article at all, after two dozen edits by you. This is becoming disruptive of other editors’ time, who have to come in behind you and examine the changes, cleaning up where necessary.

Your editing at this article is starting to become disruptive. In addition, this diff spans 32 edits of yours in the last 24 hours (including a smattering by other editors attempting fixes), and I fail to see any overall improvement in the article in that span. Can you give a good reason why the article should not be rolled back to version 867831438 of 08:15, November 8, 2018? Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve opened a section at Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Proposed rollback concerning this to see if there is consensus for a rollback. Mathglot (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edits in question are manifestly unnecessary and unhelpful and have been reverted to this diff. User Caltrop, if you don't care to discuss the edits that you have made, feel free to not do so but there is an apparent consensus that you are wasting time by making unnecessary edits to the article that do not improve it. Coretheapple (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Caltrop, I hope this puts an end to your disruption at this article. If not, I call your attention to this AN/I discussion where you were apparently reported for exactly the same behavior. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just, wow. After all that, you ignore everyone at the talk page, and merrily revert back to your preferred version. The time to discuss with other editors and to attempt to gain consensus for your desired changes is now. Otherwise, I fear you will be back at AN/I soon, and sooner or later others will tire of the disruption. I think you may be running out of time. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was also going to comment on your edit summaries."Full facts" is not at all helpful, and in my long experience that sort of summary often accompanies a pov edit. Accusing people of being page owners isn't constructive either, you should read WP:AGF. Doug Weller talk 10:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of user talk vs. article talk pages

This is just a friendly note of explanation regarding the use of talk pages, and the distinction between the use of User talk pages (like this one) and article talk pages. Article talk pages, such as Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, are dedicated to discussion among editors about how to improve the article. They should be confined to discussions of article content, not editor behavior. User talk pages, on the other hand, may be used to discuss user behavior, including notices and warnings of various sorts, as well as praise, advice (like this notice), and other things. Edit warring and disruptive editing are user behavioral issues and not primarily a content dispute issue, which is why I chose to raise them here.

So, it didn’t really make sense to copy sections of that discussion from your user talk page here, to Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as you did in this edit. I won’t revert the copy-paste, because people have already replied and it would just make things worse at this point to remove it. It was a bit confusing, dropped into the conversation there the way it was, so I boxed up the copy-paste material to hopefully make it clearer to other editors what material was copied, and what was original to that discussion.

In the future, please bear in mind the distinction in the goals of the two kinds of talk pages. In addition, generally speaking, rather than copy-paste material from one talk page to another, just wikilink them; if for no other reason than to maintain one, single, unified discussion, rather than having multiple versions of the same fragmented discussion, with different editors responding in different places. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Yellow Peril. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reply
Dear Colleague

Ah, yes! CYA, why not? Lead by example, Grayfell, because you people did exactly that to provoke an edit war; practise what you preach, and your feelings shan't be hurt, when an editor defends against your mission. Get over yourselves, you were sent to force-start an old and dead edit war for Prof.-Dr. Big-time Somebody. Really? Re-read aloud your comments to me. If I addressed you that way, would you take it and like it? I think not, so move on, Colleague.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are not being clear. I've reread my comments, and I do not see any personal attacks. From my perspective, it appears that the other editor has tried to explain their position, and you've dismissed them completely and reverted anyway, often leaving edit summaries which don't make any sense. They inappropriately implied that you wrote the story without any evidence, but you, as the more experienced editor, should've worked to resolve that misconception, instead of escalating the indignation without actually responding to the underlying issue. You repeat that we "just don't like it" which suggests you haven't bothered to try and understand the problem, which is not assuming good faith.

Your comment that you shall await and then follow up. suggests that you intend to prolong this edit war. That's not going to work. Slow-burn edit warring is still edit warring.

If there is some deeper history to this dispute which leads you to repeatedly insinuate that I'm being paid, or am working on behalf of some other editor, you'll have to start talking about it in plain language, because it's not an effective way to make your point, and it's not helping the article. Grayfell (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A second reply
Dear Colleague

You people won the point . . . and yet the preventive CYA continues; he who excuses himself, accuses himself and fellow edit-war trolls. I spoke plainly, Colleague. You have answered questions I did not ask. Why not take your very hard-won victory and move on? I have.

Regards

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You called people who removed content with an explanation "edit-war trolls" and imply, without any evidence, that we're editing for nefarious reasons. I warned you not to use personal attacks. You reply by saying I started it, say I'm "covering my ass" by asking you not to do that again, and then double-down and lump everyone else together as "you people" and call us all "edit-war trolls" a second time. All of this is over a content issue you still have not addressed in any detail. Do I have that correct?

Regardless of the content issue, if "move on", do I have any reason to think you won't continue this behavior? Do you understand why this is a problem? Grayfell (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A third reply
Dear Colleague: My . . . this truly is unimportant. Coulda', woulda', shoulda' orders? Are you always so poor a winner, Grayfell? You have confirmed the fidelity, veracity, and accuracy of my observations of your behaviour as an editor. Wear your crown of laurel, proudly, and be gone, Colleague . . . or are you now my self-assigned minder and keeper?

Regards

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTEXT

Regarding this and this, WP:INTEXT is clear: "It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. Interested readers can click on the ref to find out the publishing journal. [...] Simple facts such as ['The discovery of the new tissue type was first published by researchers in 2012.'] can have inline citations to reliable sources as an aid to the reader, but normally the text itself is best left as a plain statement without in-text attribution."

Why are you unnecessarily adding what publication these authors noted their thoughts in? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Sino-Soviet split

I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over Sino-Soviet split. Instead I have started a discussion about the wording here:

Talk:Sino-Soviet_split#"Perdured" or "persisted"?

You are welcome to make your case for why you think that "persisted" is the wrong word. If you can show it is incorrect then we can discuss better alternatives although any replacement will need to be a word or phrase that readers can actually understand. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marxism–Leninism

Hi Chas. Caltrop,

in Special:Diff/927847496, the following text was added:

(...) the policies of the CPSU were correct because the party was enlightened and represented the only truth in Soviet society.

Emphasis mine. As we both seem to care a lot about a neutral point of view, I am probably misunderstanding this sentence or it has been added accidentally in Wikipedia's voice. Another editor has tried to repair this issue, but broke the sentence in the process: See Special:Diff/928389006. Would you mind cleaning this up? Thank you very much in advance.

Best regards
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for having had a look at this, but restoring the non-neutral text 1:1 does not seem to be appropriate. I have a feeling I do not understand something correctly here; please take a moment to explain the situation to me.

To me, the text appears to be non-neutrally written in Wikipedia's voice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colleague ToBeFree

Please, check the sources yourself, and you shall confirm that these are the facts of the subject. Y'see, that is how it happened, that is what they said, that is what they did. Nothing but the names, dates, and times. Please, double check. for yourself.

Regards

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism

Please don't remove maintenance tags and please don't edit-war to restore a version written in essay style. The article needs a lot of work, and with all due respect such edits hurt, not help. Thank you. Coretheapple (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reply

O.K., Coretheapple, but this follow-up commentary is harassment, given that I have provided sources for my editorial contributions, and you refused to abide the Wikipedia rules you preach to me. I can not hide from whom, Colleague? Is that some kinda threat-promise of future harassment by you and your fellows?

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019 (UTC)

Your reverts at Newspeak

Hello Chas. Caltrop, I invite you to discuss your reverts at the talk page of Newspeak. I have twice given reasons for my additions at the talk page, you keep reverting with blanket edit summaries. Please also do not mark reverts/substantial contributions as minor edits as you did at Newspeak. --Mvbaron (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Later, I shall find time to fight Jensen's edit-war with you. Meantime . . . you dumb-down the article to your heart's contempt. I've concluded an eight-month hiatus, and the first thing is Jensen's troll dogging my steps. Do you think you'll be a credible victim at the A.N.I.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chas. Caltrop (talk • contribs) 11:11, August 5, 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by that, but please do not make personal attacks. Thanks I have merely invited you to discuss changes at the talk page instead of reverting. Best --Mvbaron (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed section at Newspeak

Hello, Chas. Caltrop; please note that an article talk page is dedicated to discussion about how to improve the article. It is not a place to discuss other editors' behavior. I've collapsed the section there entitled, "#Your Edit war with Chas. Caltrop at Newspeak" as off-topic for that venue; including the material above, which was confusingly copied there. If you have comments about a user's behavior, please raise them first at the user's talk page, or if you prefer, here on your own. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Civil behavior, and possible legal threat

I just followed the discussion from Newspeak to Mvbaron (talk · contribs)'s talk page, and noticed this discussion that you raised there. In this edit, you managed to get in five insults or accusations in the first sentence, which I won't repeat here. You mentioned something in the second sentence that I didn't understand, but which sounded possibly like a legal threat.

Reply

Notice, please, Mathglot, how you betrayed yourself, by telling the truth in order to tell a lie; hence, the adult's correction of your factual misrepresentations in both statements.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the former case (insults and accusations), this seems like an egregious breach of good faith towards your fellow editor; please review and pay attention to Wikipedia's policy of WP:CIVIL behavior, which governs how we treat each other. In the latter case, that has a much lower level of tolerance, so I'm requesting that trusted admin User:Cullen328 have a look at it. You may be able to forestall any admin action by immediately clarifying what you meant by that comment, and/or apologizing, if warranted. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Notice, please, Mathglot, how you betrayed yourself, by telling the truth in order to tell a lie; hence, the adult's correction of your factual misrepresentations in both statements.; Chas. Caltrop (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot, I do not take that as an overt legal threat as much as improper lashing out against other editors. Chas. Caltrop, please take this as a formal warning from an administrator: Abandon this type of behavior that includes harassing other editors. Discuss content without personal attacks. The alternative is a lengthy block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in, Cullen328. Mathglot (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Got it, Cullen 328. Thank you.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yellow Peril, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Race.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Error

Hi there, I think it was your recent edits of Don Juan (poem) that left a ref error at "And be the only Blackbird in the dish". I'd fix it, but I can't quite tell what was intended there. Mind taking a look? Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Don Juan (poem)

added links pointing to Estate and High society

Yellow Peril

added a link pointing to Social engineering

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Model of Poesy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Thomas Wyatt and Edmund Spencer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orientalism (book)

I'm not sure what "POV-pushing revision" is, but I'm pretty sure my reversion of your repeated edits to a long-standing article text is not it. Please read WP:BRD (and WP:AGF) and raise the issue on the article's talk page to get a consensus from other editors rather than attempting to push through changes against the opinion of the rest of the community. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A reply to Brigade Piron: Thanks for communicating with me, but we both know whereof I speak, your version is POV-pushing, because of the continual use of "Said said" and "Said claims", which are anti-intellectual tactics to discredit a person or a subject through de-legitimation, i.e. Orientalism is just the opinion of Said. As you know, this field of intellectual enquiry is A Thing in the real world, which is taught at universities, so, therefore, your claim is false, Brigade Piron. Your pretending not to know what POV-PUSHING means proves my point, after all, you can speak only for yourself, and not for "the uninitiated reader". I shall work with you.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Authenticity (philosophy)

added a link pointing to Enlightenment

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

added a link pointing to Cinema

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Authenticity in art

added a link pointing to Cinema

One Thousand and One Nights

added a link pointing to Verse

Thrownness

added a link pointing to Matrix

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One Thousand and One Nights

Hi, I saw your major editing at One Thousand and One Nights, against a pretty stable version of the article's lede, and the resultant revert war with Soundofmusicals (talk · contribs) who wishes to preserve the established version. Unfortunately, I'm not a subject expert and I have had little involvement with such content disputes, but here's some documentation about resolving content disputes which you and Soundofmusicals might like to consider. Perhaps, as a first step, you might take the matter to the article's talk page and engage in constructive dialogue? Esowteric+Talk 08:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on One Thousand and One Nights; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Esowteric+Talk 09:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CE; encyclopaedic style, narrative flow, thematic coherence, concrete language, npov.

You've been very busy, which is nice to see, but please stop using this misleading edit summary when you are hugely expanding an article! Also please read through after editing; there are too many careless slips. "Garb"?? Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Authenticity (philosophy)

added links pointing to Imaginary and Convention

Thrownness

added a link pointing to Phenomenology

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Madrigal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Continuo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Intellectualism.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.[reply]

September 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating the non-free content policy, as you did at Intellectual history.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]