Jump to content

User talk:Cortador

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Listed below are some brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia.

If you want to know more about a specific subject, Help:Help explains how to navigate the help pages.

Where next?

[edit]
  • If you wish to express an opinion or make a comment, Where to ask questions will point you in the correct direction.
  • If you would like to edit an article, the Basic tutorial will show you how, and How to help will give you some ideas for things to edit.
  • If you would like to create a new article, Starting an article will explain how to create a new page, with tips for success and a link to Wikipedia's Article Wizard, which can guide you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.
  • For more support and some friendly contacts to get you started, the Editors' Welcome page should be your next stop!

See also

[edit]

Good luck and happy editing. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! LionMans Account (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Pratyya (Hello!) 13:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Magedoom for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Magedoom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magedoom until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Extra Ordinary (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Wind (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at List of video games notable for negative reception shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JOEBRO64 20:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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 ~~~~}}.  -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Denniss. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Nebelwerfer have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. if you see something to discuss take it to talk but do not introduce fals information/translation just because you don't know german terms Denniss (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cortador reported by User:Denniss (Result: ). Thank you. Denniss (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Czello (music) 08:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Boris Johnson) for a period of 2 weeks 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

If you reinstate disputed material about living people without a consensus (in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE), you may be topic banned from editing about living people, or blocked from editing. It does not matter whether this is done using three or four reverts; two are sufficient and even one can be a policy violation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cortador (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not reinstate disputed material. The disputed material was an unqualified statement that Johnson has seven children (and was tagged as such), despite multiple reliable sources stating that he has "at least" seven children. The disputed material was reinstated by User:DeFacto and User:CzelloCortador (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were edit warring on that biography. The block is clearly necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The words "at least" and the citations added in [1], [2], [3] and [4] have been edit warred back into the article without a consensus to do so having been found on the talk page. You are currently blocked to prevent you from continuing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Boris Johnson

[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Boris Johnson, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Request

[edit]

Hi Cortador. My name is Marco Silva and I am a senior journalist with BBC News in London. I noticed how much you contributed to the article about Sultan Al Jaber. Is there any chance we can chat in private? I have a couple of questions for you about this article and about the editing work you have been doing. To be crystal clear: I am not looking for an interview, just an off-the-record chat. Please let me know your thoughts when you have a moment. Many thanks. MarcoSilvaUK (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @MarcoSilvaUK. I'm happy to have a chat. Do you have means to be contacted? I found your Twitter profile, but was unable to DM you as I'm not verified. Cortador (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cortador. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Please email me via my personal page (Special:EmailUser/MarcoSilvaUK) and we'll take it from there. Much appreciated. MarcoSilvaUK (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MarcoSilvaUK Done. Cortador (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Al Jaber

[edit]

"Hi!" - Please: Use the Informations i gave, instead revert all generally, thankyou! I don't have the time & the knowledge to do the things here as you want, "sorry!". Gentle: Hungchaka (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation

[edit]

Please do not misrepresent my posts, as you did here. I was not complaining about any sources, I was asking how you selected them, to help understand the weight to be applied to your use of them. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

[edit]

This edit summary includes a quite explicit assumption of bad faith. The editor already said their edit was based on a specific and expressed reasoning, but you directly imply that their real reasoning was something else "you not liking them". You are a generally good editor and I do not wish to see you get zucked. Please take this as a friendly but vigorous encouragement to stop those kinds of comments, in ES or on talk, right away. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Czello has displayed disruptive behaviour in the past e.g. false accusations of three-revert rule breaks. I can only give people so much benefit. Cortador (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still on this? It's been months, and you were edit warring, several times, as you continue to do. Let it go. — Czello (music) 07:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have moved from a break of the three-edit rule to just "edit warring" to hide the fact that your accusations were fabricated. Also, since you apparently monitor my talk page (as evident by you replying to a comment you weren't even tagged in within minutes), I don't think you should be talking about anyone's inability to move on. Cortador (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your talk page is still on my watchlist after the previous times I've had to warn you about edit warring. I've not had to "fabricate" a reason to do so: you must be aware of the fact you have a habit of edit warring ideologies into infoboxes when you don't have consensus. — Czello (music) 08:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you talk about not being able to let go. Well, have fun with whatever obsession you have with me. Cortador (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Financial ties to Russian oligarchs

[edit]

Kia ora @Cortador. Just want to say thanks again for restoring the edits I made to the page for the Conservative Party (UK). As you can see here, the user Czello left me a message threatening to block me, after I tried reaching out to him to get him to come to the talk page. Bit irritiating. Aubernas (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AubernasNo problem. I think it would have been more productive if anyone had actually voiced any specific issues they had with the addition, but none of the other editors did that. Cortador (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

edit war

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Note although this is a 3rr warning the page is (in fact) under 1RR, you have reverted more than once. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SlaterstevenThe page states: "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message." The BRD page in turn states: "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one."
Emphasis mine. None of the users who reverted the edit have a given a sufficient reason, and none have bothered to post a reply on the talk page. You are the ones engaging in edit warring by reverting edits while not following what a BRD cycle asks for. Cortador (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You only posted that talk page discussion today. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because nobody had bothered to give a reason for the reverts. I expect a good-faith effort when edits are reverted. Cortador (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This was added yesterday and needs to be discussed if added. Reversion was correct" is a reason. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No addition requires a discussion just because, not even articles about contentious topics. If you want a discussion, give a reason why you think that information doesn't belong in the first sentence of the lead. Cortador (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My last word here, you have been warned, if you revert again I will report you. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a good look at WP:BOOMERANG then. Cortador (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Vivek Ramaswamy#Sources that label Ramaswamy a climate change denier

[edit]

Hi Cortador, regarding this talk page discussion that you have started, could you add a proposal for specific wording to be added into the article? Having closed the previous discussion as without consensus, I believe it would lead to a more lasting outcome if specific text was proposed to be included in the article, which can then be approved or rejected by consensus. Thank you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip The specific wording should be: "Vivek Ramaswamy is a climate change denier".
That said, I disagree with there being no consensus. Consensus should be formed on arguments made, and the no side has failed to demonstrate why Ramaswamy shouldn't not have this label, and/or didn't bring up sources that deny that he is a climate change denier. Cortador (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you can commence a new RfC which includes that suggested wording, along with the paragraph it would be contained in. However, an explicit description as "climate change denier" did not gain consensus, as discussion participants were not convinced that the sources you provided adequately support the proposed description, so you may wish to propose an alternative description to gain consensus. On volume I would have determined that there was consensus against, but I considered there to be roughly equal weight between the arguments. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RfC aren't decided by majority vote. I didn't see anyone bring up sources that deny that Ramaswamy is a denier, so to be honest, I don't see how you came to the conclusion that there was equal weight between arguments. Cortador (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about sources refuting the ones you provided, it's about how editors have interpreted the sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to interpret. The source are clear. Only one editor had an issue with them, stating that two are biased, which isn't sufficient grounds to reject them.
Also, the "No" have provided no sources whatsoever. Cortador (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Source titles

[edit]

In this edit, you added a source[1] but the title you added in the "title=" parameter does not match the title actually used in the source.[2] Repeatedly doing this could be construed as disruptive. Please take care to accurately reflect the content and titles of sources in the references. Cheers. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Cowburn, Ashley (2017-10-30). "Tory MPs blocked bid to sign up to code stopping sexual harassment". The Independent. Retrieved 2023-11-14.
  2. ^ Cowburn, Ashley (2017-10-30). "Tory MPs 'resisted' attempt by David Cameron to make them sign code of conduct safeguarding staff against sexual harassment". The Independent.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfD duplicate vote

[edit]

Hi, I hope you'll forgive me, I've struck your last !vote at AfD/Hohem as you'd already !voted delete. This isn't an attempt at suppressing your point of view. It's just that when people !vote several times, it gets harder for the closing admin to assess the consensus. Best wishes, Elemimele (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Third opinion

[edit]

I have requested a third opinion regarding the disagreement at Talk:Cook Partisan Voting Index Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid commenting on editors

[edit]

Cortador, I know you have been given a contentious topics warning. Please avoid commenting on editors as you have been doing in our recent discussions. When you shift from commenting on my arguments to commenting on my understandings you are no longer WP:FOC. Springee (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Republican party article

[edit]

I empathize with your positions here, and I see that we agree on certain issues. I think your time will be better served avoiding the back and forth with other editors. I can certainly relate to your frustrations, but sometimes the best thing to do is to disengage if you know it's not likely to have any effect on swaying opinion or increasing consensus. Let's focus on improving the Far right section and try to keep it condensed down to what is DUE, with a few short sentences. We have a good start, we just need to be patient and open minded. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be open-minded if I can see the same from others. All I get with these reverts are a bunch of links and no explanation. Both Springee and Muboshgu have claimed that GOP support for GRCT is a minority viewpoint, and both have failed to back that up with anything. Cortador (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see much point in going back and forth with Springee. I think you should both disengage for a bit. I'm happy to work with you, so if you just want to use me as your sounding board I'm happy to act as a buffer until things calm down. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick suggestion. I would not try to hold any other editor's hands and explain policies or walk them through justifications, at least not more than once. Sometimes it's OK to stop engaging if an editor clearly and simply can't or won't acknowledge things. Constantly going back and forth on tangents tends to distract from where the discussion is supposed to go. Focus on your arguments and which sources say what, and how it affects the article. Avoid discussions that tend to end up in WP:BATTLE and WP:LAWYER territory. Not that you are doing anything wrong, I also struggle with these issues myself, but I wanted to let you know that sort of thing happens, and can create unnecessary stress. I like to remind myself I do not control consensus, I simply abide by it. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qianliyan Island

[edit]

The tag isn't appropriate so there's nothing to replace it with. If you disagree, fine, but take it to the talk page and/or bring in an RfC &c. to show me how wrong I am. In any case, if there's an issue with any fact in the article, tag that but it is cited, so "needs cites" is definitely the wrong template for whatever the problem is you see.

(For Mount Qianliyan, btw, yeah, fair enough. There are cites on that article but, yeah, they should be replaced with a higher quality source so the template fits, kinda. For Qianliyan Island, no, they're journalistic and scholarly sources already and there's no actual problem with them as far as I can see. You're welcome to explain the issue on the talk page, ofc.) — LlywelynII 17:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Despite the scary tag, I posted there already that I saw you finally engaging on the talk page. Hopefully you keep things there and that whole bit blows over. — LlywelynII 18:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Ginni Thomas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Czello (music) 21:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing Ginni Thomas for a period of one month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  El_C 05:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help on a request

[edit]

Hi @Cortador, I am a Conflict of Interest editor who has made a request at Talk:Sultan Al Jaber where you have previously weighed in on other discussions. I wondered if you might like to assess the changes I have proposed? Thank you in advance! Dedemocha (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedemocha I'll have a look. Cortador (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cortador thank you so much for your feedback so far on this request. I have left a response on the Talk page with some additional sources and closer wording to the original NYT source, which I hope are useful Dedemocha (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diligence
For your work going through Tommy Tallarico and finding sources/removing unsourced items, that task is much appreciated! Alyo (chat·edits) 15:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlyoMuch appreciated! Cortador (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't know

[edit]

You're in media:[5][6] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Hahaha, wow. That's amazing. At this rate, we'll have to add the discussion about the medal to the article. Cortador (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not if I WP:OWN it we wont (see [7]). Seriously though, I would approach that like the wig [8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable. Cortador (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On height, I just imagined "Kamala Harris is an American politician who is the current president of the United States. She is the second shortest person to hold that office. Also the first woman." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be all for a presidential height table, though that may not be encyclopaedic. Cortador (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, that's an actual thing. Cortador (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! That's where I got "second shortest." So Trump has got height on his side, like he did with Hillary. She did get more votes though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Republican Party (United States) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toa Nidhiki05 14:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Toa Nidhiki05 above, please review BRD. You have enough editing experience to know that contested restorations should go to the talk page first. Springee (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RSP question

[edit]

Hi Cortador. I’m looking for input on the right way to add a source to RSP following an RfC. I’m writing to you because you are active on RSP. An MMA blog called Bloody Elbow has been determined to be generally unreliable prior to March 2024. There has been an RfC and two previous discussions:[9], [10], [11]. Based on my reading, Bloody Elbow now meets the formal WP:RSPCRITERIA but I think an independent editor(s) should make that determination and if they agree, implement the RSP. I would do it myself but I am a COI editor who represents an MMA league, ONE Championship, that’s been frequently written about in the blog. This blog is so unreliable that when new owners took over in March 2024 and turned it into a reliable news source with reporters, editors and fact checking, they deleted the entire 14 year archive of blog posts. Despite a discussion on RSN going back 12 years that the blog was not reliable, Bloody Elbow has been cited more than 500 times on Wikipedia, including on most of the significant pages about MMA. Without the visibility of the RSP, I think the misuse of this blog will remain pervasive. Bloody Elbow’s reinvention by new owners as a reliable source is going to add to the confusion. People will think that that old blog content has the credibility of the new reliable news source, or - conversely - that the new source is generally unreliable because it used to be a blog. A delineation on RSP will very much help with the confusion. Do you have any guidance on how I can bring this to the attention of the right editors? Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brucemyboy1212 Hello. The right way forward here is to start a RfC on the reliable sources notice board, and link to previous discussion. You should make the following case: Bloody Elbow (before March 2024) and Bloody Elbow (March 2024-present) are two different sources, since it seems that the new owner bought the rights to the branding and essentially erases the old blog. Point out that the site now has an editorial policy and uses professional journalists (at least according to them). Just adding the source to the list isn't appropriate, since the last discussion had little participation. Cortador (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

[edit]

Please strike this comment as it violates CIVIL [12]. Springee (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you focus on the discussion instead of making bad faith accusations. Cortador (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cortador&oldid=1255200594"