Jump to content

User talk:Dlthewave/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

ScratchMarshall

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tyciol. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

DS alert

Can you clarify what the pseudoscience DS alert means? I'm not allowed to restore "pseudoscience" when it seems agreed-upon (per Fringe noticeboard) and consistent with sources (per RS and NPOV)? I'm not familiar with this particular DS alert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It's just standard DS. The expectations are the same as any other article, but editors who don't follow our policies and guidelines can be sanctioned by any admin.
I think it's good practice to alert everyone who edits in these areas, both to prevent misconduct and to inform editors that sanctions are available in case they come across bad behavior. –dlthewave ☎ 17:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Steve Down

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Steve Down. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Contest a deleted page without being given a chance to

Nice of you to welcome me (although I have been around some time) with the message that you've deleted my page that I'd worked on for a long time. Not least of which was that the copyright had been freely obtained and given. How I cite/prove this is unknown. At least contact a user and then give them sufficient time to be able to give proof, which I have. That took me a long time to create. Please restore and I'll rewrite in my own words if you prefer and then cite the pdf. I did one reference for the whole thing as it's a compilation of many people's work, but did add/correct some items. Clearly, as a user who hunts down red links, I now know why there are so many. I'm not prepared to chase my tail anymore. The spirit that I thought Wikipedia had, clearly doesn't exist. I shall, instead, place my efforts elsewhere. Thanks, for nothing. Andrew.Hensman (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest talking to Shirt58, the admin who performed the deletion. I wasn't aware that you had copyright permission, since the cites did not mention this. We do have a process for copyright holders to release material Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for use on Wikipedia, which also gives permission for anyone to share, republish or adapt.
Please don't take the tone of the notice personally, since it comes from a template. I removed the Welcome message which was also added automatically, since you're not a new user.
Let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, I'll do what I can to help. –dlthewave ☎ 12:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Ezra Pound‎

I have reverted you reversion of the Erza talk page on the grounds that there was lot more substance to the post that the calling out of named editors. I would like to be able to speak regardless of either (1) the feelings of stone throwers or (2) how you might like to narrowly characterise the "dispute" terms of CIV. Ceoil (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I tried to leave as much of your comment intact as possible. I suggest that you rewrite to remove the personal attack. –dlthewave ☎ 04:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok now I am lost. In fact you did neither, just blind reverted that time, no effort to rewrite made. That seems either weird or dishonest. You might explain. Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
That's right, I did not attempt to rewrite your post. I removed the middle part which contained a personal attack. It's on you to rewrite. –dlthewave ☎ 04:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
There are two possible reasons that I can think of to explain your last post, but assuming good faith that you are neither stupid nor devious, will offer neither. Ceoil (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Another project page cited as policy example

Talk:Bushmaster Firearms International#Mass Murder Weapon

  • Sorry, that dog won't hunt. WP:GUNS#Criminal use is quite clear on this issue; this incident, unfortunate as it was, does not meet the criteria for inclusion.
  • ...the addition on the Connecticut shooting is a ridiculous violation of WP:NPOV and WP:GUNS
  • ...it violates WP:GUNS because it doesn't meet the notability criteria laid out there.
  • WP:GUNS may not be an official policy but it was formed by consensus and the intention was to prevent gun articles like this one from giving undue attention to criminal use.
  • On the contrary, WP:GUNS outlines precisely why this should not be included in the article.

GMcD6 (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I will add this to the list. –dlthewave ☎ 01:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Liberty

Taken it off my watch list, the only reason it was there was I closed an RFCand I'm largely uninterested with dealing with that sort of rubbish. In case you are unaware, for future reference Winkelvi is under an indefinite 1rr restriction logged at WP:Editing restrictions Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Why would you feel the need to let Dlthewave know about my 1RR, OID? Have I violated that 1RR since the restriction was imposed? Nope. Until that happens (which it won't), I can't imagine why you are gossipping about it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Only in death: Thanks for the heads-up about the 1RR. Frankly I don't care where the hat tag goes as long as the hab ends the discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 02:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Linn City, Oregon

Hello Dlthewave. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Linn City, Oregon, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a copyright violation, since the source material is a U.S. federal government publication. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Kentucky Camp, Arizona

Hello Dlthewave. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Kentucky Camp, Arizona, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Text and images published by the United States federal government is automatically in the public domain, and copying it is not a violation of copyright. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Request to stop

Please stop following me.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: Which edits of mine are you referring to? –dlthewave ☎ 00:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

How is listing the names of prosecutors and defense attorney's inappropriate?

How is listing the names of prosecutors and defense attorney's inappropriate? Geo8rge (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss this on article talk. –dlthewave ☎ 18:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard

Greetings. FYI, if you want to prevent premature archiving of posts on the BLP Noticeboard, you should be able to use {{do not archive until}} to specify how long the thread should remain. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! –dlthewave ☎ 01:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Here (Alicia Keys album)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Here (Alicia Keys album). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk page

Please do not post on my talk page with your perceived violations, as already requested, per policy. Doing so would have the optics of harassment. Thank you. -72bikers (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sport in Australia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sport in Australia. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Back Story

A new account that turned out to be a sock puppet got into an edit war with him over the gender identity of a German pop star who may have come out to a small number of people as a transwoman days before they disappeared off a cruise ship (presumed dead by the Canadian coast guard). In the course of this discussion he made some pretty explicitly transphobic comments, mostly in edit summaries. The sock got reported to 3RR but no action because of the BLP exception; but she was pretty ticked over the dispute and went to AN/I. That's the entire story. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
For going above and beyond in helping to identify issues in African-American architects. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Add my thanks to this, impressive work on Tanks Break Through! – thank you very much! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

My first one! Thank you! –dlthewave ☎ 19:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Questionable notification

Dlthewave, your notification of the gun politics group is basically canvasing. The editors of that group are basically exclusively a small group of like minded editors. This is one of the serious issues with that sells selected project from day one. Springee (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk Page WatcherThis is the first time I've ever seen a notification to a Wikipedia working group called canvasing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The problem is the list of editors who are members of the gun politics project. That project was established April of this year by Dlthewave. The majority (all?) of the editors are editors who have favored inclusion of gun crime content in articles. So notifying that project is functionally the same as if I notified the editors who reliably vote against such content. Springee (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The failure of those people who oppose transparency on mass killings to engage this project is hardly Dlthewave's problem. Last I checked wikiproject participation wasn't by invitation only. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The way you phrase your reply is already problematic. Don't get me wrong as I have worked with you and I know that you are very interested in compromise, balance etc. Let's be real, that project is advocating a particular position. That's fine but don't expect those who don't support what they advocate to join. That doesn't mean we should ignore that the group is effectively a very small, very recent advocacy group of like minded editors. Compare that to the firearms project which has over 250 current and former members, has been around for over a decade and is far more varied in interested etc. Springee (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I am very interested in balance, notability and such. I am also an inclusionist so I tend to get grumpy when people want to keep notable and relevant information off a page; doubly so when it's because said information might make a controversial product look bad. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave, I know that I've been short with you recently and I've suggested POV pushing type motives in some of your actions. I apologize for that. I've reverted your edit (I think we were at 3:3 thus no new consensus) but added a RfC to discuss the material in question. I would like to ask you to provide the external references for the material in question. Currently it only links to other wiki articles. Since I'm opposed to the content I don't think it would be right for me to select the supporting references. Please feel free to edit the opening question to add the references. I know we won't agree on this but at least with a full, proper RfC we can feel the decision should stand. Springee (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

How did you arrive at "3:3"? There are 3 "Support" !votes, your two "forum shopping" comments (which were rejected by an admin) and RAF910's "oppose" which again cites no reason other than forum shopping. Remember, consensus is assessed based on policy-based opinions, not a simple majority vote.
Thank your for opening the new RfC. This will help us obtain a clear community consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 03:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Your self-revert

By doing this you removed not only yours but also mine edits. That is not allowed. Actually, I have no objections to that, however, be cautious in future, because other users may report you. I posted it here, just in case if this your edit will be reported (that can happen, unfortunately. :-)--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I was sure you wouldn't mind, but I will be cautious especially on that page. –dlthewave ☎ 01:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page

I deleted it as garbage--Woogie 10w (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Some editors do not contribute meaningful material to Wikipedia, they waste time playing Wikipedia admin games. That is harassment, they waste their opponents time with admin games.--Woogie 10w (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Mrs Bradley

While I do see the similarities between the text at this site and in this 2009 edit, I looked for evidence that the site was in existence prior to the edit and failed to find it. that's short of definitive. What evidence do you have that the Wikipedia article was copied from the site as opposed to vice versa?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have listed http://www.gladysmitchell.com/fullerbradley.htm which was archived in 2002 and currently redirects to https://www.gladysmitchell.com/mrs-bradley-an-introduction. This page matches most of the original 2009 version of our article. The second paragraph of Appearance and Attributes and the Career section are a match for https://www.gladysmitchell.com/on-mrs-bradley, which is attributed to an essay published in 1976. Does that help? –dlthewave ☎ 03:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dlthewave. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dlthewave. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please consider

Why didn't you post an edit wasting notice on Guy's talk page? If you had it would be easy to assume you were trying to calm a situation. As is it comes across as antagonistic and one sided. 

Springee (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Elisa Rolle's articles". Thank you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggested edit

I reserve the right to disagree with it later but for consistency I think something like your S&W Model 19 edit would fit into the Browning High Power article since it provides context for the inclusion. Springee (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I think that a 1 or 2 sentence blurb is often a good way to establish the significance of the event and provide links to more information, without being excessively long. –dlthewave ☎ 01:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Re Charles Eugene Williams

Did you actually read the article? He is a world racquets champion, the titanic note is an interesting side note. How can a sports world champion not be notable? Racingmanager (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history; 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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. 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. - wolf 01:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht

Please note that a named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht was an award according to the German historian Felix Römer. There is also a book by the German Federal Archives which explains how, why and when a soldier, a unit, division, regiment or ship was named. Please consider reverting your edits. If you require proof, I will send you scans of the professional assessment made by historians, published in reliable books. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Another good book on the topic was written by the historian Söhnke Neitzel. What is the basis for your opinion that it was not an award? I am asking because your view is in contrast to the opinion of the professional historians mentioned above as well as the writings of the German Federal Archives. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing the scans. My understanding was that it was a propaganda broadcast and the mentions didn't receive significant coverage in secondary sources, but I'm open to learning more. –dlthewave ☎ 17:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

That is part of the story, I‘ll send you the scans when I am back from vacation. Have a first look at the German Wikipedia article, it is more detailed on the award character than the English article. The award is based on a law published in the German Heeresverordnungsblatt. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm about to leave for vacation as well. Could you post or provide a link at the project talk page where others are discussing it? Thanks. –dlthewave ☎ 01:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Please stop removing references to the Wehrmachtsbericht. This was one of the official government news sources. One doesn't have to like or approve of the regime to understand the importance of this historical reference. Indeed, the fact that there were so few permitted sources of information makes this source even 'more' important.198.161.4.63 (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen the RfC? Current consensus is that a Wehrmachtbericht mention may be included when "a reliable source that focuses on the mentioned person or unit specifically states that the mention was an honour". I've been removing mentions that only cite the Wehrmachtbericht itself. –dlthewave ☎ 20:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Titanic proposal

Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic#Proposal to trim passenger list seems to have slowed down. I wanted to ask if you had listed it at any of the wiki-projects its listed under? (There's over a dozen of them). Thanks - wolf 18:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I haven't listed the discussion anywhere, but that would be a good idea. I'm also considering notifying the deletion discussion participants since a number of them voiced their opinions there but not at the article. –dlthewave ☎ 20:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Would you mind looking over the draft message in my sandbox? I want to send out something neutral that will attract more editors to the discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 21:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

That's sounds like a good idea and the draft looks fine. Hopefully this will kickstart something... - wolf 21:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Social media addiction

Hello thankyou for your help in pointing out that many references were unusable in the article social media addiction. I have taken into account all yours and other considerations from other wikis and propose changing the article to what I am currently working on here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:E.3/sandbox. Can you please help with checking the citations due to my conflict of interest disclosed multiple times. I wish to develop consensus especially around the citations. Thankyou very much. E.3 (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help again do you think any of these images would be OK? I only took the first one. They called it QI on commons, whatever that means really

Images
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

THx E.3 (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


I added those two pics there they appear to be the least artsy and directly related to the parts cited and shown. If you think 
should be on it let me know, or just another one of the meds in the commons. But i think its probably enough images now though. Any thoughts appreciated. E.3 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
It depends on the context of how and where you want to use the images, but the short answer is likely to be "no". They would make great magazine illustrations but don't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. Images on Wikipedia should show the subject in a straightforward manner, minimizing "artistic" editing and embellishments. For example, although your dollar bill photo meets the Quality image requirements (great shot by the way), I didn't even notice the pill the first time I looked at it and I'm not sure how it illustrates social media addiction. The subject should be prominent and any other elements should be non-distracting. Likewise, computer code would be better illustrated with a head-on shot of a computer screen, and it would need to have a direct connection to social media addiction. I'm not sure how the black-and-white photo of children of the selective-focus shot of refrigerator magnets would be useful here. It would be best to post questions on the article talk page if you would like to discuss further. –dlthewave ☎ 16:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

2nd RfD announce: Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL

There is another redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 11#Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Seriously you've been the best

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
its the toughest topic in the world presently in my opinion. You've helped us do it. E.3 (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Warning

Your message isn't appreciated. Read the assessment. The vote was cast because of the inclusion of one source. That is now gone. Had editors been given the chance to reassess then they may have changed their minds. You've effectively allowed Koffman to take this article off the list by his own volition. There is nothing about that, that is remotely appropriate. Dapi89 (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Signpost article

Dlthewave, Rather than have you find you indirectly, I wanted to let you know I have posted a Signpost comment in regards to your Firearms OpEd article. I have also posted a notice at Project Firearms talk. I'm concerned about what I view as a very one sided telling of events. Your article contains a number of accusatory claims but I think in most cases people would find the net results were not violations of DUE or NPOV etc. I think you have a very strong POV on the subject and thus you are making a good faith effort to fix a problem you are concerned about. However, I think many of the retelling are one sided and don't do the related discussions justice. We typically don't agree on these topics but I do think you are a good faith editor so I wanted to let you know I was responding to the article. If it's accepted I will likely, and as time allows, draft a rebuttal to many of the points and claims you made. I do think many of the claims can be reasonably refuted. Again, I do think you edit in good faith but I strongly disagree with the facts presented in your OpEd. Thanks. Springee (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to discuss this on the Signpost submission page. If you feel that there are specific factual errors in my writing, feel free to raise your concerns there. –dlthewave ☎ 17:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:APPNOTE

I've removed your notice here [[1]]. I believe I understand why you feel this might have been CANVASING but I think you will find it was proper notification per the APPNOTE section. The material in question was discussed by four of us (you and I included) just a few months back. Waiting a period of time then starting a new conversation without considering the views previously raised might be FORUMSHOP issue. I don't know for certain but I'm sure it's not favorably viewed. Conversely, notifying all editors involved in a previous discussion of the same topic is appropriate notification; WP:APPNOTE "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". It would only be inappropriate if I notified previously uninvolved editors or was selective in my notifications. Springee (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

What previous discussions are you referring to? I am not aware of any that reached consensus, and my paragraph format was an attempt to address the "indiscriminate list" concerns. –dlthewave ☎ 22:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Springee, please strike the WP:FORUMSHOP accusation. I did not start any new discussions, in fact all of the recent discussions on the topic were started by you. –dlthewave ☎ 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I said might be forumshop but I wasn't sure. You are correct, you didn't initiate any of the discussions. However, we had a discussion here [[2]] to which you were a party. That discussion resulted in the removal of the section. You certainly can object to the removal but instead you simply restored it several months later with no discussion. I understand this was an honest oversight but the effect is similar. A consensus is reached then someone who at least should have been aware of the consensus as a party in the discussion acts against it with out additional discussion. I know we don't agree on much of this material but I also know you are a good faith editor. I'm only bringing this up because I think your warning on my page was incorrect per APPNOTE. Springee (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Good show in the critical evaluation of the String theory site and the suggestion that it be changed to "SkyWay". The science is completely unsupported by valid sources. It really scares me that no one has acted upon this site despite complaints about it in its talk page for more than a decade. I know actual people who were misled by Wikipedia into thinking that 'string theory' was scientifically valid and therefore that the 'skyway' transportation system was a good way to invest their money. Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 19:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This has got to be seen to be believed : https://www.swigaptraining.com/skyway-anatoly-yunitskiy-was-awarded-the-international-peace-prize-from-slovakia-via-skyway/ Just out of curiousity, I checked. No one apart from pages and pages of SkyWay propaganda mention the recent ceremony. In fact, as far as I can see no one else has received such a prize. So funny it's scary.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

As a result of the recent arbitration enforcement request to which you were a party, I am warning you not to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. Should such problems reoccur, you may be made subject to blocks, topic bans or other discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 07:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing this warning per my comment at AE. Sandstein 18:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Firearms content

Dlthewave, you are removing a lot of basic content from a number of firearms articles and I was hoping to make a basic request. Some of the information looks like good removals but other material looks like material that shouldn't be controversial and likely could be sourced with minimal work. Take this removal for example [[3]]. It does read to much like promotional material. However, there are also interesting bits of content such as the operating mechanism. The fact that the frame of the firearm is actually a sub assembly that fits inside of a larger grip (thus allowing the gun to be changed from compact to full size without a new serial number). Even if the text reads in a promotional style (it should not) the content is not controversial and even the mfr's product page should be a sufficient source (for example we can cite Ford's HP claims for cars). I hope you would agree that the technical content, if properly sourced, improves the utility of the article. Rather than wholesale removal would you please tag so others change change things later? I know we don't often agree but I hope this is something we can agree on. Springee (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Looks like stripping down a lot of WP:UNDUE WP:FANCRUFT to me. Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
What is the boundary between fancruft and operational facts that readers might care about? I think this is one of the reasons why there are so many firearms disputes. Some editors want to see things like "has hammer decocker" etc. Other editors are interested in the crime material. That said, the operating specs etc aren't controversial and articles about the guns are likely to include such information just as articles about cars are likely to say what type of suspension, how many speed transmission etc. Springee (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Something doesn't have to be controversial to be a dull, pointless waste of bits useful only for hardcore fans. Having llooked at DLthewave's excellent edit linked from this page I'd say they were removing precisely that - a dull, pointless waste of bits useful only for hardcore fans of a pistol. And WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here. As does WP:FANCRUFT rather directly. Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I understand the Project Firearms guidelines have been problematic with respect to criminal use but in reading over the style guide it seems very clear that things such as how the gun operates, features etc are generally of interest.[[4]] Consider the content in the FN P90 and FN Five-seven GA tagged articles. I think the difference isn't the content but simple that it needed to be sourced better. Springee (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The firearms WikiProject is one that has been taken over by purveyors of fancruft. I don't see, "but the project page liked it" as a compelling argument in favour of inclusion of this level of pointless and irrelevant detail about how the gun functions. Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that the Firearms style guide represents the opinion of a small group of editors and does not necessarily reflect the views of the wider editing community or even our core content policies. The project seems to prescribe certain different levels of inherent WP:WEIGHT or inclusion criteria to certain aspects such as caliber, features, criminal use, variants, official users, etc, but this is not how weight is determined. We don't include something just because it is "generally of interest". If these items are not covered, or if they are discussed in different proportions by reliable secondary sources, our articles should reflect that level of coverage.
The level of detail in FN P90 is debatable, but at least it has inline sources throughout. The unsourced content which I removed from P320 is retained in the edit history and editors are welcome to reinstate it if reliable secondary sources are provided and the community agrees that the level of detail is appropriate. –dlthewave ☎ 20:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like to share my experience from the WWII area, where I've removed much unsourced / POV content and trivia. This has in the past caused some consternation, see for example: Talk:Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS#WP:3O & especially the comment starting with "I have reverted the edit in violation of BURDEN and am preserving the material by giving this link..."
What I learned from that is to save the diff to the Talk page; I add to my edit summary "Will preserve on Talk". That way, interested editors can retrieve the removed material from the diff provided and see if there are sources available. It's always a good idea to remember that WP:V applies across the entire encyclopedia. If there are no secondary sources that are independent of the subject, then the content may be unverifiable, undue, promotional, and / or excessive intricate detail that does not belong. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: Thanks for that suggestion, it seems like a good way to avoid misunderstandings. –dlthewave ☎ 19:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

ARCA

Please note that I have opened a request for clarification from the arbitration committee that involves you. I would be grateful if you would give your views at WP:ARCA#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Gun_control. GoldenRing (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Blanking page of an article during AfD

Blanking the page of an article you started an AfD on just yesterday [5] is a very strange thing to do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The G10 CSD tag automatically blanks the page. Another editor had nominated the page for speedy deletion, and the tag was twice removed out-of-process twice. The first time it was removed without any explanation or discussion (when contesting a speedy deletion, a reason must be given on the Talk page) and the second removal was by you, the page creator, which is disallowed per WP:CSD. I simply reverted those improper removals.
When a page is blanked, editors may still view the content in question through the page's history. –dlthewave ☎ 14:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I hope you realise that it seems POV pushing to disrupt ans ongoing AfD process witb a Speedy D tag. It disrupt the obgoing AfD process and we both know that.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Just as a note. I did not revert the article this time. It was another editor. Regards.BabbaQ (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for help with STRING TRANSPORT page

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Look I'm really sorry if I've posted this in the wrong place as it is not really a personal criticism or a baseless accusation but a request for your help with the changes I attempted to make to an article (which resulted in not only my changes being removed but many other changes which have occurred since today). Any advice would be appreciated. I didn't want to pollute your talk page with the content below but as you seem to really be concerned with the content of the String Transport system page, it helps me rest easier with the knowledge that at least someone else who was generally interested in the subject had read my concerns (and judged them accordingly). Is there anything in it that would be acceptable? Thanks on the beforehand and wishing you the best:

String Transport (also known as SkyWay, Yunitskiy String Transport and Rail Sky Way) refers to a theoretical engineering concept and proposals relating to a transportation system. Although these ideas may well relate to complex freight and passenger services, it has not received more than rudimentary practical application outside of the Russian Federation or Belorussia. When its business model has been proposed it has been widely questioned and never implemented.

The theory involves an ecofriendly system of public transport using prestressed rails with prestressed cables ("strings") and the concrete inside them. It is engineered for both freight and passenger services and has two main types of track structure and rolling stock.

Although there has been testing of this technology, the rudimentary construction in Moscow was considered unsafe and eventually taken apart and The Eco Techno Park facility in Maryina Gorka, Belarus,[1][2] has been blemished by technical faults and accidents. The websites of Skyway Capital refer to different proposals made to possible investors in places like the United Arab Emirates[3][4] but there is little chance that such projects will actually receive commercial realization.

Funding for this project has been implicated in a series of scandals related to financial irregularities and pyramid schemes in places where it has been presented as a complex business model including Lithuania and Belgium. Average people whose money would never be required for investment in international projects of this type are encouraged to invest in complex financial schemes[5] and types of crowdfunding.[6] Public warnings have been issued by the Bank of Lithuania and FSMA on the grounds that promoters attracting investments to SkyWay are not in compliance with their securities regulations.[7][8]

Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 18:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander

@Zaxander: Thanks for reaching out, you are welcome to post here on my Talk page using the New Section button. The "submit a personal attack" link was my attempt at humor when I was subject to harassment by long-term sockpuppeteers and other abusers, giving them their own place to leave their accusations.
SkyWay raises a lot of red flags for me as well. The technology just doesn't seem practical or coherent, and the funding model is concerning. As a potential investor I would walk away from it. However, Wikipedia articles are built around reliable, independent secondary sources, and our personal analyses and friends' experiences aren't sufficient to label it as a scam. Wikipedia also doesn't debunk or expose things like this, we can only write what has already been said by the secondary sources. We have several official statements from banks and governments regarding the illicit marketing of securities but nobody seems to have done a thorough all-around assessment.
The "string" prestressed rail/cable technology itself has received practically zero coverage outside of Skyway's and Yunitskiy's own websites. It doesn't seem to be a notable concept at all. This means that our article should give little to no weight to it. I'm working to change the focus and name of the article to the company itself, since that's what the sources cover. –dlthewave ☎
@Dlthewave: We're in complete agreement about the role of the Wikipedia to document reliable secondary sources. The extremely worrying problem was that the 'string theory' article was doing the exact opposite for so long. To my credit I'm actually responsible for the changes that resulted in the inclusion of the reference to the FSMA article. Then today I was shocked to discover that not even the 'help update the problematic references' warning was present. So in desperation and not knowing any better how to respond I added a warning at the top of the page informing readers that 'STRING THEORY' was implicated in a financial scam. Fortunately the user DreamLinker promptly changed it back to how it was before the 'help reference' warning disappeared. And it was great to hear confirmed from you that Yunitsky is indeed one and the same thing as the SkyWay business venture. The company director, however, is called Kudryashov and scammers use this ambiguity - the idea of on the one hand a scientific theory and on the other the business investment - to muddy the waters and create confusion. It's genuinely hard to ascertain exactly how the scam works. It's so frightening how effective this is but I suppose it's actually unsurprising how good scammers are at scamming. The only way I could think of solving the problem was to explain this extremely worrying ambiguity. It was either that or create two articles, one on the 'science' and another on the real instances of scamming like the FSMA complaint I mentioned. But this would only have resulted in further opportunities for the scammers to abuse Wikipedia. I was getting really worried so I finally reached out to you (and other users like DreamLinker who seemed concerned) to help me. That was scary because it was very possible that any one of you was a 'sockpuppet' (a new word in my vocabulary as of this evening) or a scammer who'd just ban me from posting anything. I'm now so glad I did. And you have to admit that although Wikipedia shouldn't be there to point out scams, it should provide a safe source of information on the business if it is a documented instance of a scam because, well, people have the right to an objective description of the facts. Your solution is by far the best and hopefully with careful and considered wording potential enquiries will help people make the right choice about investing a lot of their money rather than confusing them. Thanks again for responding so quickly and wishing you the best Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 21:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander.
@Dlthewave: What are the chances of the article title change actually getting approved? I hope the title is changed and that someone will have the chance to reference the published articles on the danger of the financial scam. I probably should not be the one to do it although I'd be perfectly willing to try if no one else is willing to. I actually wrote the article on the 'minipiano'; it was a difficult process of paring back my verbose writing style and searching really hard for references. And there's another problem I'm going to need your help on. The user Kmarinas86 also responded to my pleading for assistance on dealing with the problematic science. They made me a detailed list of references made available by, you guessed it, Yunitsky. Most of them are by Yunitsky himself which probably renders them worthless and all are taken from his site. But I'm obviously not qualified to comment on the science, besides I can't really read Russian either, especially the scientific vocabulary. Most of the commercial stuff and the market studies seems to be flowery bullshit that has little value. If the name change, however, is not approved OR someone else posts a new article on String Transport, then someone's going to have to check the validity of any of this stuff. Also such an article - even if it is intended to document the science- would have to include perhaps not a warning but at least some information about the connection to the way the project has attempted to attain finances and how it has failed to actually get built anywhere, especially if as you suggested Skyway/SkyWay Capital is indeed Yunitsky inside and out. Do you think this is a valid fear? Take a look at this stuff and let me know what you think. Maybe it's all just bullshit and I've got nothing to worry about. Yellow articles are highlighted in yellow -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmarinas86

@Dlthewave: I'm attempting to clean up the article and remove unverifiable references. For example, the following deletion references an article which redirects to the Skyway website and which doesn't actually show which document it's supposed to be. This is the text I removed: "Later, in 2017, the State Railways University in Moscow made another conclusion, which stated that “if the issues of rigidity, reliability, safety and maintainability are properly addressed, this technology can be implemented”, and also “the string rail transport technology is innovative and is of undoubted interest for science, engineering and experimental research." [1]" Am I doing the right thing? Surely if this university really said what they claim, they'd be able to provide a more reliable reference?
@Dlthewave: Now I'm afraid that user Kmarinas86 is part of the scam. They spend a lot of time defending the way SkyWay finances itself on the talk page and the flowery language she/he uses reminds me of the attempts of scammers to obfuscate the issues. The caregories at the bottom of the page need to be edited too especially if they're going to change the name of the article as you've suggested. What do you think?Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 13:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander
In my opinion your removals are justified since the content was not supported by independent sources. If it is reinstated by others, the burden is on them to establish verifiability, and we can challenge any unreliable or self-published sources at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I have some experience in dealing with editors who violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I will request a block, ban or warning from an administrator if necessary.
It's best to avoid casual discussions or accusations regarding Conflict of Interest. You may directly ask Kmarinas if they have a COI (best to do this at their talk page) or post at Conflict of Interest Noticeboard if you have solid evidence, but do not bring it up in the course of discussion. This can seriously derail the consensus-building process and breed bad blood between editors.
One piece of advice I would offer is to avoid using Talk pages to discuss whether or not this is a scam. We're not here to decide that, and talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article based on reliable sources. The list of sources presented by Kmarinas seems to be an attempt to convince you that the concept is supported by experts, but the burden is on them to add these sources to the article and prove that they are reliable. Happy editing –dlthewave ☎ 17:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dlthewave: Oh god now I've gone and accused someone of being involved with a scam. I certainly wouldn't post such an accusation on their page but I suppose I should try not to be flippant about anything I say. Sorry for these intrusive postings but now there is a real problem. Ksmarina86 who's been updating the 'string theory' site is definitely not a disinterested party. He or she is either someone who's hoping to gain money from investments they've made by getting others to invest or knows people who are connected to the ... 'questionable financial management'. And he or she appears to be a recognized scientific contributor to Wikipedia. Here's something a Ksmarina86 posted to the MLM discussion thread I reference on the talk page: kmarinas86 Oct 23rd, 2017 at 5:57 am (Q) "No IPO, can’t sell the shares yet. No marketplace to sell them. Only buy. No price to sell at. It’s a long term investment... [edit here] ...Buy, hold, wait for profitability, then sell or hold to collect dividends when the marketplace for the shares is created a few years from now. Be greatful of the possibility of dividends. Most equities pay meager dividends if at all. Dividends are needed to provide shares with real value. 25% of earnings is quite significant for dividends. Decide for yourself if there is a market for high speed transport and if SkyWay proper will take enough market share to make the equity worth your investment. Always be on top of your financial decisions, and look for companies which have a Blue Ocean Strategy in mind and who openly communicate with the public." I don't know what to do about this as this user has changed the Wikipedia site before, he or she has changed it very recently and they'll do it again. Appreciate your advice. I've gone and got myself involved questioning people who could cause me real problems.Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 17:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander
@Dlthewave: I need your advice on categories. There's nothing explicity wrong with the categories in the 'SkyWay' article as they stand presently. But the four categories that only refer to the unverifiable transportation technology is blatantly misleading. There are categories for 'Multi-level marketing' and 'Pyramid and Ponzi schemes' as well. We know from the verifiable references that both Yunitsky and all the companies associated with SkyWay use both of these techniques. It seems misleading to me to include a bunch of references to categories that suggest the validity of the transport system without including references to the marketing techniques which are also valid categories. Also, of the existing categories, what in the verifiable references suggests that SkyWay should be associated with 'Sustainable transport'. It seems to me to be relatively unsustainabl, hence it's inability to catch on anywhere. What do you think? Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 20:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander
@Dlthewave: The changes I made to the two dodgy paragraphs on the Lithuanian scandal were changed back. As the second paragraph didn't make much sense I removed it with the unverliable references. But seeing that it got changed by someone reliable and wanting to do justice to the 4 reliable soures, I read them all and even translated the one in Lithuanian. It's all so complicated you could make a motion picture out of it. I summarized the facts that I could ascertain on DreamLinker's user page. Hardly any of these facts were included in the original text. As such, someone should probably rewrite this section entirely based on this information but I'm now worried I'd make it too complex, and it's officially driven me around the bend. But before starting the readings and the summary I took the unnecessary information out again. Wishing you the best from Belgium. Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dlthewave: Just a small note. For fun I went right back to the beginning and looked at the changes to the article as it developed. It's probably not all that surprising to discover that one of the early contributors was Yunitsky himself. It wouldn't surprise me that the user Kmarinas86 is actually a newer incarnation of the same person. They claim to be an English-only reader. I don't believe this. I'm familiar with Russian the basic syntax of the English is typical for Russian speakers. And I no longer feel so bad about the article being wrong for so long. It actually only became really long and pseudo-scientific a few years ago. Before that it was just a stub. Kind regards from Belgium, –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dlthewave: A new section was added on construction of sites in Moscow and the Belarus. I painstakingly checked the references which were basically maps, uploaded illustrations, contracts and self-promotion. The user who posted them was unsurprisingly Kmarinas86. I encouraged them to make succinct suggestions for changes with links to valid sources justifying their use in the talk page. I emphasized the fact that consensus among users was important. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dlthewave: I find it a bit embarrassing that my worried posts have taken up comparably so much space on your talk page. Can you move it all to another page? Maybe you could creat one for 'indulgent rambling'. I'm really sorry for this. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
No need to apologize, I've collapsed the section so that it doesn't take up quite so much space. I think that you have a lot of insight into what's going on at Skyway and hopefully we can find sufficient sourcing to expand our coverage of their business dealings. –dlthewave ☎ 19:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dlthewave: Hello, I`ve been redacting the article on SkyWay earlier and I think that you deleted good pieces of information there. Maybe it will be fair to show that the technology really exists? There were a lot of photos and information there before you started editing. If you want to show a technology side of the SkyWay Project - I`ll be happy to help you, I`ve got few documents and media materials on it. Also you can check the latest news on Dubai Sky pods - it is the project of SkyWay Technologies Co. at UAE. I think, that it is pretty strange to have such poor article on such an interesting issue, even if it is ambiguous. --Владимир Малафей (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dlthewave: The user:Владимир Малафей is whitewashing the SkyWay Group site; I need your help with this as every time I undo his revisions he changes them back. For example, he has included information about the EcoTechnoPark as an unverified and ungrammatical addition to the sentence 'there is unfortunately no verifiable scientific research'. He has also changed the phrase 'suspicious marketing techniques' to 'new marketing techniques'. The warnings from the banks are unanimous in their declarations of 'suspiciou' (they certainly don't say they're 'new'; they're not). Every change he makes is removing verifiable, painstakingly checked references to real verifiable sources. Someone also keep removing the reference to Yunitskiy in the opening sentences. This misleading. Almost all of the verifiable references include Yunitskiy; if they don't include him no one else is mentioned. These are all bad faith changes but there's no longer anything I can do about it. Thanks for your positive comments by the way; I appreciate it. Hoping your experience at dealing with bad faith editors will help us solve with this problem. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Dlthewave (talk · contribs) That's great to reduce all that content from your talk page without making it inaccessible. I've learned a lot from this experience. And the last two days has seen concerted attempts to whitewash the page without consensus, to fill it with propaganda and to make small bad faith changes that make it sound less credible. Then they tried speedy deletion. Now someone's trying to delete the 'SkyWay Group' with more formal deletion procedures. This seems like a dangerous move and I argumented against deletion on the deletion request page. What do you think? Moreover I've got a keen eye for misinformation and I'm an English native-speaker with editing experience, so do you think that my skills could be used in any other way to help ensure Wikipedia content is not serving the interests of the subjects being discussed? I'd be happy to volunteer in any capacity. I'm not sure how I'd do this or if they'd want me. I suppose just responding how I have been shows a willingness to learn and help others. I certainly believe that Wikipedia is a worthwhile tool with goals that need to be carefully kept in check by informed users. Thanks again for your help –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://rsw-systems.com/assets/files/shares/documents-2017/Download_File__2_.pdf
Hi Dlthewave - if I had known I would get so closely involved with a problematic, controversial, possibility criminal company who employ a dedicated staff of misinformation peddlers, I probably wouldn't have been stupid enough to include my personal name on my contributions. Unfortunately I did and now the sock-puppets have started sending me threatening mails, saying I'm corrupt, working for the competition and am in general a terrible editor and in general corrupt and stupid. When it got so personal I'm stopping doing this because I can't take the absuse and criticism. Now they're on to my qualifications (PhD)... I was a donator to Wikipedia and I came to SkyWay only became my cause because it was a clear example of Wikipedia being used for pseudo-science for financial gain. I believed that it was a worthwhile way to spend my time help ensure a page was free of pseudo-science for particular interests. I spent considerable time trying to improve the article but they've started harassing me and I've decided that since not a single user has thanked me for the many hours I spent translating texts and posting them or my suggestions, they can't think I'm doing a good job either. And then there's the chorus of sock-puppets who personally insult me and send me threatening mails. SkyWay employs a dedicated set of marketers with a history of Pyramid Marketing schemes. Keep an eye on this page; the sock puppets have started again but I'm not going to be participating in the the next deletion request they seem to be currently preparing. Thanks also for all your good advice and support earlier on. Wishing you the best from Belgium, Zachar. (zachar@nachtschimmen.eu)

Can we put together a village pump RfC together?

Dlthewave, I reverted two of your reversions of mine and thought I should try to discuss the topic with you. I think we have a disagreement regarding what constitutes WEIGHT when dealing with the mention of a crime in a gun article. I think your feeling is if the crime is significant and reports about the crime mention the gun then that establishes weight for inclusion in the gun article. My feeling is we need to show a RS about the gun that then links to the crimes. We have that with the AR-15 clones. There are plenty of articles that are about AR-15s that also talk about their use in crime and the debates associated with civilian ownership etc. Articles about guns like the Thompson sub-machine gun talk about their use in Chicago gang land violence. It's easy to find articles about the BAR that mention Bonnie and Clyde. However, I don't think we have any articles about the Sig Mosquito that suggest it's associated with any particular crime. What I would suggest is we work together to create a RfC so we could get wider input on this. It could actually help improve the Project:Firearms crime guidelines as it would then point to a RfC on the question. It would also give me a change to get input on the broader WEIGHT reciprocity question I've had for a while. Is this something you are interested in collaborating on? Thanks! Springee (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to propose your "reciprocity of weight" idea to the community, and a Village Pump RfC would be a good way to do it. Hopefully you'll get more outside input than our similar NPOVN discussion did last year. If I can offer a piece of advice, I would suggest that you either write a proposal that applies neutrally to all Wikipedia content or be prepared to explain why criminal use of firearms should have separate, more stringent sourcing criteria. –dlthewave ☎ 17:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I'll run the proposal by you before posting. I don't believe that this would be a more stringent standard for firearms articles rather something that would generally hold true for all articles. The catch is when people ask for examples. Perhaps private airplane crashes would be a less political example? Thanks for the link to the previous discussion. I had forgotten about that one. Springee (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@Springee: You've raised your WEIGHT idea with a few different editors lately and even mentioned your attempts to find common ground with me. At this point, I think it would be most helpful if we could have a concrete idea of what exactly it is that you're proposing. Would you be interested in writing something in your userspace, either as an essay detailing your viewpoint or as a specific guideline proposal, so that folks can provide feedback? This is something that would ultimately need to be decided at a community venue such as Village Pump, and some of it comes down to differences in opinion that might preclude a joint proposal, but I would be glad to look it over and provide my opinion or address any obvious flaws before you present it to the community. –dlthewave ☎ 20:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Dlthewave. I'll try to get something together in the next week or so. I do get that you might not agree with the idea but I would appreciate the help in making sure the concept/question is clear. I think the idea of a VP question/comment thing makes more sense vs an essay. At least at this point. Springee (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Springee: How would you feel about writing something for the Signpost about your idea? It could be a way to provide an alternative view alongside my submission and perhaps generate some feedback from the community. –dlthewave ☎ 22:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Dlthewave, I think that's an interesting idea. I'm a bit reluctant to agree just due to real world time commitments. I don't want to say "yes" only then to take so long as to come across as stonewalling. That said, I think, if you can accept a slow co-author, it might work but I don't see it as a counter point to the article you have now. I see it as we take perhaps just one or three examples and look at them in detail. In the three example case I would propose looking at one case where inclusion was heavily favored, one where inclusion is heavily disfavored and one where the ratio is balanced and I wouldn't think these have to be exclusively firearms cases. However, that would also totally change the nature of the article as it would be about how different readings of WEIGHT can result in what might appear to be inconsistent conclusions instead of an article about a project guideline being used as policy. As I said, I don't want to unreasonably drag things out but I'm also open to the idea. Springee (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Joppien

Thanks for letting me know, can you make your edit complete and correct please? Your deletion is incomplete Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Signpost barnstar

The Signpost Barnstar
For an outstanding contribution to the Wikipedia community's ability to critique itself in a contentious topic area. 2600:1700:9DD0:3130:CCE8:95FE:ABE2:6C1C (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dlthewave closed

I have now closed your AE appeal. The warning is to be retracted (and it has been already retracted by Sandstein), and the page is to be undeleted, which I am going to do now. Happy editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Unclosed--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Dlthewave, I'm quoted more than once in the above user page. Currently if a reader follows from our OpEd article to your primary article you list it as a See Also. Given that you are calling it a "whitewashing list" I believe it is a violation of WP:POLEMIC.

Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.

Rather than start a deletion review I would ask that you unlink it here [[6]] and remove any examples where I'm quoted. You argued that the article should be undeleted because it was a supporting page for your OpEd submission. Since it is no longer part of the OpEd I think it would violate the imminently used part of POLEMIC. I hope that removing my quotes and delinking is a reasonable compromise. Alternatively, I would hope that you would consider removing it all together as other editors may feel the same as I do. If you request I can remove instances where I'm quoted so you don't have to try to identify the examples. Springee (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: The page was just went through a deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 24. Starting a deletion review on a deletion review seems counterproductive. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman:, actually if you recall it only was a review of GoldenRing's deletion as a DS action. The justification for reversing the deletion was only that it was done out of the proper process. It did not ask or attempt to answer if the page itself should remain and a number of the editors who said restore noted that. Springee (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The word "POLEMIC" appears 12 times in the DRV discussion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Again, that review was specifically regarding if @GoldenRing:'s deletion was allowed per DS. Many of the editors specifically said MfD is the correct place to have the discussion. Some did say it was POLEMIC and others said no. The review was handed off to ACD where it was decided the page should not have been deleted as a DS action. Springee (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @Springee: I am respectfully declining you request. Your name does not appear on my Whitewashing list, and any link between it and our joint Signpost submission is tenuous at best. Several editors at DRV did note that they did not consider the page to be a violation of WP:POLEMIC. You are welcome to open a community discussion as you see fit, however you should be aware of the potentially negative optics of opening a new discussion so soon after a related one has closed. If we're going to play Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, I would posit that the disparaging statements in the WP:Firearms archives, which are also indirectly linked from the op-ed, are of greater concern than my simple list of quotes. –dlthewave ☎ 16:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Amendment to the standard provision for appeals and modifications (April 2019)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The following text is added to the "Important notes" section of the standard provision on appeals and modifications, replacing the current text of the fourth note:

All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Amendment to the standard provision for appeals and modifications (April 2019)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Pending review at Calgary International Airport

Just a heads up: the IP edit you approved here was material that has been repeatedly and erroneously inserted into the article. The previous edit I approved was actually the removal of that material. No idea why, but someone can't give up the idea that you can't get to Comox directly from Calgary... --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I usually approve things that aren't blatant vandalism/BLP violations but after looking at the edit history I can see that this was a case of disruptive editing. Thanks for pointing it out. –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Ichthus June 2019


ICHTHUS

June 2019
The Top 6 Articles
By Stalinsunnykvj

The sad news was the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings. The Top 6 most popular articles about People in WikiProject Christianity were:

    1. Louis XIV of France – a monarch of the House of Bourbon who reigned as King of France. He did say, "Every time I appoint someone to a vacant position, I make a hundred unhappy and one ungrateful."
    2. Mary, Queen of Scots – arrested for Reigning While Catholic (RWC), Mary was found guilty of plotting to assassinate Elizabeth I of England in 1586, and was beheaded the following year.
    3. Elizabeth I of England – The Virgin Queen, Elizabeth was the last of the five monarchs of the House of Tudor who ushered in the Elizabethan Era, reversed re-establishment of Roman Catholicism by her half-sister.
    4. Henry VIII of England – King of England, He was an accomplished musician, author, and poet; his known piece of music is "Pastime with Good Company". He is often reputed to have written "Greensleeves" but probably did not. He had six marriages.
    5. Martin Luther King Jr. –
      " There are three urgent and indeed great problems that we face not only in the United States of America but all over the world today. That is the problem of racism, the problem of poverty and the problem of war."
    6. Billy Ray Cyrus – Having released 12 studio albums and 44 singles since 1992, he is best known for his number one single "Achy Breaky Heart", which became the first single ever to achieve triple Platinum status in Australia.
Did You Know?
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj

... that the first attempt to build the Holy Trinity Cathedral of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra resulted in the demolition of the nearly completed structure?

Featured article
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj
Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral, Cork, Ireland
Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral, Cork, Ireland

Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral is a Gothic Revival three-spire cathedral in the city of Cork, Ireland. It belongs to the Church of Ireland and was completed in 1879. The cathedral is located on the south side of the River Lee, on ground that has been a place of worship since the 7th century, and is dedicated to Finbarr of Cork, patron saint of the city. It was once in the Diocese of Cork; it is now one of the three cathedrals in the Church of Ireland Diocese of Cork, Cloyne and Ross, in the ecclesiastical province of Dublin. Christian use of the site dates back to a 7th-century AD monastery, which according to legend was founded by Finbarr of Cork. The entrances contain the figures of over a dozen biblical figures, capped by a tympanum showing a Resurrection scene. (more...)

Help wanted
We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project that you'd like to highlight? An issue that you'd like to bring to light? Post your inquiries or submission here.


Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity • Get answers to questions about Christianity here
Discuss any of the above stories here • For submissions contact the Newsroom • Unsubscribe here
Delivered: 09:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Sent by DannyS712 (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 09:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron

Your refactoring of other editors's submissions is unacceptable conduct. It is officious. Contrary to policy and practice, Please stop it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

You are simply trying to sabotage the workings of his project. Nobody makes you participate there. If you don't like the way it is being run, take it to the project talk page, or go elsewhere. It iss a big encyclopedia, and there are many constructive ways to contribute. Your contributions there amounted to WP:Vandzlism. For now, I will chalk it up to ignorance, not willfulness.
Of course, we would like to participate in WP:Article Rescue Squadron, but respectfully and constructively would be appreciated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I've opened two discussions on the talk page - "Editor conduct" concerning general conduct and "Inappropriate entries" to discuss the specific entries which I removed. –dlthewave ☎ 18:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

A dove

Peace dove I hope we work together on the project in the future
We may be on opposite sides of current issues, but if two people agree on everything - one of them is not necessary. User:Lightburst 20:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

A star

The Original Barnstar
Make the most of the holiday! Lightburst (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Sourcey CCI

I'm clearing out his CCI right now. I have a question (possibly more to come); On Bogdan Nestorović, was the copyvio you removed the only one? Thanks, 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 18:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

For all of the articles including Nestorović, I removed the copyvios I could identify but I suspect that more remain. Passages such as "the building in which he changed but in particular constructive method" and "The Commission also complained that overall the contributions had offered a low level" look to me like bad machine translations (Sourcerery showed a much better command of English in his talk page comments) which implies that they were likely copied from somewhere. –dlthewave ☎ 18:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Your presumptive removals, particularly on pages created by Sourcerery, are right on the 💵. –dlthewave ☎ 18:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
That's undoubtedly the best compliment I've recieved. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 19:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

And, with a little help, I've finished it. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 20:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

AfD notices

Hi Dlthewave. Can you tell me why you have removed the AfD notices from a large number of "Meanings of minor planet names" articles. As far as I can tell, the AfD discussions have not yet closed, so the notices should not be removed. Am I missing something? Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000 originally consisted of ten completely empty lists nominated by Reywas92 on July 4th. On July 6th, after several editors had responded, Tom.Reding unilaterally added all 542 pages to the nomination. Since many of the lower-numbered lists are not empty, this changed the meaning of the nomination and made it appear that Reywas92 intended to delete encyclopedic content and not just the empty lists.
I'm removing Tom's deletion notices since they were added out of process. –dlthewave ☎ 14:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. Railfan23 (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@Railfan23: you can see my reasoning for their addition here, my notice, and in my original vote. I don't agree with Dlthewave's removal of all the notices, at least not until the 2nd paragraph is struck from the AfD nomination. However, the AfD is fubar'd enough, and I think everyone's made their points, and there's no point in herding cats.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk page blanking for CBANned users

Thanks for your vigilance over declined unblock requests. But for a user who is now subject to a community ban, unblock requests on their user talk page become irrelevant because no administrator is authorised to grant them. I have blanked Elsa.Rolle's talk page as a courtesy to a blocked user. GoldenRing (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

DS alert

I am aware of the following discretionary sanctions:
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding discussions about the integration of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the Electronic cigarette topic area, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Falun Gong, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Liancourt Rocks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Landmark Worldwide, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Muhammad, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Longevity, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Prem Rawat, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the Shakespeare authorship question, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the Senkaku Islands dispute, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Scientology, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding the Transcendental Meditation movement, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding The Troubles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding Waldorf education, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

–dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive

User:Dlthewave please stop deleting items from the ARS list. Your behavior is disruptive to the ARS and to the overall project. You deleted User:Andrew Davidson items, User:7&6=thirteen items, and now my item. This is disruptive and it easily turns into edit warring. That you believe posts by all three of us on the project are canvassing confirms your bias against the project. Lightburst (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
You are being disruptive to the WP:ARS project. There is no WP:Canvassing going on. If this pattern continues, I promise I will peronally take this to WP:ANI. Stop it. Fair warning. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Ichthus July 2019


ICHTHUS

July 2019
The Top 6 Articles
By Stalinsunnykvj

A suicide attack on July 11th claimed by Islamic State (IS) near a church in the Syrian city of Qamishli shows that Christians remain a major target of the terror group. The Top 6 most popular articles about People in WikiProject Christianity were:

    1. Henry VIII of England – King of England, He was an accomplished musician, author, and poet; his known piece of music is "Pastime with Good Company". He is often reputed to have written "Greensleeves" but probably did not. He had six marriages.
    2. Elena Cornaro Piscopia – was a Venetian philosopher of noble descent who in 1678 became one of the first women to receive an academic degree from a university, and the first to receive a Doctor of Philosophy degree. In 1669, she translated the Colloquy of Christ by Carthusian monk Lanspergius from Spanish into Italian.
    3. Mary, Queen of Scots – arrested for Reigning While Catholic (RWC), Mary was found guilty of plotting to assassinate Elizabeth I of England in 1586, and was beheaded the following year.
    4. Bob Dylan – American singer-songwriter, author, and visual artist.
      " Take care of all your memories. For you cannot relive them."
    5. Elizabeth I of England – The Virgin Queen, Elizabeth was the last of the five monarchs of the House of Tudor who ushered in the Elizabethan Era, reversed re-establishment of Roman Catholicism by her half-sister.
    6. Billy Ray Cyrus – Having released 12 studio albums and 44 singles since 1992, he is best known for his number one single "Achy Breaky Heart", which became the first single ever to achieve triple Platinum status in Australia.
Did You Know?
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj
... that The Vision of Dorotheus is one of the earliest examples of Christian hexametric poetry?
Featured article
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj
Eric and Leslie Ludy were 21 and 16 respectively when they first met, English professors suggest that older singles are unlikely to gather hope from their story.
Eric and Leslie Ludy were 21 and 16 respectively when they first met, English professors suggest that older singles are unlikely to gather hope from their story.

When God Writes Your Love Story: The Ultimate Approach to Guy/Girl Relationships is a 1999 book by Eric and Leslie Ludy, an American married couple. After becoming a bestseller on the Christian book market, the book was republished in 2004 and then revised and expanded in 2009. It tells the story of the authors' first meeting, courtship, and marriage. The authors advise single people not to be physically or emotionally intimate with others, but to wait for the spouse that God has planned for them.

The book is divided into five sections and sixteen chapters. Each chapter is written from the perspective of one of the two authors; nine are by Eric, while Leslie wrote seven, as well as the introduction. The Ludys argue that one's love life should be both guided by and subordinate to one's relationship with God. Leslie writes that God offers new beginnings to formerly unchaste or sexually abused individuals. (more...)

Help wanted
We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project that you'd like to highlight? An issue that you'd like to bring to light? Post your inquiries or submission here.


Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity • Get answers to questions about Christianity here
Discuss any of the above stories here • For submissions contact the Newsroom • Unsubscribe here
Delivered: 12:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

User talk:72bikers

I dunno. Kinda useful as a honey trap.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. Let them mess around with their user page instead of causing disruption in article space. –dlthewave ☎ 04:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:American people of Oneida descent

A tag has been placed on Category:American people of Oneida descent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

TTAG

Please self revert this edit [[7]]. The RSN discussion [[8]] did not conclude TTAG was unreliable for technical facts, only for commentary or opinions. We don’t help our readers by removing the technical facts in the AR-15 article. Springee (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:American people of Oneida descent

A tag has been placed on Category:American people of Oneida descent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Ichthus December 2019

ICHTHUS

 WikiProject Christianity
December 2019
The Top 3 Articles

By Stalinsunnykvj

The Top 3 most popular articles about People in WikiProject Christianity were:

    1. Dolly Parton - an American singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, record producer, actress, author, businesswoman, and humanitarian, known primarily for her work in country music. Quotations related to Dolly Parton at Wikiquote: " I just depend on a lot of prayer and meditation. I believe that without God I am nobody, but that with God, I can do anything."
    2. Harriet Tubman - an American abolitionist and political activist. Born into slavery, she escaped and made some missions to rescue enslaved people, using the network of antislavery activists and Underground Railroads. During the American Civil War, she served as an armed scout, spy for the Union Army.
    3. Henry VIII of England – King of England, He was an accomplished musician, author, and poet; his known piece of music is "Pastime with Good Company". He is often reputed to have written "Greensleeves" but probably did not. He had six marriages.
Did You Know?
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj
  • ... that St. Charles College in Louisiana was the first Jesuit college established in the southern United States?
  • ... that the ancient Jewish text of Perek Shirah asserts that spiders and rats praise God using verses from Psalm 150?
Featured article
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj

Being a Ghost Story of Christmas, commonly known as A Christmas Carol, is a novella by Charles Dickens, first published in London by Chapman & Hall in 1843 and illustrated by John Leech. The book is divided into five chapters, which Dickens titled "staves". A Christmas Carol recounts the story of Ebenezer Scrooge, an elderly miser who is visited by the ghost of his former business partner Jacob Marley and the spirits of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come. After their visits, Scrooge is transformed into a kinder, gentler man. (more...)

Bible Verse

Romans 12:10 New King James Version (NKJV)

Help wanted

We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project or an issue that you'd like to highlight? Post your inquiries or submission here.

Quotes
" I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year."
Charles Dickens – British novelist, journalist, editor, illustrator and social critic.

Happy Holidays!

The end of the year is a time of year for remembrance. We take stock of where we came from, and have a moment to think about where we are going...

At this special time of year, we give thanks for editors like you who have made our Mission easier and our lives more fulfilling.

May your New Year be all that you hope for, and may it be sprinkled with love and friendship.

Best Wishes!


WikiProject Christianity
Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity © Copyleft 2019
Questions • Discussions • Newsroom • Unsubscribe
Delivered: 16:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


The Signpost: 31 October 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Self-identified when no Nation given

I thought we had decided that when no Nation has been stated, the identification is self-identified as it cannot be checked. The only live sources on Beyoncé are the Fox news statement that her mother believes Creole = some degree of unnamed Native American descent, and the ICT blurb that quotes a makeup commercial, but does not in any way support the claim. I agree that people with no mention or sourcing are best removed from all of these cats. And she is another for whom there is no reliable sourcing. With no Nation claimed, it can't be sourced as anything other than self-identification. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

We verify/check facts using reliable sources, and there is no policy, guideline or community consensus that I'm aware of requiring special tribal-specific sources. Our standard RS requirements apply. As you pointed out, the sources for Beyonce, aren't great, so I'm OK with removing the Native American category altogether in that case. Perhaps the other ancestry categories should be removed as well. –dlthewave ☎ 11:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Misclick

Sorry! – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for letting me know! –dlthewave ☎ 23:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing

Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the source is unrelaible for all aspects. My understanding was that unreliablity only pertains to the Wehrmachtbericht context. Recent GA reviews accepted the source, see Erich Hartmann and Hermann Fegelein. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

opinion

Appreciate the explanation, but this claim needs a review or secondary source. A handful annons off the internet shouldn't be deciding the issue without substantive evidence. Dapi89 (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The burden is on you to establish reliability, not the other way around. Feel free to raise your concerns at RSN. –dlthewave ☎ 14:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

fees

Hi, DI.

I'm not being contentious, but I wondered why you think the compensation to Kelly and the other members of Caliburn board, including seven flag rank officers with no particular expertise in the business of running a holding facility for children, should not be discussed? I Googled the following word combination: "homestead shelter children kelly," and I got 35 million hits, so I would assume there's significant interest in the issue. I'm also familiar with compensation to board members of for-profit corporations, and this seems huge. There is currently a lot of skepticism, criticism and immense public interest about Hunter Biden, who seems to have no particular expertise, getting $50 thousand a month for being a board member of a Ukraine petrochemical corporation. I expect if it was, say, $5,000 a month, there would be considerably less interest. Also, the $200,000 prospective bonus, contingent on the divestment of the operations, would mean that the principals would have considerable interest in the financial success of the detention operation. What do you think? Thanks! Activist

These stock offerings, bonuses and assorted corporate machinations of the parent company would really be more appropriate for Caliburn International. Although I am personally sickened by the idea of these folks profiting from concentration camps, Wikipedia isn't the place to "name and shame" unless an independent source ties them directly to the subject. This sort of thing should really be hashed out on article talk; feel free to open a discussion there if you have further concerns. –dlthewave ☎ 13:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Something you might want to read

Per your comment on User talk:EdChem, you might be interested in reading WP:ANI#Future Perfect at Sunrise. (Caveat: per WP:Canvassing, I am not suggesting that you take any stand, pro or con, on the proposal.) Schazjmd (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you –dlthewave ☎ 23:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

We are edit warring at the moment. I am in discussion on the talk page and there is not an urgent need to refactor the list at this time. Please stop edit warring. We can come to a conclusion with time and consensus. Lightburst (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

You've repeatedly added Lake Roland (Maryland) while providing no reasoning or sourcing that describes it as "DC Area". I've tried to engage on the talk page but no explanation for its inclusion has been provided. –dlthewave ☎ 05:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
We are not the only two editors. It is not an emergency. Have a look at your recent contributions - I just looked at mine and it is a lot of reverting. This is not how we build the encyclopedia. It is rather extreme for you to go through articles I started and with no discussion begin refactoring them by making wholesale changes to suit your preferences. We have talk pages. Even though we are discussing the issues you are racing to make changes on the articles to suit your opinions. This is not how things are done. We can work together. Lightburst (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted a number of your edits because they were unsourced or did not appear to reflect the list title. I'm open to discussing these items. Why have you reverted? What are your preferences? –dlthewave ☎ 05:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Onel's Arizona articles.

I'd really reconsider a ton of individual nominations here. Have a chat with Onel. If there is merit to the deletions, He'll listen and they can just be CSDed, but I'm noticing for example that Nommel is listed as a populated place in the USGS database,[9] so these might be places that were previously populated but are not any more. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Looking through Onel's talk page and AfD comments, he doesn't seem particularly open to the idea that these places merit deletion, and unfortunately he may have retired out of frustration due to a string of similar deletions. I feel that AfD is the most appropriate route, however a batch nomination will probably be a better way to go in the future.
The problem with USGS and similar databases is that they label all sorts of places as "populated". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington has examples of railroad junctions at the Hanford Site which were named after random office workers and are now erroneously listed as "populated places". In any case, even if they are populated, none of these places have received sufficient coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 22:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The GNIS database has a lot of mistakes, especially in Arizona. Onel just GIGOed the whole thing but refused to admit he was wrong at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parsons Grove, Arizona and others, insisting that it must say "is a populated place" despite the obvious lack of people living there now.
Dlthewave, thanks for helping take this on. Sorry that bulk AFD didn't work, I was thinking more of grouping by type, especially after doing our own checks on them. First could be one for all the crossings; SportingFlyer and I started a list at User:SportingFlyer/Arizona placenames cleanup. It would also be a good idea to get access to newspapers.com to search for sources: see links at User_talk:SportingFlyer#Newspaper.com_access. Reywas92Talk 20:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I like the idea of grouping the crossings, places, etc. I have a busy couple of days coming up but I'll work with you guys before nominating any more.
I've applied for newspapers.com access as well. Looks like they have a "clipping" feature that lets you share specific articles publicly, this would be a good way to allow people without access to review the sources. Thanks for all of your work in this area. –dlthewave ☎ 15:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
While waiting for newspapers.com, you might find chroniclingamerica is also a good resource, I'd recommend the advanced search and narrowing it by state.----Pontificalibus 16:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

EverlyWell

:( Lightburst (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's a tasty trout for you

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Just after I warned you not to make massive changes to a contentious article in spite of disagreement from other editors, you proceed to make exactly the same massive changes that prompted me to issue this warning in the first place. Not good. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅ 13:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Diff

You got any way for me to check that? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&type=revision&diff=941194357&oldid=941193902 Maybe you could do one of those quote things in the ref? I don't have the book. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It's on Google Books [10] page 1209. –dlthewave ☎ 04:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
That was a helpful reply. Thank you. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC on 2A Sanctuary article

Please consider adding a comment to the discussion on the Second Amendment sanctuary talk page. --Mox La Push (talk) 08:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit Warring Warning

Right now you and another editor appear to be in a slow motion edit war over whether or not to include a Global variation of IQ scores section at Race and intelligence. A slow motion edit war is still an edit war. If the ongoing discussion about the section cannot produce a clear enough consensus I would encourage you to try other methods of dispute resolution. Continued edit waring may result in other sanctions. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Global variation of IQ scores

Hi Dlthewave, thank you for your consistent stand in the debate around the page "Race and Intelligence". As you may remember, during the AfD discussion, I have cited the subsection "Global variation of IQ scores" as a perfect example of how the coatrack title "Race and Intelligence" naturally invites to all kinds of WP:SYNTH by people who think that races exist outside of people's heads.

It may come as a surprise for you that I don't agree with your complete removal of that subsection, but for quite different reasons than the race-believer camp. The point is, Lynn&Vanhanen and their attempt to apply an almost entirely US-focussed fringe theory to non-US data, are a notable example of IQ-related scientific racism, so they have to get due mention somewhere in the article as such. Of course, the pseudo-neutral title "Global variation of IQ scores" turns the whole thing into racialist trivia. My suggestion is to create an alternative text which only covers racist/racialist studies (primarily Lynn&Vanhanen) and studies which explicitly react to them. A possible title could be "Extension of race-based IQ-studies to global test scores". Constructive replacements will bring you out of the edit war corner (see ↑), and will help to bring the article in the right direction. –Austronesier (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

A star

Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
For the thankless behind the scenes work. Lightburst (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's not thankless anymore! I've been meaning to express my appreciation to you as well, I enjoy working with you on these non-places. –dlthewave ☎ 02:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I have requested dispute resolution about the "Global variation of IQ scores" section: [11] Please comment there when you're able to. 2600:1004:B166:536E:8800:9BF8:FCBA:FABB (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

CDPs

What you need to realize is that Census tracts are different from census designated places, which are always presumed to be notable and pass GEOLAND #1 as legally recognized places. If you disagree, I would raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) rather than creating AfDs. What are sometimes deleted are unincorporated places and neighborhoods. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Editorofthewiki, thanks for pointing out the difference. There are many opinions on what constitutes an "officially recognized place", ranging from appearing on a map/database to being an actual legally-established entity. I couldn't find any guideline or discussion that specifically mentions CDPs as "presumed notable", are you aware of any? My understanding is that they're used only for statistical purposes and don't constitute official government recognition.
I edited both AFDs to clarify that they're CDPs, not census tracts, and will hold off on nominating CDPs until we get some feedback from other editors. Again, thanks for your perspective. –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your consideration. I might be somewhat presumptuous by saying CDPs are presumed notable, but I certainly consider them an official government recognized location since there is census data and a feeling of place among residents. With regards to several other unincorporated articles you have nominated for deletion, with at least a few you could be BOLD and probably redirect to the township page. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Unincorporated communities

Um, do we have to nominate so many unincorporated places for deletion all at once? No doubt, many may be non notable, but maybe not all. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit of a dilemma since we have editors who mass-created dozens of articles per day from the GNIS database, which contains thousands of erroneous "populated places", but we're expected to put in hours of WP:BEFORE research and space out our AFD nominations just because a few of them could be notable (just as a stopped clock is right twice a day). At this point my preference would be to delete the lot with no prejudice against re-creation if folks can find sources to demonstrate notability. If you have suggestions for a better way to handle thousands of mass-created articles, I'm all ears. –dlthewave ☎ 02:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I understand your concern. My preference would be to space out the AfD nominations so voters can do more thorough before searches. Some of the locations I have found do have notability, such as Dahlgrens Corner, Virginia which was the site of a famous raid during the civil war. Though I understand, there's not a lot to save with a one-line stub, still some could probably be saved at AfD. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Having lived previously in Northern Virginia, the vast majority of GNIS-only place names aren't in any way notable and the nominations I saw today are all correct. Unless there is some historical reference to the place name, these are only "real estate agent names" or subdivisions. My recommendation is that if a search of Google Books does not turn up anything, it probably isn't in the former category. Most of Virginia is unincorporated and services are provided at the county level meaning these places are classic WP:MILL database dumps. These could easily be combined into multi-AfD's to ease the supposed burden on !voters. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Folks complain about the burden whether they're bundled or not, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia recently closed as Procedural Keep mainly because it was too big of a batch. In this case they're probably similar enough (late-20th-century Charlottesville subdivisions) to work as a batch though. –dlthewave ☎ 01:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

California places

Hey, there's a few of us who will work on California places and we'd be glad to have you join. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_California#Cleaning_up_all_those_GNIS_location_articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject California/GNIS cleanup task force. Going through these one or a few at a time at AFD is going to be futile against this scope. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 03:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary source

Please, for the third time, can you finally familiarize yourself with what a WP:PRIMARY source is?

You again added a primary source tag to the Rushton & Jensen 2005 source. It is a peer-reviewed article published in the Psychology, Public Policy, and Law journal of the American Psychological Association. An article released in such a journal, especially one that reviews research by others and offers insight by the authors, is not a primary source.

Your misundertanding of the sourcing policy was pointed out in two earlier AE requests: 1 & 2. This is starting to get disruptive. --Pudeo (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

No, publication in a peer-reviewed journal does not automatically make a source non-primary. I'll be happy to discuss the Primary tag after you've read WP:ALLPRIMARY, specifically "A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published works to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material)." and disabused yourself of that notion. –dlthewave ☎ 00:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh, the name of the article would be a good start: "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" (doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235). It is a review article. So in this sense any article in a journal would be a primary source. So what's the point of doing this tagging, if per WP:ALLPRIMARY all sources are primary for something, I wonder. --Pudeo (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I made a thread on RSN because it would be great to have a better understanding on this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Peer-reviewed journal R&I articles as WP:PRIMARY? Happy editing! --Pudeo (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you can help? New to this

Dlthewave. I am trying to make a article but, I need help trying to get the quotes to Format properly can you help me and with anything else you see? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Rape_By_German_forces_During_The_Second_World_War#Historians_assessment_on_Mass_Rape_by_German_forcesDriverofknowledge (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Deprodding of Spaghetti Junction, Kentucky

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Spaghetti Junction, Kentucky, which you proposed for deletion. It's a real place. I updated the article. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Normal Op (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Amador County, California former places

I'm inclined to bulk nominate the lot of those dumped in from Durham's book. The one thing I have a question about is for instance you added a comment about China City, California saying that it appears on some map. Which map? It's not on any of the usuals. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

These appear in Durham as brief mentions within other entries, for example Lancha Plancha includes "Camp’s (1962) map shows a place called Arkansas Ferry located about 1.5 miles northwest of Lancha Plana on Mokelumne River" along with two other places that show up on maps. Most of them are either Camp 1962 or specific 7.5' quads.
I'm on board with nominating anything sourced solely to Durham since it's such a trivial level of coverage. Let me know if you need me to look up anything else, I had intended to check the rest of that list as well. –dlthewave ☎ 17:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there a fuller cite for Camp? Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The reference points to "Doble, John, 1962. John Doble’s journal and letters from the mines, Mokelumne Hill, Jackson, Volcano, and San Francisco, 1851-1865. (Edited by Charles L. Camp.) Denver, Colorado: The Old West Publishing Company, 304 p." Durham cites variations of "Camp's map (in Doble)" numerous times, presumably referring to maps that were made by Camp when he compiled Doble's writings. Without seeing the source it's unclear whether Camp drew the maps from Doble's descriptions or got that information elsewhere. –dlthewave ☎ 01:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah. Well. I've put up Fort Ann, California as a test case. Mangoe (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Tagging of Global action plan for influenza vaccines

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Global action plan for influenza vaccines. I do not think that Global action plan for influenza vaccines fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because Not enough copied content to justify deletion. If you wish, you may try using the simple proposed deletion (PROD) process, or the full articles for deletion (AfD) process, instead. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Revision deletions

Thank you for your work in protecting Wikipedia by hunting down copyright violations and asking for revision deletions. The number of revision deletion requests has shot up in the last few days thanks largely to your requests, and so far I have found yours to be correct and accurate. Good work! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

And thank you for checking and carrying out the revdels! –dlthewave ☎ 15:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi Dlthewave,

If you get the chance, would you mind taking a look at Sensitivity analysis? I tagged it a couple of weeks ago, but nothing much seemed to have happened. It's not really my area of expertise. Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! This one's not going to be a straightforward copyvio since the source is dated 2019 but the content was added to the article in 2012, which means we can't rule out a "reverse" copy-paste. I did notice that the first sentence is copied from the Saltelli 2002 source. It will take some digging, I'll put it on my list. –dlthewave ☎ 19:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for looking, and good luck! There seemed enough non-copyvio content to not just suggest wiping it all and start again, and I often forget about the possibility of reverse copy-pasting. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic nepotism

I'm not sure that this article requires Revision deletion. The criteria for Revdel is "Blatant violations of the copyright policy" per WP:CFRD#1. As these were always sourced blockquotes I don't think this is a blatant violation. Nthep (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I see you've restored the quotes. That's an editorial decision and not something I have an opinion on in this case. If you think the quotes are excessive you can remove them, all I am saying is that I do not consider their use to have been a blatant copyvio. Nthep (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

We're on the same page. I do think the quotes are excessive, but since the article has so little content I figured we might as well keep them as a starting point for rewrite/deletion/whatever. –dlthewave ☎ 16:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

GNIS

I've read your essay at WP:GNIS, and I pretty much agree with it entirely. I've seen a lot of the work going on with the Arizona and California places in the past year or so, and I've been looking at Missouri lately (Basically, GNIS calls every rural post office that ever existed a "populated place"). Is there a WikiProject for such cleanup? The need is very widespread. See Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States by state for an idea, as most of the GNIS error stubs are considered to be either unincorporated communities or extinct towns.

You've done good work in this area as well. There was talk of doing a major systematic cleanup and it was decided that a state-by-state approach would be best. California is the only one I know of that actually got started, but you could probably copy that format over to just about any other state. –dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I've reached out to the Missouri wikiproject, but it's not really active at all (no real conversations at the project talk page this year, IMO). So I'm going to be working on this for a long time. User:Hog Farm/GNIS Cleanup/Missouri. Four counties listed there, and it's a ton. Texas County, Missouri will be the worst; there's 46 "unincorporated communities" and 12 "extinct towns". If the users who yanked these out of GNIS would take 20 minutes to verify these were actually communities ... Hog Farm Bacon 20:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
It's a huge undertaking, they've created a ton of work for us. I think that simply having a list for each state somewhere so that we can see what's already been done is more important than where we actually put it. In this situation the state wikiprojects are more for categorization than anything else; it's probably fine to start a page within a dormant project. Another option would be to put it under Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography or even start our own small project. In any case, we'll probably eventually need a central page with the current status and links for each state.
Unfortunately I haven't had the time to be deeply involved with this lately. I would suggest dropping a note on the California page; I think the folks over there will be busy with California for quite some time but they'll eventually move on to other states and will appreciate your efforts in getting it started. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. –dlthewave ☎ 19:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I've been somewhat conservative with it so far with the Missouri ones, just because one AFD too far and they all get kneejerk keep !votes. There's well over 2000 of these I need to check, and the less hassle to start out with, the better I'd say. I've already AFD'd 9 of 12 I've checked from a single county, and there's still 14 more to go in St. Clair County. It's gonna be a bloodbath. Hog Farm Bacon 02:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to finish up Lassen County in CA, but when I'm done that I can start on some MO places. Mangoe (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Why is nypost an unreliable source?

TZubiri (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It's listed as "Generally unreliable" in the Perennial sources list, most recent RfC can be found here.
I see no reason to include the NY Post cite in the Kenosha article since that sentence is also supported by the Journal Sentinel. –dlthewave ☎ 23:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

False reverting

The revert of the edit correcting to "bachelor’s degree" to "bachelor's degree" on the basis on COI rewrite/copyvio is highly inappropriate. Please correct you edit. Sun Creator(talk) 15:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Sun Creator - This guy "Dlthewave" is trolling the site looking for anything to revert, even minor stuff. Guess he has no life. Wikipedia is trash anyway and has been for years.. such a shame. It could have been great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashta (talk • contribs) 05:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sun Creator: Which edit are you referring to? –dlthewave ☎ 17:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on TSLAQ and COI

Since you participated in Talk:TSLAQ#This_is_the_most_hilarious_WP:COI_article_I've_read, I am informing you of a related discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#QRep2020. --Elephanthunter (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Kenosha

Dlthewave, do you have a reason why you are restoring the longer version? If you were going to the talk page please ignore this message. Springee (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Re:CSD Decline

Fair question, In answer, I am hoping that the threat of losing the article might lure SCHCComChr (talk · contribs) back because I suspect that this may be a multiparty account or an undisclosed paid editor (Society of the Companions of the Holy Cross and maybe Communications Chair or Community Chapter?), and I would rather address both the copyright and the suspect account at the same time. Usually, when an article teeters on the brittle edge of non-existence, ling dormant accounts that have a stake in keeping or retaining specific versions of an article return to add their two cents, and I am hoping that might occur here so we can sort that out and then drop some advice about how to correctly build or rebuild an article so as to avoid having to go through this waltz again in the future. In fairness its a judgement call on my part, and there is no guarantee the account I'd like to speak to will return to editing to save the article, which means the shorter path to fixing this is as you surmise revision deletion, so I can dig it. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion nomination

I tried to delete the content that would most likely be considered copyrited material, but that got reverted just a little while ago. You've nominated 2 articles for speedy deletion. I do not have time right now to make major revisions of each of these two articles. If you feel they need to be removed, you have my permission.Dmm1169 (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

Dlthewave, I think you have been around long enough to know that restoring content that clearly doesn't have consensus is edit warring. We have something like 10 editors who have weighed in and half say the CPAC content is UNDUE. Why would you restore it without a clear consensus? Springee (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The most recent removal was clearly worthy of reversion; it used the rationale "not one main stream media source used", which was obviously untrue since Guardian and Reuters sources were included, and I added another to replace one instance of Snopes which should have addressed Alexandre8's concerns.
Consensus is not a head count. You can't block sourced content by pointing to a bunch of opinions that boil down to "I don't like it" and claiming No Consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 05:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, please strike the Edit Warring accusation to avoid the appearance of casting aspersions. One edit is not edit warring. –dlthewave ☎ 05:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
You are experienced enough to know that self declared consensus doesn't mean much if half the editors dispute it. You "I don't like it" claim is a false summary of the actual arguments. Regardless, there is a RfC active and the content should be removed until that consensus process decides inclusion or not. Springee (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I was open to talk on my edits. It is the other party that is committing the reversions you noted and refused to talk about them. Bring your issue up with them, not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkHorseSki (talk • contribs) 18:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: your comments

This may help: [12]

Please do your best to WP:FOC and work collaboratively with others to create consensus. If you don't get responses you like, try something different following the relevant policies and guidelines. --Hipal (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Jlevi and I asked content/policy-focused questions about how redlinks relate to WP:DUE and WP:PROMO; you responded with personal remarks about WP:CIR and leading horses to water (I'm still trying to figure that one out). You'll find it easier to work with others and build consensus if you clearly articulate your position and refrain from accusing those who disagree of lacking competence. –dlthewave ☎ 19:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not here primarily to educate other editors, especially when working on areas under sanctions.
I've clearly articulated my position in my very first comment on the matter. --Hipal (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Andy Ngo 1RR violation

Dlthewave, the Ngo article has a 1RR limit. You are over that with your recent edits. Please self revert. I'm starting a talk section where we can try to address some of the concerns rather than just removing content. Springee (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe that to be the case, could you please explain which edits are the cause of your concern? –dlthewave ☎ 12:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Why are you still making reverts after I raised this concern on your talk page? This edit[[13]] was a revert of my tag addition [[14]]. We don't have consensus to remove the tag. Additionally you removed a whole section here rather than just use a CN tag when you removed one of two citations [[15]]. Why didn't you try to find a different source rather than just reverting long standing text. I went on to make edits to that text and to the lead. You then made changes to those parts. Those are your second edits. It would be far better if you simply raised the concerns on the talk page rather than edit first. Please revert your recent edits and we can discuss the concerns/changes on the talk page. Springee (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The POV tag is a reasonable request so I've gone ahead and restored it. –dlthewave ☎ 15:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The POV tag is not my bigger concern. I also don't agree with your other edits to my changes. To act as if the POV tag is the only point of dispute is not correct. Springee (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Dlthewave, you just broke 1RR again. Any of the congressional testimony content has been changed a lot recently so any change to it is a revision. You made changes to that material here [[16]] and now here after I made changes to that exact content [[17]]. The Fox news source does not say what you put in the article. Your version suggests there was an effort to find evidence and it failed. The article makes it clear the investigators were not looking for those connections. That doesn't prove connections do exist but the failure to find them doesn't mean such a claim was wrong which is what you are trying to imply with your edit. Springee (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Springee, that small rewrite does no constitute a revert; I simply corrected the date and removed a source that does not support current article content.
Your edit which I reverted was in itself a 1RR violation and did not cover the same material as my earlier edit. –dlthewave ☎ 23:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
It does when it specifically reverts a disputed change. I am trying to take a good faith approach here but your comment here[[18]] which included false descriptions of my arguments is making that difficult. Please self revert the disputed edit. Springee (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
What would the point of that be? If I self reverted, you'd also have to self-revert your 1RR violation and then we'd be right back where we are now. –dlthewave ☎ 23:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
What 1RR? Are you trying to say removing a npov tag that I added was 1RR? Springee (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the tag, I'm talking about your edit of the lede [19] and removal of a sentence [20]. This is a bright-line 1RR violation. –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
No, those are back to back edits which are seen as a single edit when discussing 1RR (or 3RR for that matter). Springee (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you point to the specific policy/guideline that says that or is this a special rule you made up to justify your 1RR violation? –dlthewave ☎ 03:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
It's a rule (wp:4RR, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert"). While I accept your compromise fix to the congressional testimony material that edit put you at yet another revert. It would have been best to propose the edit then wait 24hr after your last revert to make that change. Springee (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Take it to 3RR if you're so concerned. I'm not interested in further debating the technicalities of why my edits would be considered a 1RR violation but yours wouldn't. This could've been avoided if you had made the effort to propose and discuss better wording instead of simply removing, as you're always asking other editors to do, but I'm sure that as usual there's some special reason why your rule doesn't apply your own edits. –dlthewave ☎ 12:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps you should have made a proposal before inserting content that failed V. Removing was a perfectly valid way of dealing with the content since it doesn't have to be in the article at all. We were already discussing the content in question so you could have proposed your solution before editing the article. Please drop the accusations of hypocrisy as they don't apply. Lets keep assuming good faith here. Springee (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Please stop posting on my talkpage. Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Understood, and if I do, it will be unintentional. Twinkle notifies the article creator of the AfD by default and I'll do my best to remember to uncheck that box. –dlthewave ☎ 17:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Mass creation

I think we have to pick our shots on this and hope for a general change in policy that makes mass-creation easier to deal with. I'm entirely certain that, barring a major change in behaviour, for most of the ones still going we'll be looking at the same kind of block/retirement/whatever, and formation of a clean-up team to go through their articles one-by-one that we've had to do with C46. Until then, yeah, they'll just carry on creating a massive back-log of fails for future editors to have to meticulously sort through. FOARP (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

PS - let's also look at the top-ten article creators:

1) Dr Blofeld/Encyclopædius - Semi-retired, appears to regret their mass-created articles after a bunch of AN/ANI cases related to them.
2) Lugnuts.
3) Carlossuarez46 - enough said.
4) Wilhelmina Will - no longer very active.
5) Kotbot - a deactivated bot, written by Kotniski, who has retired, apparently after an arbcom case and a TBAN
6) Ruigeroeland - blocked indef for massive Copyvio. They were copying their articles directly out of field-notes for lepidopterists. This was only discovered last month, two years after they retired.
7) Polbot- A deactivated bot, written by Quadell who doesn't edit much any more and was desysopped for inactivity.
8) Ram-Man - Desysopped for inactivity, hasn't edited since 2019.
9) Ser Amantio di Nicolao - Still active.
10) Starzynka - Blocked indef for sockpuppeting.

This is not to grave-dance on those editors who are now no longer active on wiki, but you can see a clear trend to either learning their lessons about massive article creation or being blocked/whatever. FOARP (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this isn't the best time to sort through those articles. By the way, thanks for your various proposals at NGeo, NSports, etc. What we really need is a combination of stronger notability requirements and some sort of behavior/conduct policy that requires the article creator to demonstrate GNG at the time of creation. –dlthewave ☎ 15:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Cricket AfDs

Hi there, I've got no problem with you AfDing cricket articles, but can we keep them to a max of 5 per day to allow good levels of discussion on the article in question. Previously when we've had large numbers at a time it has meant poor discussion and strange conclusions. Regards. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I won't nominate any more today. This is a tricky one since the articles are being created at a rate of more than 5 per day, but I'll try to limit myself. –dlthewave ☎ 17:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
His creations are far lower since he returned. It's just we get 5 nominations a day from another user and even then we still struggle for good discussion on certain types of articles (Asian cricketers specifically), anymore and those on the project struggle to respond, especially as we're trying to complete the changes to our notability guidelines at the moment. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
You're probably not too well advised to continue nominating cricketers with the amount of appearances that you have been nominating. Cricketers with 50+ first-class appearances are never in a million years going to be deleted, with a very strong chance sources exist for players with those numbers of appearances (as has been the case with some of your nominations) either online or offline in Hindi sources. StickyWicket (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
You're also nominating them within one minute of each other. You cannot do a proper WP:BEFORE search for sources in that one minute. Also, coverage will be harder to find online for people in pre-Internet era, and where sources may exists predominantly in another language (in these cases Hindi). Joseph2302 (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
It's also unusual that someone who so far as I can see has never edited cricket articles in their life, suddenly decides to nominate a bunch of them for deletion. Along with lots of Turkish places. This editing pattern would suggest a vendetta against Lugnuts, and you seem to be jumping on the anti-Lugnuts bandwagon from the stupid ANI threads people keep raising. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Joseph. This latest AFD is ridiculous. No attempt has been made to try and find additional sources. Plenty of Turkish sources are available and are being mentioned at the AFD. As Joseph says, there is for some reason an anti-Lugnuts bandwagon on the roll. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a WP:STUB as long as it has potential for expansion (unlike a dictionary definition or suchlike). All Turkish hamlets and all first-class cricketers have that potential. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I generally do not do sports articles, and certainly not player AfDs, but the issue with saying that stubs have the potential to be expanded is that in practice they also have the potential to be deleted, and that creating stubs is simply sloughing the work of determining in which group any given article lies onto other people. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
It is simply demanding way, way, way more of the AFD nom than is demanded of the creator. This is I think acceptable when dealing with someone who only made a few articles, but when the person concerned creates many thousands of cut/paste articles against WP:MASSCREATION/WP:MEATBOT. The logic is "It's OK for me to mass-create articles on bad sourcing at a rate of one every 90 seconds, but for you to delete them you must spend 30+ minutes on each one otherwise you're a bad person with a vendetta". Also, the entire reason WP:GEOLAND says "typically presumed to be notable" is because the sources needed to pass WP:GNG are assumed to exist - at some point, however, the question will come up as to whether the sources needed to pass WP:GNG do actually exist. If it were truly the case that the sources don't actually need to exist to show WP:GNG then it would simply say "are notable". FOARP (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The loyalty shown to Lugnuts is to the credit of the people who have tried to defend him here. I understand it is motivated at least in part out of concern for Lugnuts wellbeing, which is a creditable motive. All the same I think they should have tried to find a better way of showing it than by attacking other editors on unjustified grounds. I hope the people who attacked dlthewave and myself here will read the ANI close and understand that our concerns were genuine, motivated by experiences with similar cases of mass-creation, and consider that the discussion would never have happened, and also likely not have been re-opened, had the concerns of other editors simply been listened to and not repeatedly dismissed as "hounding" and ignored. FOARP (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Question about need for secondary sources

Hi Dlthewave, it was nice meeting you at the Andy Ngo article. Hope you're doing well recently.

I'm here to ask a question about one of your edits there.

For this edit where you removed parts of Ngo's testimony, you said that there was a due weight issue because only a "deprecated source" covered it. Is there any WP policy stipulating that only information covered by secondary sources can be included, while primary-source information can't?

Thanks, Thomas Meng (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Consensus hasn't been established

Dlthewave, please slow down with some of these reverts.[[21]] This is disputed content and has been since it was first added. Yes, in the past few hours the discussion is 3:1 but that ignores that Shinealittlelight also questioned the source when it was first added. Also, no one has actually addressed my concerns. The article is confrontational enough, restoring disputed content without a clear consensus doesn't help. Springee (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Your options at this point are A) go to RSN if you'd like to challenge the source or B) drop the WP:STICK. –dlthewave ☎ 02:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I see you've started a RSN discussion. Thank you. –dlthewave ☎ 02:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The disappointing thing is that no one is actually arguing the facts. Instead we are hiding behind the idea that the source is green thus must be correct (and DUE - which is another disputed issue). Springee (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
One more thing, could you please stop presenting discussion/consensus as a ratio? You know that's not how it works. –dlthewave ☎ 01:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Dlthewave, it often does work that way. When we have no way to say which side has a stronger argument things are often decided based on the number weight of editor opinions in each direction. Take the BC content on Andy Ngo. if I say it's not DUE and you say it is how do we decide if it is? You can make the argument that a RS said it so it must be DUE. I can counter that it was at the bottom of the article, it wasn't well supported, BC isn't significant source even if it passes RS etc. You may not agree with those views but in the end how are we to decide if my policy based arguments are better than yours? Typically it comes down to how many editors show up and say A vs B. Springee (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

So long as I'm here, I noticed you reverted my edit here [[22]]. Welcome to the article. Why to you think it's important to include a "soundbite" statement vs an impartial summary of the judge's ruling? I don't like the idea of saying someone was "objectively unreasonable" (an ironically subjective statement) vs stating what Hughes did that the judge found problematic? Else, remove the soundbite clip which is what I did. Springee (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Please raise your concerns on that article's talk page if you'd like to discuss. –dlthewave ☎ 21:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Tannerite

I reverted your edit because the link that the article quotes is no longer active. It looks like tannerite stopped selling that product about a year or so ago. MartinezMD (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It's still listed here, looks like they changed the URL at some point. –dlthewave ☎ 04:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. You'd think with the negative press they actually would have stopped it lol. MartinezMD (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Harry and Meghan interview

Hi. Hope you are doing well. I noticed that you had tagged Oprah with Meghan and Harry because apparently a few revisions contained copyrighted information added by a now-blocked user. I checked the page's history, and those revisions appear to be redacted now, so I removed the tag. However, I still preferred to double check it with you because I'm not really aware of what's going on regarding the investigations into that user's contributions. Regards! Keivan.fTalk 07:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like an admin completed the revision deletion but didn't remove the template, so that was the right thing to do. Thanks! –dlthewave ☎ 15:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTGAZETTEER

Thanks for the support at the MFD. I've done a bit more work on this essay and would be grateful for any comments/amendments. At least we can discuss it without CANVASS concerns as you already saw the MFD independently. FOARP (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

FORUM hatting

Dlthewave, please don't hat discussions that are related to the topic unless they are clearly a violation of FORUM. Hatting good faith discussions that have relevance to the topic is not helpful. Once the collapse was disputed you shouldn't have restored it without some additional input. Springee (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

+1 to the above. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
+1 more to the above. Atsme 💬 📧 12:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The bit about Tucker's comments being hyperbole is pure speculation by a Wikipedia editor, unsupported by any source and belongs in a forum, not a talk page. –dlthewave ☎ 12:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Here is the Atlantic talking about hyperbole and Carlson and this topic. [[23]] This is the sort of thing that we could use to help scope/contextualize Carlson's presentations. Springee (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Political userboxes

Hi, I would really appreciate your opinion about an userbox I created on request, recently nominated for deletion together with other similar userboxes. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Qartagir/Userboxes/Fascist. Thanks, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, please do continue to notify me when the shitty userboxes you've created for fascists etc are up for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 02:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 06:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

Recommend you reread the comment I made that you are responding to with this edit and strike your misrepresentation of my stated stance.--MONGO (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh my, I'm sorry, I must have misread your comment. I'm on mobile at the moment but I'll strike it and write a note general comment when I'm at my PC. –dlthewave ☎ 23:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for striking that. Have a good day.--MONGO (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of tribalism

I just saw your response on Awilley's talk page, and to avoid stirring up any shit, I decided to comment here. I wasn't attributing that accusation to you, but to PacMecEng, characterizing your comment as "MAKING THE PROBLEM [of tribalism] WORSE". I just wanted to be clear on that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving the shit unstirred. I didn't think that was what you meant, but I appreciate the clarification! –dlthewave ☎ 05:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI

A discussion that may interest you: Wikipedia_talk:Editing policy#Edit summaries for reverts. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Psalm 14

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord.

There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.

Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the Lord is his refuge.

Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad. 2605:A601:A961:0:2880:4139:E8E6:B69 (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Springee and 1RR

I see you've had some disagreements with Springee lately concerning the 1RR rule, and while I haven't followed in detail I'm concerned as Springee launched a WP:ANI action against me in February this year based on a spurious interpretation of 1RR,[24] and then subsequently launched another action months later against a different editor based on the same incorrect interpretation, in apparent ignorance of the earlier ruling.[25] While Springee is a frequent visitor to my talk page (65 mentions at present), I had no idea they were on a voluntary 1RR restriction and they have never indicated this to me. I'm somewhat concerned by what I see as a pattern of selective application of policy and POV-pushing, especially on pages related to conservative political figures like Andy Ngo. I'd be interested to know if you've observed this as well Noteduck (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


Dlthewave, you warned me about what you felt was a 1RR violation. What is your opinion regarding this pair of reverts [[26]], [[27]]? Springee (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

If I breached the 1RR it was an error and I'll revert it - of course, this is good material that belongs on the page, so I could restore it later Noteduck (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks like Noteduck acknowledged their mistake and self-reverted. I might have concerns if this became an ongoing issue. –dlthewave ☎ 18:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Oath Keepers

The text clearly states that it is the organization's own description of requirements for members. In this case sourced from the organization's own website is okay. If you still have issues with it being reverted, please make a case for a change on the Talk page so we can work out a solution if need be. Myotus (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at this

Dlthewave, I know you have been concerned about editors crossing over from content disagreements to attacking other editors. Since you commented here [[28]] would you mind commenting on the accusations of lying etc leveled against me? I would appreciate if you could try to calm that situation down a bit. Thanks! Springee (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:American propagandists

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Category:American propagandists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_8#Category:American_propagandists. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Renat 12:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

CRP and filibustering

I noticed you said at ANI: If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure [X] isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering. (Polite ping to El_C who was also in that conversation)

I think I have some experience with that. WP:CRP, while a great policy, does lead to filibustering and deadlock. A dedicated admin would be great, but they are hard to find as they're generally busy with other things. Do you have other ideas on how the policy can be modified to prevent filibustering? Maybe we should have a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Consensus required about how this should be addressed.VR talk 16:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a tough one, since article editing restrictions aren't really effective against long term "civil POV pushers" who avoid bright-line violations like edit warring and restoring disputed content. I'm not sure how one would write a rule that targets behaviors like stonewalling and sealioning. I do think we need less of a "don't get involved in content disputes" among admins, especially at AE and ANI, since this type of thing would be better addressed through discretionary actions by individual admins who are willing to look at entire discussions rather than just sets of diffs. –dlthewave ☎ 19:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@Dlthewave: you're right that civil pov pushing is hard to tackle. How do we get more admins to engage in moderating content disputes? Here is one suggestion (that I also made at User talk:Mhhossein#Policy proposals). WP:ANRFC is request for admins to close discussions carefully evaluating arguments from all sides. This is not a behavioral evaluation but a content and policy evaluation. What if we made a section there for request to moderate a discussion (currently that board is just for requests to assess consensus in the discussion). I'd love to hear your thoughts.VR talk 01:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Sutherland

The lists of Lochs and Islands in Sutherland, why did you delete them, they've been there for over 2 years without modifications, if you were really worried about unsourced material then add or find sources, I was already at that time working on finding information about those and now I realize the lists have gone N1TH Music (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

We generally don't allow unsourced content like that to stand regardless of how long it's been in the article. I didn't realize you were actively working on it, you can find the lists here (also accessible through the page history). I would suggest working on the lists in your sandbox until they're ready to be published. –dlthewave ☎ 12:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Kiribati « fictitious » settlements

Dear User as you may know dozens of settlements of Kiribati have been created in 2008, most of them, without any kind of sourcing and no notability (except on remote database). On Nonouti island where part of my family is, there are not such villages. On Kiribati atoll, the villages are called kaainga and group few people (from 20 to 500 ca), each kaainga has its proper name, and none of the villages of Nonouti are in the list of AfD. But I saw some resistance : for example for Kaaitara an abandoned place in Teraina without any inhabitants since more than 20 years. the creator of those articles, in 2008, never replied to my question. thanks for supporting their deletion, yours --Arorae (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jot Em Down Store, Georgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Locale. 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) 05:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Beckley, West Virginia

Hi there. Could you double-check your redirect at Beckley, West Virginia? Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, thank you for catching that! –dlthewave ☎ 16:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:American people of Sioux descent

A tag has been placed on Category:American people of Sioux descent indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 19:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Still with the GNIS problems

Have to admit I'd kind of walked away from the whole GNIS GeoStub issue for a few months. Now I'm back into it and I see the issues are more or less the same - there's a relatively small number of editors who continue to believe that any location that was ever populated should get a stand-alone article even if it says virtually nothing about the place. At least GNIS's unreliability is now the subject of a consensus at WP:RSN, good going!

Personally, I think the only way this is ever going to be resolved is just by bringing GEOLAND into line with GNG the same way that schools basically were. People are having their minds gradually changed one AFD at a time. You see movement on WP:SPORT as well as people are beginning to see that basically Wiki is just being made to host directory-style information, which is undesirable. FOARP (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether folks are A) going by what they think WP:GEOLAND says instead of what it actually says or B) using an extremely loose definition of legal recognition. It doesn't help that "legally recognized" is an incredibly vague concept and has no globally universal criteria that could be applied. I agree, I think we've addressed the worst but removal of the notability presumption would put a final stop to it. –dlthewave ☎ 21:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
It really is incredible just how much trouble has been caused by a single bold edit to WP:5P back in 2008 that no-one ever really discussed. I mean, like, wow. FOARP (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I've been amazed at how much weight people put on that. Looking through the NGEO talk archives, folks have argued that "gazetteer" is a written-in-stone policy that cannot be contradicted by a guideline. I'm also surprised (and I've encountered this on other "policies" as well) just how much pushback we get for even suggesting slight changes or clarification of its role. –dlthewave ☎ 13:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I think people just kind of assumed that it must have been there for a good reason, and that it must have ben the result of some 200-vote RFC or something if it was included there. I myself thought something like this until I checked. Personally I'm encouraged that (thus far) people are getting what the issue is with this and so far no-one is actually trying to argue that WP should be a Gazetteer in the discussions at NGEO and 5P, just that they thought it had already been decided that it was one. It's telling that the only criticism I've ever seen of WP:NOTGAZETTEER is that it "goes against long-standing consensus". In reality, most folk on here have seen enough of these micro-stub articles, particularly at AFD, to understand that they are a net negative for this project.
BTW - I think Masem's proposed wording is good and we should just take the "W" on this one, and worry about blue-links and WP:NOT once the new wording is in place. Assuming no major objections are raised in the next few days of course. FOARP (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, we've given it a couple of days and no-one has objected to the WP:5P change. I did consider asking for an WP:ANRFC close, but ultimately this is an essay/information page and the consensus is unanimous. If other pages refer to this page, they shouldn't be because this is not supposed to be a source of rules controlling other pages. Same goes for removing the circular reference at WP:NGEO. FOARP (talk) 08:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I think my project for next year, assuming this change beds in, is to try getting a consensus together to get gazetteer added to WP:NOT under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It's the same rationale as dictionaries and directories - we can use them as a source, include definitions/addresses/whatever in articles, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not something other than that. FOARP (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion at WP:ANI that involves you

As a courtesy see here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I closely follow discussions that I'm involved in and assume others do the same, but I respect your decision to step back from ANI and will do my best to let you know if I start a new subsection. –dlthewave ☎ 01:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dlthewave/Archive_2&oldid=1184170039"