User talk:PhotogenicScientist

Welcome!

Hello, PhotogenicScientist! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 18:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello World

An IP editor no more, I now have a permanent talk page! PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 18:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

[objectionable heading removed]

If you persist in attacking people on Wikipedia, you will be invited to explain your behavior to the admins. Do NOT attack me further on Wikipedia Yu have been warned. SoftwareThing (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Who Yu? EEng 00:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure when I attacked you. You may feel free to report any interaction between us to the admins. But I'd contend that you wouldn't get the verdict you'd like. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Just popping in here to ask SoftwareThing to strike the heading above and replace it with something which doesn't violate WP:NPA. We can disagree while also collaborating civilly to improve the article. And PhotogenicScientist has given no indication that they are a fascist. Generalrelative (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hi PhotogenicScientist, I'm Dr vulpes. I'm a real human being here on wikipedia who works to help new editors. If you have any questions please feel free to reach out I'm more than happy to help. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey Doc. Thanks for reaching out. Since joining, I've tried to inform myself about how Wikipedia works by reading policy pages, and taking part in discussions in Talk pages. I try to be self-sufficient in information-gathering so as to not burden others too much with questions. But if there's something I just can't figure out, I'll be sure to drop you a line! PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

Hello, I'm Blaze Wolf. I noticed that in this edit to Anti-fascism, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Which is ironic since your edit summary said "Please provide description of all edits made in edit summaries, including reason(s) when reverting" but didn't give a reason for the deletion. Not that I think there would have been one, and the same material is at [Antifa (United States)]]. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: If you're looking at the edit history for the article, you'll see my original edit which included the content removal RIGHT below the one that reverted it less than 24-hours later, which had a descriptive edit summary. My second edit was not really a "content removal" so much as a reversion of another user's edit; in that regard, I feel I explained why I reverted the edit, as it was accompanied by no explanation from that user in either an edit summery or an entry on the Talk page.

Reverting their edit was perhaps not the most appropriate way to go about that, even though their edit failed nearly all the criteria of "when to revert" explained in WP:REVERT and WP:REV. I have since started a discussion on the Talk page, and invited the user to participate. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: (pinging for user since you have to re-sign for the ping to work) Also, I'm not sure if you're referring to me or Photogenic, Doug. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. So, a ping only works when an edit is signed? Also, where/when do signatures automatically appear, and where do I need to include it myself? I think I've seen instances of both. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

That is correct, the ping will only work when you sign. Sinebot will add signatures on pages like WP:TEA or pages that are marked to allow automatic signature signing. However you shouldn't have to rely on the bot signing for you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Roger that PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Oopss, Photogenic. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah alright, thanks for clarifying. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much.

I want to personally send my gratitude for settling the situation in the Talk:Funk page. If there was any way I could send you flowers I would do it in a heartbeat. StephenCezar15 (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I found a way to send you flowers. I appreciate you ^_^ StephenCezar15 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, thank you :) glad to see my time spent here was put to good use PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Purportedly

There are two sources cited in that paragraph. You ignored the first one - (here https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-laptop.html). Read the first paragraph.

If you self-revert, I won't report you for making more than one revert to the article in a 24-hour period. Wes sideman (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. As a point of note, the 3RR (and 1RR by analogue) has plenty of exemptions, one of which is "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." "Weasel words" like "purportedly" create implicit bias, and are generally to be avoided unless given in direct attribution. Your edit appeared to introduce bias (and also violate a recent RFC) - for those reasons, I could claim an exemption to the 1 revert rule.

I'll also note that you also made more than 1 edit in a 24 hour period, the first of which seemed an awful lot like a revert. Any time you report others for violating policy, you should be absolutely sure you haven't done so as well. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Using the word "purportedly", directly from the already-cited reliable source, in the same context that the source uses it, is creating "implicit bias"? Please. Even you don't believe that. And you also know the RfC was over an extremely narrow part of the article - namely, the first sentence. You're not fooling anyone, and certainly not me. Wes sideman (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, "purportedly" isn't MOS:WEASEL, but instead MOS:DOUBT. Still, words like it can imply that a given point is inaccurate, which shouldn't be done in Wikivoice. When words like it are used, "ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." Your edit to the article was not clear as to where this new word came from. That's why I reverted it on BLP grounds. That happened to be a mistake on my part, though, as I've since seen the source you WERE referring to that explicitly used that language.

You're also plain wrong about that RFC. The full, unabridged question that started the RFC was "Should the article use the term "alleged" in reference to the ownership of the laptop computer?" The close of the RFC states "There is a consensus not to describe Biden's ownership of the laptop as "alleged" in our own voice," making no mention of any specific part of the article. The discussion pertains to the article in whole. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

DS Violation at Biden Laptop

Hello PhotogenicScientist.

You made these two edits to violate the 24-hour BRD page restriction pursuant to Discretionary Sanctions: inserting "nearly", which was reverted and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&diff=next&oldid=1118581189 reinserting "nearly" after it had been reverted by @Muboshgu:

Separately, with these two edits, you also violated the same restriction: substituting "appeared to" for "purportedly" and repeating the same edit minutes later, after it was challenged.

You've also made, by my count, six reverts in roughly the past 24 hours -- far over 3RR.

edit revert

edit revert

edit revert

edit revert

edit revert

edit revert

Your interactions on the talk page have not been as collegial as one would expect. I'm afraid that without some sign this will not continue, it needs to be reported to AE. That's generally a big drain on editor time and attention. I am posting this here as a courtesy in case you wish to consider your options.

If you'd like to propose some alternative, such as reversing the violations and taking a week off from the page, for example, please suggest what you think would be appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Noted. My goal yesterday was to enforce BLP restrictions, which should be clear from some of my edits, such as removing unsourced negative statements. However, it seems I got carried away with claiming the BLP exemption for others, and got a bit wrapped up trying to "defend" the article per WP:TRUTH, notably with this one and this one. I will cool off editing that page. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Any BLP claim, even if it were valid, would have needed to be stated at the time of the edits and discussion. It hardly explains or justifies the violations. Are you going to undo whatever of your violations has not already been reverted? Please self revert promptly or enforcement will be the next step. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Sequential reverts count as one. Still, this article is moving fast with editors boldly inserting material that has previously not been considered good. SPECIFICO you are also making bold and unsourced/OR edits to the lead, some of which change the meaning from the recent RFC, consensus that was firmly supported by the recent close of your challenge at AN. I think a trip to AE should be avoided for everyone’s sake. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I have self-reverted some of the examples you've pointed out per this diff. Though, not all reversions were still capable of being undone, and some of your examples were not of reversions. See below for explanation.

1: REVERTED

2: I reverted to enforce result of an RFC, an explicit exemption to 3RR per WP:EDITWAR

3: The editor that I reverted has since posted in the Talk page noting their mistake and accepting my reversion. I could self-revert on a technicality, but I believe this one is now moot.

4: The reversion part of the edit was of the same content in #3; see above for explanation. The rest of the edit was not a reversion.

5: This was an edit that built off another editor's contribution, not a reversion.

6: WOULD REVERT, but unable to since the section has been edited so many times, and looks more like the PREV version in the diff.

7: WOULD REVERT, but it's also since been changed by other editors.

8: REVERTED PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

1. 2 is false. SPECIFICO talk 14:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

   "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring". That's rather explicit. Whether RFC results count as "overriding policies" is not well-defined anywhere on Wikipedia that I could find. But I believe RFC results fit the letter of that rule. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not here to negotiate WP prinicples with you. Self revert. Do you want to go for enforcement? Your behavior is egregious and it needs to stop. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

After double-checking example #2, turns out I already self-reverted that one a while ago, per this diff. That being said, I believe all your requests for self-reversion have now been met. Is there anything else which you think it worth making a case over at AE for? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

A simple "no" and/or "thank you" would have been nice, instead of leaving that sword of Damocles dangling.... PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not egregious behavior. Stop with the threats. Treat newer editors with a little more empathy and good faith. DS can be confusing. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

DS violation at Hunter Biden laptop

You just violated the 24-hour BRD restriction with this edit, reinstating an edit that had been reverted without waiting 24 hours. Nor did you discuss the edit on the talk page, as is required. We had a discussion of this sanction in another thread on this page not too long ago (immediately above). You need to self-revert immediately. I may report you without further warning. This behavior is not acceptable. If it's too much of a burden for you to observe these restrictions, there are many other articles to work on where this is not a factor. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The first part of the linked edit was not a reversion, but a new edit with the intent of more amenable wording.

The second part of that edit was to revert that section of the lead back to status quo version, which I'm fairly sure you agree is often permissible. But to back that up with policy, per WP:BRD#Process: "While discussing the disputed content, neither editors should revert or change the content being discussed until a compromise or consensus is reached." The bold editor started a Talk page discussion about their proposed insertion, and I joined in quickly. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Not correct. Please self-revert. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO I will self revert in order to hash this out. Can you please explain why the policy I cited is not applicable? There's also the essay WP:STATUSQUO, which says "During a dispute discussion, you should not revert away from the status quo ante bellum until a consensus is established." The dispute over whether to add the content you re-instated started out in edit summaries, then moved to the talk page, as tends to happen. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

You can consult at the Teahouse or the Village Pump or ask any Admin if you are unsure as to the guidance in policies and guidelines and essays and their relation to Discretionary Sanctions. Thanks for the self-revert. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO You said I violated the 24-hour BRD restriction. Can you point me to any policy or guideline that backs that up? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

You forgot to sign your name at the 'new' RFC. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay Done - thanks for the ping PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

No prob & by the way, about the 1RR/24Hr stuff above? Aside from myself & Mr Ernie, nobody else complained when Feoffer breached it 'twice' (on Dec 4 & Dec 6), quite interesting. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd primarily chalk that up to edits happening more quickly these past few days compared to when I got called out for it. I'm a big fan of Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance" (italic word mine). Or, in wikipedia terms, extreme adherence to WP:AGF.

I'm not going to plainly ignore what you also noticed - I'm not naive. But I've learned that it's generally not tractable here to lean too much into inferences. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Feoffer (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Feoffer I'm the one who restored the RFC consensus version - link. Afterwards an editor added "allegedly" and PhotogenicScientist correctly reverted it as it goes against the RFC consensus not to qualify the ownership of the laptop in the lead. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

That ANI report is going nowhere. PS - You're always relaxed & certainly can concentrate on any page you like, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Lol thanks for that. I'm glad to hear that's at least how one person sees it. It's hard sometimes to keep this composure in... certain discussions. But I'm trying. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

essay

I believe that WP:UNBLOCKABLES may be relevant to some of your concerns. jp×g 13:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - that was a good read. I definitely see some facets of that essay in what's going on with my case. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Stampedes and crowd crushes

I wonder if you would mind moving your (valid and valuable) contribution at talk:Stampede to Talk:Crowd collapses and crushes#Stampede categories: rename, replace, something else?, please? I suggest it would be best to keep the discussion at one place.

(And yes, I recognise the WP:RGW problem: it was the reason I stopped removing stampede cats.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that discussion you started - it seems to be in a very similar vein to the issue I noticed. But at the root of each discussion, your concern was with the names of Categories, while my concern was with how Wikipedia should treat the topic as a whole. The difference might seem minor, but I think it's enough to keep the discussions separate for now, at least.

Per that NGram link I provided, "stampede" is a term used in English much more often than "human stampede" or "crowd crush", even today. So, if there's an article on which to discuss how to deal with human stampedes, I think it would be the Stampede article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Anchors in section titles

If a section name needs to be changed, it is very difficult to hunt down all the links to the original name. So putting an anchor with the old name means that they still work. (But I'm having trouble in this case, never did one with quotes before.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Testing: Link to Stampede#"Human stampedes" and crushes PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Aha! I think I got it working. I replaced the quotations with '&quot'; according to the recommendation of TEMPLATE:ANCHOR.

My original edit to remove the original anchor is that it made the section title confusingly and awkwardly long in edit summaries - a behavior which I've since learned is documented at MOS:SECTIONCOMMENT. I've since learned both the importance of using anchors to preserve links to the section elsewhere using the old name, and how to hide anchors from view to make them less noticeable to unawares editors like myself.

Thanks for your help with that! PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"and back at ya!" Thank you for helping me out with the html quote tag solution. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

What is the point of this posting? Please stop posting these excessively without good reason. DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The point is contentious topics. There's all sorts of rules for editing anything within the scope of any topic deemed "contentious". The one on display here is "make sure editors are aware of the rules before you can sanction them for breaking the rules." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Sugar cookie for you. Enjoy!

Hu Nhu has given you a Sugar cookie! Sugar cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Sugar cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

From a bit of a distance, I've been observing the Francis Drake article. Much credit to important improvements to what has been a very troubled article are due to your skill and knowledge as an editor.

Hu Nhu (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! That article proved a great place to cut my teeth around here - lots of things that didn't seem quite right, and upon digging into policies and guidelines, probably weren't. It was all quite the collaborative effort. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Specifico

I ran across your lament [1] after noticing the user doing the same thing here [2].

First, thank you for continuing to edit in the face of this discouragement.

Second, as you can see in the user edit history, we aren't the only two who have run into this. I don't know how the discipline process works. Can you report this to someone?

DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The 'someone' to whom to report concerns about another editor's behavior would be the admins. And the place to report such concerns would be WP:ANI. However, I'd recommend exhausting all of your other options for dispute resolution before taking an issue there.

For starters, check out WP:DISPUTE to see if anything there helps. If after a while, you find yourself still irritated, you can search through the documentation of ALL the policies and guidelines; chances are, the behavior irritating you has irritated others in the past, and has been documented, along with how to deal with it. The trick is just finding the right P or G that applies to your situation. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Mahmoud Abbas

I saw that you removed the label 'Holocaust deniers' from Mahmoud Abbas's entry. I recommend you read the entry on his book The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism, I would be very surprised if there is a person who would not define it as Holocaust denial. In fact, the book is defined in Wikipedia as Category:Holocaust-denying books. Purple table (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

What something is "defined as" on Wikipedia does not matter - Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

In any case, the primary reason I removed the label I stated in my edit summary - it's not supported by the article text. It's not for us to label a book's author a Holocaust denier based on what's in their book. That constitues original research, which Wikipedia isn't for. If you can find multiple reliable secondary sources that describe him as such, feel free to incorporate that information into the article. Then we can have a discussion on whether such a label is WP:DUE for his infobox. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks at Donald Trump

It appears that you are engaging in personal attacks, wikilawyering, and bludgeoning at the Trump BLP. Please stop before this ends up wih an AE discussion. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

You mean this comment, that looks nothing like the examples of what is considered to be a personal attack? You're right - proper form is to focus exclusively on content and not contributors. I've edited my comment to make that more clear.

Thanks for stopping by here. Though, please familiarize yourself with how to respond to a personal attack - a talk page reminder is recommended before commenting on it on the article talk page. Thought, for a comment so clearly bereft of malicious intent, the recommended course of action is "ignore it." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

If you don't make such posts, you wont need to discuss others' reactions to them. I doubt the Admins at AE will be interested in the finer points of personal attack discussions.I left you that note rather than "templating the regulars" because I thought you'd find it more helpful. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Calm down, Speccie. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there ain't no attack in that, nor even any low-level incivility. It's simply a disagreement with another editor about whether a particular side subject suits WP:N or not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Editing own comments after reply

This destroys context. The new text is not what was subsequently objected to. I hope you'll edit your edit per WP:REDACT. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Done. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. You didn't underscore the "new" text. But a vast improvement and one I can live with if I try real hard. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't want to underline the whole thing, since I used underline to emphasize later in the comment. I definitely didn't want to emphasize the first part of that comment, anyhow. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. I think that's part of why they recommend italics rather than underscore for emphasis. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I rest my case. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I notified that user of the original wording of the comment. Hope it clears up any confusion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Photogenic, you are making things a lot worse with this revision. In the rare instance of such a revision you need to strikethoug and date the strikethough with five tildes so that context is preserved, i.e. show the time:19:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC) That way, readers can understand the subsesquent comments in the thread. Please do so now.19:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're referring to the hanging question by CyberWolf, I've left a comment on their page clarifying. Should someone new come along, they'll see my original text struck out, and the new text immediately following - it seems clear enough to me. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Just strike the comment-in-question. It remains there, only with a line across it. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I first removed it, but that's not right per WP:REDACT. Is there a third way to "strike" something? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I think GoodDay meant "remove". GoodDay, see REDACT. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I meant strike it out. That way folks will know what was being objected to. The only other way, is an administrator erasing it. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I sit corrected. That's exactly what was done long before your comment, but thanks for the support. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: There's specific semantic HTML markup for this stuff: <del>...</del> and <ins>...</ins>. Like so: "You're just a butt-hurt whiner about You're perhaps more sensitive than I am with regard to use of strong language on talk pages."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss talk about destroying context. It was you, after all, who reminded me to follow WP:REDACT when editing a comment after it gets a reply. Could you amend your new addition with the {ins} template? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Where did I destroy context, and what new addition? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You added the reminder Anyway, per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures, closure review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute – even for uninvolved editors after I replied to your comment about the article size. It looks like I ignored the reminder. Unless someone looks at the timestamps real close. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It didn't look to me like the addition affected your reply, but fair enough. I'll try to find a way to fix it. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - I appreciate it. Your reminder was also quite fair - I'm still new around here, and already I hate seeing close reviews get hijacked as re-litigations of content disputes. I realize I treaded close to that with my reply... though I bristled a little bit at the mention of the sub-section size increase statistic. My apologies for that. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Pardon my asking (again?)

I feel like I've asked you this already, but if I did it apparently wasn't on this page. Are you, PhotogenicScientist, in fact scientist and supermodel Symmetra (pictured at right here)? EEng 00:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Over at the endless self-ref hatnote debate, I see that you once referred to two peer-reviewed psychological studies, both demonstrating that humor improves cognition. But I don't see the links to them that you mention. I'd really like those, please. (Ping me so I don't miss them.) EEng 00:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Er, I don't think it was me that referred to the studies. And yes, you have asked me that before, and no, I am not Symmetra. Should I be? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, you are photogenic, after all, so it was worth a shot. My bad about the studies. (Found them, BTW: [3][4].) EEng 02:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

And a scientist! Though, if I had a Wikipedia biography article, I imagine people would argue that I don't actually deserve the label "scientist"... PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Death of Anatoly Klyan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death of Anatoly Klyan, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Anatoly Klyan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

EEng

Re: "Why bring it up as a reason to impose a harsher sanction than the current behavior warrants?" – The main reason I can think of for the hungry appetite to get rid of EEng despite his long-term productivity and several years without incident is that he's one of the shepherds of the MoS, and the most defensive against adding new hobgoblins to it. Innumerable people are unhappy with one quibble or another in MoS (or, very often, its lack of one that they want to impose to wield against others), and all of us who work to shield it from willy-nilly changes by random editors to suit personal (and especially wikiprojects') style peccadilloes have targets on our backs and always have. There is no editor on the system who agrees with every line item in MoS, and no line-item in MoS has agreement from every editor, meanwhile the entire nature of writing style is very personal and emotional to a lot of people, so they get angrier about that guideline than about any other rule on the system, always over some tiny nit-pick no one should care much about. MoS got put under WP:CTOP (back then, WP:AC/DS) for good reason. There's always a circling warband of obsessive battlegrounders, since the earliest days.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case, any editors clamoring for that reason certainly aren't being too obvious about it. I get no impression in that thread that anyone cares how EEng comports themselves in MOS discussions. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources Table

I'm sure you believe that you are being very clever in your disruptive editing at the Israel Hamas talk page today and yesterday. Guess what, you are not. I suggest you stop with your antics, if you believe there are problems with the table then make another one as I already advised yesterday. Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you want your "source analysis" to be collaborative, or not? Here you invited Alaexis to add to your table, and here you disclaimed full ownership of it. Yet, you're edit warring against the consensus on the talk page regarding the NYT entry to preserve it as you originally entered it. You don't get to enforce consensus on items that are up for community input. And you've yet to effectively respond to mine or BilledMammals points regarding the NYT. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I have marked the table as no longer useful due to your disruptive POV editing of same. Ttfn. Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a shame - a holistic source analysis like that would be a useful reference for what to name the article. But a selective and slanted source analysis for sure would not. For that reason, it's best to let the community to contribute to such gatherings of references - it typically ameliorates the effects of any perceived biases in any one editor. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

alterting other users posts

[[5]] changes User Cessaun's " would like some Support arguments to address my point's" to "I would like a Support !vote to adress the points I have made", that is not your comment. Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That comment marked "17:06" was already a corruption of Cessaune's earlier comment marked "15:58", to which I had replied - I assumed the intention being lost in the endless refactoring and reformatting currently going on there. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

And Cessaune has apparently agreed with the way I refactored our comments. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Trump consensus

I would like to understand what you would do to improve the consensus system at Trump, something well beyond vague generalities. There have been few objections since its inception, and those were essentially "It prevents me from getting what I want." Minorities lose, and that's true in life as much as at Wikipedia (absent special protections and affirmative action).

I really think your options are properly to take your objections to Arbcom or drop them per WP:STICK. You're not getting a lot of support for them after weeks or months, which is the essence of STICK as I understand it. While I don't understand Arbcom's structure and bureaucracy well enough to say exactly how to go about it, I think this would be somewhere under their purview. And I don't think you're going to persuade editors who have worked with the system for some seven years, have also worked a lot at articles that lack such a system, and believe the system to be superior to any alternative, which is why it has survived and even flourished for that long. Quite a number of admins are well aware of the system and have voiced no objection that I've seen.

(By the way, I didn't say you're irrational, I said your specific, isolated comment was irrational. There's a distinct difference as codified in policy. In any event, "get[ting] [myself] very far with [you]" isn't necessarily my goal here, insofar as it would mean changing your mind as opposed to your behavior.) ―Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Look, you said that I persistently use hyperbolic speech, that hyperbolic speech == hyperbolic thinking, and that hyperbolic thinking == irrationality. How else could that be interpreted, other than that I am "continuously thinking irrationally?" That came across pretty darn personal.

Also, don't you proudly proclaim that P&Gs are broken, and "useless as a guide?" It strikes me as odd, then, that you'd try to stand behind some "distinct difference as codified in policy" as a reason for why your remarks were not intended for me personally...

As to your content question, I'm generally confused where this is coming from. I have no large aspirations to change anything about the Donald Trump article, let alone the "consensus list". As I've told you, I'm past caring much about that article at all. Foremost for my decision is just the way people get treated there - talk page discussions are a slog, trying to overcome subtle and not-so-subtle biases from editors both new and regular to get anything accomplished, which makes forming consensus like pulling teeth. Not to mention the downright obnoxious behavior that always crops up as a tangent to useful discussion. It's just not a fun place to edit. Ultimately, I'm here in my free time, and I like to enjoy my free time - and I get much more enjoyment editing any other article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I apologize for the hyperbole remark. Sometimes I go a little too far.

Apparently I've misinterpreted your comments about the list being used to shut down discussion. It sounded to me like you were criticizing that system (or the way it's used, which is part of the system).

Do you get "much more enjoyment" editing other articles in the AP2 area? As I see it, the main difference between that article and most other AP2 articles is that its dysfunction is largely confined to the talk page. There's something to be said for that.

AE should be used more often for a few unnamed editors there, some of which need permanent TBANs, but that would be inconsistent with my semi-retirement. That kind of thing is a large part of why I chose to back away. In general, cynicism and apathy are healthy responses to Wikipedia editing, particularly in AP2. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

No, you're half-right - the use of the consensus list to shut down discussion doesn't sit quite right with me. On the one hand, I fully realize how annoying it must've been to police that article for the past 7 years. On the other, even good-faith attempts to improve the article with decent sourcing being met with a flat "no consensus, see list", even if it's been years after that particular item's last discussion, seems pretty antithetical to how other article talk page discussions go. But, it is what it is. I can be not completely happy with something, yet not try to change it. I recognize the limits of my sphere of influence, and try not to exceed them - that typically leads to a lot of wasted time and effort.

...cynicism and apathy are healthy responses to Wikipedia editing, particularly in AP2; Ain't that the truth. It's a bit depressing. But it's the same truth I arrived at after, oh, 2 months of AP2 editing. I've had much more pleasant adventures in other areas, on articles like Gentian liqueur or Norwegian armed forces in exile.

And regarding AE, yeah, I think there are plenty of editors who would breathe a sigh of relief (and probably edit more in AP2) should certain editors catch temp or topic bans. There were even a few editors at the close challenge AE thread who said as much. Problem is, proving a pattern of poor behavior is a goddamned catch-22: Use too few diffs, and people will say "eh, I just don't see this being sanction-worthy"; accumulate enough diffs over time, and people will say "gee, so many of these diffs are a few months old; is this really ongoing disruption?" Maybe AE is better than ANI, but in any case, I've seen little appetite from the community to actually enforce behavioral guidelines. So, as you might say, they are effectively useless. And the simplest fix I see is to just stay the fuck away from AP2. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I am so sorry this happened to you

Sorry mate. It is difficult, and at times impossible, to knock sense into the clueless. You're gonna have to work around the Verywell ban. Please don't let this unfortunate incident deter you from contributing! There are a lot of morons on Wikipedia, but also a lot of cool people who know what this project is really about. I hope you're having a nice day. Take care, Manifestation (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I'm well familiar with the frustration that comes from others not engaging in discussion in a way I would prefer - particularly when points get ignored, policy is disregarded, and a collection of personal opinions still counts as a determination of 'consensus'. And when I try to maintain a cool head and persist in light of all this, I'm asked why I'm trying so hard and wasting so much time. Sigh.... welcome to the project, I guess. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, are you going to fix the Golan Heights lede which is currently false?

1. It says the "international community" entirely agrees that the extension of Israeli Law to Golan Heights is "not recognized" when you know the USA and Israel (and as you pointed out some 20 other nations) disagree.

2. It goes against the consensus we all agreed to. GreekParadise (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There's more nuance to the phrase "international community" than you're allowing for. And the consensus in that discussion definitely does not feel like it leans the way you think. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

1RR

You have violated the 1RR at Israel–Hamas war, please self-revert your latest reverts or you may be reported to WP:AE. nableezy - 15:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Was just about to note this.

For someone who throws around Wiki rules so much you should know better @PhotogenicScientist. I see from your talk page you have a habit of doing this. Stop it.

Also you are plainly wrong about the New Yorker source, it is not an audio recording, it's an extensive article that directly references the Ahli analysis of FA: https://archive.ph/0POOd

You just couldn't be bothered to check the archived version of the page. Before rushing to revert in violation of WP:1RR, check your sources properly. Also the art-forum piece does not violate RS, no matter what you personally may feel about the author and outlet. In either case, the NY source is RS, and I will add a reference from journalist Ryan Grim citing the same report as well once you revert.

Do not remove that again before seeking consensus on Talk, as it is a highly controversial action. You shouldn't have removed it in the first place as FA itself is a highly credible RS, and your argument is just "well I mean the prior paragraph has a lot of secondary sources and cites US intelligence!" That's asinine.

Also, I will change the language of the other paragraph so that it is not a straight copy of the main al-Ahli bombing page, even though that violates no rule. It is included on the Israel-Hamas war page in the relevant section on the al-Ahli bombing, and directly after the opposite point is made (which is also included on the main al-Ahli page), so as to ensure NPOV. Both perspectives are included on the main al-Ahli page, and should also be included in the Israel-Hamas war page.

The entire paragraph meets RS, with many highly credible secondary sources such as the NYT and Channel 4 News, and should not be removed.

If it is, then the prior paragraphs should also be removed because they're also on the main page, and only represent one position contained there, violating NPOV. Again, that's asinine.

If you feel otherwise about any of this, start a talk page topic on it and get consensus instead of violating 1RR because you can't control yourself. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

To both of you, my first edit to the page was a BOLD improvement to the section. This was challenged by reversion, which I further challeneged with two reverts [6] [7] that count sequentially as one.

I'm not interested in edit-warring over this content, and I would love to take this discussion the article Talk page. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle requires the person to engage in the talk page instead of reverting indiscriminately. Bold, discuss, revert: You make a bold edit, then open a discussion. The edit is found to be problematic or lacking, so it is reverted. This sometimes happens when people attempt to make an edit that has severe flaws or problems that cannot be resolved via other methods. If this cycle happens, it might be best for you to step away from the article, and consider the discussion feedback.

Nothing in WP:EXCEPTIONAL says that primary sources cannot be used; the paragraph was supported by both a primary source and multiple secondary ones. Two reverts are two reverts, that unequivocally fails WP:1RR and you are engaging in WP:BRR.

In any case, great to hear you don't want to edit-war. Once you self-revert your latest reverts and restore the two paragraphs, I will make the changes I noted, and now you know the New Yorker is RS (will add the archived version of the page), and other RS will be added as well to the FA section, and it will be further bolstered by the prior paragraph that also directly references the credibility of FA as cited by NYT and others, which I will also alter to not be a copy of the main page.

This then ensures NPOV with highly credible RS in the section on the al-Ahli incident, as reflected on its main page.

If you want to contest any of that, feel free to do so on Talk and get consensus for whatever you want to remove or alter.

The onus is on you to argue for removal/alteration, as the inclusion of both paragraphs are fully in compliance with Wiki rules. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:EXCEPTIONAL says that primary sources cannot be used What are you talking about? One "warning that should prompt extra caution" is "Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources." The content I removed in my first bold edit was solely sourced to a primary source.

Two reverts are two reverts, that unequivocally fails WP:1RR Nope - per WP:3RR, "a series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert."

I've also started a talk page discussion now, if you'd like to move article content discussion there. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? One "warning that should prompt extra caution" is "Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources."<nowiki> The content I removed in my first bold edit was solely sourced to a primary source. Yes, and then a RS secondary source was added and you removed the entire paragraph including the reference to the primary source content.

But also, more importantly, the Forensic Architecture investigation is not a primary source. It is a secondary source: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary, or scholarly review.

What are you even talking about. The investigation by FA was published in February, months after the event, as an analysis of the primary sources related to the event.

Your entire argument for removing it in the first place because it's a primary source is inherently absurd. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Your first edit was a straight removal, and that is always a revert. If you do not restore what you removed in the following consecutive reverts I will be reporting it. nableezy - 16:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Ill just restore it myself since I dont really feel like dealing with this at AE, but further violations will be reported. nableezy - 16:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Your first edit was a straight removal, and that is always a revert is a view that I really think would not pass muster. Generally, I've gotten the feeling that there is a statute of limitations when it comes to considering removing article content "a complete rejection of the work of another editor." Hell, WP:PRESERVE (which I do before removing any content, anywhere) says "Instead of removing content from an article or reverting a new contribution, consider...", treating them as separate actions. And that same policy says that removal may be justified if material presents an issue of undue weight, including "material that cannot be supported with high-quality sources," which was exactly my concern.

So, hey, if you want to take me to WP:AE for following the WP:BRD cycle and engaging in talkpage discussion after being challenged... well, I suppose you could certainly do that. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Either way you are not following the brd process by reverting an edit of yours that was reverted. But fine, I’ll make the report in the morning if you insist. nableezy - 03:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

My apologies - I did throw a revert of my own in there before Discussing. I didn't much appreciate the addition of hasty citations ("ArtNet"?), nor the exact copying of material from an already-linked sub-article to challenge my original edit. When my contributions are treated poorly by other editors (which so very often happens in this topic area), I tend to be less gracious. And I've become a bit numb to how quickly reverts get thrown out. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

You didn't contribute anything, you removed RS content based on a misunderstanding of FA not being a RS secondary source, and then subsequently again when another RS source was added because you thought it was just audio, and even more RS content with a made-up rule of "it was a copy of what was already on the main page".

You were the one who treated my contributions poorly (which unfortunately happens a lot in this topic area), so if anyone has reason to be less gracious, it's me. But instead of getting into a needless edit-war and violating 1RR, I followed procedure, and am seeking consensus in Talk with a compromise.

If instead of making these contentious reverts, which you should have known were contentious as they were removing RS NPOV content, you had started a Talk page topic voicing your concerns, I would have addressed that and we could have skipped your violation of 1RR and gotten to the one condensed paragraph that is now being agreed on. Presumably you expected your contentious reverts to be left unchallenged, which again your talk page indicates is a habit you have.

If you can't acknowledge your error and instead are making up further excuses for it, then I support nableezy's moving ahead with a report so that you will desist from doing this again in future. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe your content concerns have been mostly hashed out at the article's Talk page. As to behavior, I've already explained how my sequence of edits isn't a 1RR violation. Not sure what more there is to say here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

To @Nableezy, I believe we have to take this to arbitration as @PhotogenicScientist's refusal to acknowledge his blatant violation of 1RR over this section keeps being expressed by his repeated violations of established consensus, most recently by trying to pad the section by absurdly writing out each specific name of each intel and defense agency of various countries, and now even wanting to return other sections already agreed by consensus gives undue weight to one side over the other, in clear violation of NPOV.

This is a bad faith actor who believes they can violate Wiki rules with impunity as their repeated behavior has demonstrated, and so a arbitration for their violation of 1RR is warranted. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 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) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)