This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tsumiki. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I believe it would be helpful to expand the article with DSA's stances on Israel (including some caucus differences) because this is notable and I don't think this will be the last time an editor will come in attempting to add such a sub-section. Left an expanded conversation about policy ideas from the Daily Beast article on the other users talk page, which probably should be moved to the article talk page as part of a larger discussion. (I do not believe in signing into my WP account anymore) 47.40.52.156 (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@47.40.52.156: Thanks for your additions and input. Please copy the entirety of your text on User talk:E.M.Gregory onto the article talk page so you can join the discussion and hear other editors' input. I would still recommend you to register or sign in your existing account. IPs are volatile. I'll get back to the matter later today when I have time. Thanks. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Gab.
Basic stuff: if material appears in quotation marks followed by a citation, those words must appear in the citation. In the material that you replaced, that is not the case. Your edit, in effect, is making up something that isn't there. You'll need to find a source that contains those words if you want the quotes as such to be thwere. PaulCHebert (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The source you quoted seems to have settled the argument, but one has to actually read the comments to see that. I don't have confidence. Could you modify your !vote to clarify the new information. Trackinfo (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Just in case the meaning of "shall" confuses you: Shall means "will". Should means "ought to". So their meanings are completely different and do not intersect. I don't know if you needed that info, but I thought I'd post it (here rather than on article-talk). Be well and Happy New Year! :) Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nbauman: Sorry that I was too late to help. The previous consensus was settled by an admin who trimmed the section of all irrelevant/derailing characterizations of the protest and of the relevant groups, and assessments of the statement by media sources. I thought experienced editors like you would have opened a new section on the talk page already, as this isn't something worth warring about. I'd suggest appealing your topic ban, if possible, then follow the standard procedures of challenging and establishing consensus. Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. I'm always trying to cover myself, but I didn't realize that opening a section on the talk page would have made a difference. In the past, I've started a discussion on the talk page, cited Wikipedia policies and guidelines to support my edits, but a plurality of 2 editors who owned the page just went ahead and deleted everything. I don't really enjoy getting involved in Wikilawyering battles, I just want to write about medicine and molecular biology. But sometimes duty calls. Oh well, keep fighting. Or perhaps I should say, SFSN! --Nbauman (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nbauman: Explaining on talk page for a reverted, or a possibly challengeable edit would definitely make a difference, especially on the highly contentious topic of American Politics. Only using edit summaries are insufficient. It might be exhausting to explain, but it is better than getting your proposed, legitimate content discredited in the eyes of other editors due to edit warring. For the best interest of your desired content, it is perhaps the best to act within the red lines of Wikipedia and engage with other editors, prepare to make necessary concessions, and never give others excuses to leverage, then you'll find a lot of space to stretch. SFSN. Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Nick Fuentes article
Hi Tsumikiria, after I voted on the AfD for Henrik Palmgren, I ran across the Nick Fuentes page, which I feel might be a similar case. It's a person that is mentioned in a bunch of articles, and is featured in one or two, but does it meet our notability guidelines? Could you have a look and give me your opinion on that? Also pinging @Bearcat: because I felt he made some good points in the Palmgren Afd. Thanks. Ewen Douglas (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Time for some housecleaning then. I'll get back to the article some hours later when I have time so you can definitely make an AfD ahead of me. Happy New year, Ewen! Tsumikiria (T/C) 17:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I finally did get around to it myself. I hope you don't mind, I used pretty much the same wording you used in the Palmgren nomination, as I felt that summarized the case for deletion quite crisply and I could not have done it better myself. Happy new year! Ewen Douglas (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I apologize if that is considered plagiarism, or at the very least, bad form. I'll effort to paraphrase in the future. Still think your words were well put! (including in your delete vote) Ewen Douglas (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Nah I'm fine with it, considering all our texts are under CC-BY-SA. Still kinda surprised that my writings were considered good(?) I'm still not as well versed in the Wiki Guideline Language. :) Tsumikiria (T/C) 17:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
ANI Notice - At least i have the good faith to put it on your talk page.
@Doug Weller: Can we finally get an indefinite semi protection? The page is a constant target for canvassing by the page's subject, with the latest one just hours ago. This may better manage the level of disruption we face. Tsumikiria (T/C) 16:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I would just let it go. Yamla and I have both seen your edit, and it's generally a bad idea to revert edits on someone else's talk page. They can claim an exemption to WP:3RR, but it's harder for you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I find it a bit confusing why you're bringing this up. I reverted you making a comment earlier about it; there's no point in talking about idiots being idiots on twitter.--Jorm (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that calling Antifa "far-left" is a fair description, given their use of violent and harassing tactics pointed out in the article, and the sources already in the article calling it far-left. This is nothing new on Wikipedia; I mimicked other articles that also describe its subject as extremist, such as the article on InfoWars.
A minority of sources cannot accurately represent the rest. The sources' familiarity should also be noted, as the AOL source you used misleadingly wrote the subject, a movement, as a congruous organization with members. The overwhelming consensus was to avoid the term "far-left". Tsumikiria⧸🌹🌉18:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Your signature
Greetings. FYI, per this, the color of your username has a contrast ratio of 3.527:1, significantly below the recommended minimum of 4.5:1. See WP:SIGAPP, in particular its footnote.
@Mandruss: I likely scrolled through that provision without seeing the footnote so thank you for you advice. Fortunate for me that per MOS:ONWHITE there's still one or two hues of pink and purple permissible. Changed to #DC143C. Tsumikiria⧸🌹🌉18:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Since that is a named CSS color, you have the option of coding the name (Crimson) instead of the hex value. ―Mandruss☎21:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
You were bold, I reverted you, now You should present your rationale onto Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, instead of raising DE and demanding compromise. As this section you're disputing has been settled multiple times in the past, standard procedures has to be followed. I wasn't being personal. Tsumikiria⧸🌹🌉21:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you're being personal, though you appear to be doing everything you can do keep criticism or other changes you don't like out of the article: See [1][2][3][4]. And by the way, what was the actual basis for your revert? Because you weren't 100% satisfied with my edit summary which read Restoring Arab-Israeli conflict to original position-this has received enough coverage to receive its own subheader, not be tucked away under "other issues"? This is an issue that's received significant coverage in WP:RS and the sources that were provided included Haaretz, the NYT, and others. On the talk pages, you've accused others of bias (including me) without evidence, while simultaneously making highly opinionated statements about Israel like we know Israeli media criticize anyone criticizing israel. I'm happy to discuss any of my proposals on the talk page (I've been doing so) but I'd appreciate a little more compromise before automatically reverting on your end. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Anarchism
Hi Tsumikiria,
I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!
Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
For copyright reasons, it's best to put the "copied" template on the talk page when copying text from one articlE to another. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
You were mistaken in telling a user that he was not permitted to remove a block notice from his user talk page. He would not be allowed to remove a declined unblock request referring to a current block, but that was not what he was doing. See WP:BLANKING. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
My mistake then. Although I must say permitting a user to remove an active block notice is a counterintuitive. Blanking of any incoming user warnings is a surefire sign of WP:NOTHERE. Tsumikiria⧸🌹🌉20:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, Tsumiki. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. –MJL‐Talk‐☖21:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Saw the message, thanks for telling me.
Hey Tsumikiria, I saw your message and reversion of my previous edit. I made some grammar changes and revisions to my edit on the "Criticisms of Capitalism" page (but didn't change the Antifa page). Thanks for the heads up and I'll be sure to be careful in choosing better sources and make sure to write more professionally.
The interesting information we discussed is already public knowledge in two ANZUS-pact nations and among violent fascists worldwide; and it's likely well known to any Stormer followers at Breitbart or Fox News. WP can't stop those two widely read publications from headlining it in the most damning ways imaginable -- not unless we publish it first (in a straightforward and respectful way). Then it instantly becomes "stale news". Could you propose some suitable language? In solidarity, Dervorguilla (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Talk:JohnTopShelf
By the way - you can refer to me using singular male pronouns rather than they. There is only one of me. Thanks!
And sorry about the bubble tea and goats. I wasn't sure how to get on your talk page otherwise (but now I know).
JohnTopShelf (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi - I've deleted this as a BLP violation. Please remember that, per WP:FOOLS, being a joke does not exempt anything from basic content policies. Thanks, ansh66600:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ansh666: Uhh. Ansh, I understand the basis of your rationale, but is it truly necessary to summarily delete an April Fools AfD that is a mere mockery of a dictator-for-life? At least you can tell me to move and archive it under my userspace, not? Really feels like no fun allowed. Again, happy April first. Tsumikiria⧸🌹🌉00:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Umm, yes? WP:BLP is one of the most core policies of this place. It applies in all namespaces and other core policies have exceptions to enforce it. We do not tread lightly around this stuff. ansh66604:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Signature
Hey, this is not a major concern but you might want to change the colour of your userlink as it appears as a redlink. While not disallowed, it is a bit misleading (and people might wikilawyer to tell you that it's not allowed), but anyway it's up to you, thought I'd let you know. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜)19:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
No, you reached 3RR with this edit with an inaccurate edit summary. The consensus is against you. Use the talk page and I will not reply further here. Tsumikiria⧸🌹🌉20:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Consensus is not prevented by making rapid succession of reversions. And I said use the talk page and I will not reply further here. Next time you do this, I will remove the sections altogether. Tsumikiria⧸🌹🌉20:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
In your revert you said there was concensus. I cannot find it. It seems like the short description was added without any concensus. Alex.osheter (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Just an FYI, I replied to your comment on Gab. If you've got the time, please stay on so we can discuss this and reach a conclusion in a speedy matter. Alex.osheter (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
Now that I am no longer blocked, I can send you a message. Despite our differences of opinion on, well, pretty much everything, I appreciate your assistance. I hope we can at least agree that baklava is delicious. JohnTopShelf (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Usernames
If a user changes their username, it should be assumed that they do not want that old username resurrected. Please make sure to address users by their current name except in circumstances such as an SPI where old usernames would be required for taking administrative action against them. Primefac (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I gave you 3 (three) sources. And yet you do not give a timely answer back. All I ask is some consideration and communicate a little. I'm awfully new at this and yet I can still figure out how to communicate. So please answer. Super ma'am (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
DS alerts are only added every 12 months, and in certain cases not even then, eg the editor has been involved in an AE case in the area recently. Doug Wellertalk18:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
about making edits at antifa as you recently did while labeling yourself a supporter as you currently do on your user page. This message should probably self-destruct in 13 seconds. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, well that was going to happen. Did you happen to catch my picture in the article? Oh, it was you who took it out. Carptrash (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Uh, yeah. It was a nice picture, but I thought an image with anarchist and other flags used by leftists would help better illustrate the ideology part. At least the flags looks rad. Tsu*miki*⧸🌉05:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
.jpeg)
Done, and happy editing in 2019! Cheers. Tsumikiria (T/C) 11:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.81.26 (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
