User talk:Veritycheck

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Welcome visitors

Thanks for visiting my Talk Page. Please note I reserve the right to delete old comments or any that I find offensive. In the same spirit, I hold on to some for nostalgia. Veritycheck (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Username

I like it a lot. Toddst1 (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for your note. You have come up to speed impressively fast! Wikipedia's policies aren't perfect, but they have been defined in response to real problems. The Verifiability policy is in response to people putting up "common sense" or "well known facts" or "reasonable inferences" (aka WP:Original Research). You'll see that WP tolerates uncited assertions if they're not controversial, but the citation business is actually quite helpful in resolving disputes.

I think you'll also find that success in writing good-quality articles requires finding fellow editors to work with. At this point, the Falafel article has attracted people like Andrew Dalby who won't put up with nonsense like claiming that the Ynet article is solid research.

That said, some things are hard to establish. It's quite clear that falafel and tabbouleh and hummus bi tahini existed in the US before the 1970's in Middle Eastern restaurants. Similarly, bagels existed in the US before the 1980's (and the explosion of bagel chains)--but only in Ashkenazi neighborhoods and delis. Croissants existed before the 1970's in specialty bakeries. But all remained niche ethnic specialties. Sometime in the 1970's in the US, falafel started expanding beyond the ethnic-food niche into more general circulation. This probably happened in different ways in different places. In Detroit, I would guess it was popularized by Arab-Americans. In New York, it appears to have been popularized by Israeli-Americans. But I have no good evidence for any of this. In the absence of good sources, we should say nothing. --Macrakis (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Falafel, etc.

Hey! I've been meaning to drop you a note for a little while, because I watched the discussion over at Talk:Falafel. I have to admit that I, too, suspected you were a sockpuppet of a banned account when you started the GA Review. But good on you for making such an effort. As I think is developing now, the article is being changed as a result of the points you raised. I hope you don't get discouraged by this incident and continue editing because you seem like you have a lot to add to the encyclopedia. Further, I just want to point out that on Wikipedia anything that relates at all to Israel/Palestine is especially contentious, and you just happened to walk right into the middle of it. In a food article (when I first started, I got temporarily banned over the falafel article without even violating WP:3RR and with using the talk page). Which explains (but by no means excuses) the incredibly hostile reaction you've received, which I found rather appalling. Anyway, best of luck, and I hope you decide to stick around. -- Irn (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Aleppo soap

Thanks for your contributions to the falafel discussion. Your good sense would be welcome on the Aleppo soap article. In my opinion, many recent edits by the SPA User:Pdacortex have been puffery and otherwise not encyclopedic, and I have trimmed them quite heavily. He reverts. Can you help? Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

I just wanted to let you know how much I admire this comment. I have lived among Arabs for many years. I know the effect this editorial decision has on millions of readers. I believe that to deliberately, and for no significant educational benefit, insert religiously offensive images in a, possibly the, most important article to Muslims is grossly insensitive. It displays contempt for our fellow humans. It is an insult. Obviously. And I think you have expressed the situation far better than anyone so far in this debate. Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Purple barnstar

		The Purple Barnstar
		Hi Veritycheck. I wanted to apologize that you had to face unfounded hostilities from an editor in the section above regarding Belén Rodríguez, and I hope it has not discouraged you from Wikipedia too thoroughly. In hindsight their behavior could have warranted an immediate block, but I opted to issue a final warning instead. Please let me know if their disruptive editing continues. See you around, Mz7 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Congrats - A cup of tea for you!

For your civility and trying to follow WP's spirit and guidelines. Zezen (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I can't ignore you recent contributions at my AE. When a complete stranger brightens up your whole week for no apparent reason, besides a love of truth (perhaps?), you just have to say something. Thank you for being. petrarchan47คุก 04:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure! Truth one (won), Bullies ZERO. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GHcool

This discussion has been copied from Drmies Talk page with his permission

Extended content

For the 7th violation after 6 blocks all for reverts concerning topics related to the Palestine Israel conflict, a warning that amounted to less than a slap on the wrist was entirely inappropriate. Is there a remedy available to me to dispute this decision? Two Admins recused excused themselves from giving a decision. The diffs show the violation clearly. I am the seventh editor now who has lost personal time going through this rigmarole of taking GHcool to task. Enough is enough. I would much rather volunteer my time contributing to Wikipedia as I’m sure the preceding other complainants would have as well. What's the exact problem here? How was this light warning, "don't do it again", justified when taking into account the long history and numerous blocks? Shouldn't the Results section, at the minimum, show if this was a violation? I am gobsmacked. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC) If you consider that these blocks happened over a period of ten years, it already looks a bit different. And while of course a sin is a sin is a sin, the edit we're talking about is the addition of a picture. Not even a picture of a bleeding person or an abused dog, but of a building. And your argument for reverting was to point at this, which is not a solid RfC or anything else pointing to consensus, but just a version of "cause I said so". Now, some of our colleagues (not Sandstein, obviously) pointed out that sure, indeed this is a violation--but others pointed out that maybe this wasn't a good-faith report. Do you know why we have DS? Not to hit people over the head anytime we can, but to attempt and foster an atmosphere in which editors can work. This was a minor infraction, and if you felt that you wasted your time (BTW I understand: the paperwork is cumbersome), consider that half a dozen editors and admins also participated in what they may have considered a waste of time. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Ten years of flagrantly breaking the rules makes his behaviour all the worse; the word that comes to mind is repeat-offender. It certainly doesn't make him less guilty. So is the 1RVT open to interpretation by each and every editor whether they subjectively think they have or haven't broken it? My argument never pointed to any RfC but was solely based on his 3-hour later revert. Check your facts. I ask again - Is there a remedy available to me to dispute this decision or file a formal complaint? Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC) I know you never pointed to any RfC. If you had, you'd be in a stronger position. And that two admins recused isn't true, unless I missed something: Sandstein bowed out Black Kite clearly said he wouldn't apply a sanction even though formally this was a violation, a sentiment I agree with. I do not believe there is an appeal to a decision not to take any action, but maybe Sandstein knows more. I think the bottomline is that the set of circumstance here, in the opinion of two admins and an editor or two, simply do not warrant a sanction. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC) We apparently hold very different opinions here. My eight years of experience walking through the minefield of Arab–Israeli conflict articles, and editing them, has seen me do it without a single block or warning. That takes great self-control in the face of some of the rudest people I have ever come into contact with. Throughout all, I continued to stay on the right side of active arbitration remedies. When an editor with 6 blocks to his name feels that he does not need to play by the same rules as the rest of us walks away from his 7th violation scot-free, something is absolutely wrong. This is not a small thing. What message does this send, both to him and to us? Remember it was “a straw” that broke the camel's back; in this case a violation concerning restoring an image of a building in Canada. It wasn’t the first straw. If this is how Wikipedia works, then it means I should walk away and stop editing. I'm not ready to accept that because I believe there was a failure here with this decision. This is why there is the need to escalate this. It's the principle, not just a building in Ontario. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC) And Seneca said: "We do not suddenly fall on death, but advance towards it by slight degrees; we die every day." Patience will out. If you were right this time, you will be “more right” the next time. And if you were right this time, there will be a next time; and you will be better able to frame your argument. Pardon my interruption. O3000 (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Drmies, could I ask you to move this discussion to my user talk page? It represents but one of your many daily decisions, but to me, perhaps a little more. If you are agreeable, I would appreciate it. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC) I'm not sure what you're asking, Veritycheck. I'm not going to disappear it, and "move" as in moving an article? You can copy it, I suppose. And I can't say I like this whole idea that we're going over the cliff inch by inch--and should therefore punish minor infractions severely. You keep saying "but they've been doing it for years"--well, maybe, but I am not aware of them being some major disruptive force for over a decade, or impeding some major restructure of an article, or imposing some POV slant that makes us all look bad. So I don't know about "if this is how Wikipedia works", but I do know that I did not consider this some capital offense. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC) (talk page watcher) With my "admin and former Arb" hat on, I'll also add that the longer you (Veritycheck) try to keep this going, the more people will look into your history to see just why you're being so apparently vindictive over this trivial matter. On a superficial glance over your recent history it appears that My eight years of experience walking through the minefield of Arab–Israeli conflict articles, and editing them, has seen me do it without a single block or warning isn't actually true, and that what's actually the case is that you apparently feel that every warning you receive is invalid (there's an example of this on your talkpage as I speak) and remove warnings without archiving, which is perfectly 'legal' is terms of The Rules (blanking a warning constitutes proof that you're read it) but doesn't help, particularly when you're basing a case on someone else's history over 10 years but appear to be intentionally obscuring your own history. ‑ Iridescent 07:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC) @Iridescent. It's seems you're trying to make this about me which is underhanded and in bad form. I have nothing to hide. The link you gave also makes it quite clear that I was not in violation. Indeed, it was the poster who had just come back from a block and was topic banned hours later who left that message. It was disingenuous of you attempting to use it to reflect badly on me. As you must be well aware, notices include, "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.". Discouraging me from filing a complaint by implying that I am some how at fault here is just adding insult to injury and an utter distraction from everything I have said concerning the real culprit here. I don't have any blocks on my record and that is simple enough to determine using the ubiquitous tool, block log. @Drmies Thank-you, I will copy this discussion to my talk page per your permission. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 13:08, September 22, 2018‎ (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Extended content

Merry Christmas everybody!!! "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version) petrarchan47คุก is wishing you a Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove. Dear VerityCheck ~ I am so sorry to see you have disappeared, and sorrier still that you were given every reason to leave. You were kicked in the teeth by everyone at ANI and then again at my talk page. At the same time, you left for me - a compete and utter stranger - one of the nicest comments I've ever received in my time here. You must have spent a fair amount of time looking into my case and history before posting the comment; it was a display of kindness and diligence so rare I'm not sure I've ever seen such a thing here before. It touched me deeply and still does. Yes, you had every reason to walk away from WP. But what I've noticed in the months since then is a subtle but evident playing out of karma. Nothing we could have forced, and perhaps nothing you'd call "justice", but still, it has been enough to keep me smiling for a few days now. Ah well. What did He say? 'If they hated me, they will hate you too.' Good company and all... Touch base if you ever drop back in. Til then, I'll never forget you. Merry cheers, my friend. @petrarchan47 Thank you so much for your heartfelt message to me. I’ve only just come across it here on my page. Nevertheless, your words have not faded and were here to greet me blowing away the last vestiges of bitterness after my absence. Your card and message touched me deeply and will leave a lasting impression while the vitriolic comments of others have crumbled to dust. We’ve both dealt with the ugly side of Wikipedia. No doubt it’s because we have the desire to see truth float where some would prefer to see it sink. The fact that you are here gives a ray of hope and I’m glad you’ve kept the fires burning! Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus

We have consensus "9" listed here. This edit did not abide by them.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: The copyedit served to correct a grammar mistake as detailed in the edit summary; namely, during + noun, while + gerund. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

References

GWR / WP:UNDUE / Falafel

As seen on falafel we have some disagreement despite both trying to improve Wikipedia. Do you know where would be a good place to discuss this topic with more people? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging. If you'd like to change this GA article, I would be content to accept the results of an RfC. ~ Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Muhammad

Muhammad has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)