User talk:WMrapids/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, WMrapids, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 10:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Reporting the Nomination of 2016 Grand Rapids tornado outbreak for deletion

"A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2016 Grand Rapids tornado outbreak is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Grand Rapids tornado outbreak until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article."

Please, join in the discussion. Thank You.--Halls4521 (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"Tracklist"

"Tracklist" is the incorrect header for the track list. It's "Track listing". This is per the album style guide, located here: WP:MOSALBUM --Jennica✿ / ^talk 04:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop

Please stop with the edits on Whitmer's page. First off, the edits seem political and looking at your editing history it appears the only one you haven't edited in the Michigan Dem primary is El-Sayed. More than that, you've listed twice about something irrelevant. You randomly listing a fundraiser on her personal page as the only other thing listed in her gubernatorial run is suspicious editing. The page will be locked if you keep persisting in this edit. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: Please do not threaten me. I could just as easily accuse you of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for whitewashing the article, but I will assume good faith just like you should. Could we at least mention the relation to BCBSM? It seems suspicious that you would want to remove this sourced information, so let's at least work on an agreement. Just leave the info about her father, not the funding she received.--WMrapids (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I had absolutely no problem of you listing her father's work in the beginning part of the article. It's relevant background information. But your then mention of BCBS in the section no one has been editing shows bad faith and political bias as do you other edits in this race. I'm not sure who you are trying to fool. You added back the BCBS stuff at the end. If you think this is relevant information, than it can go in an appropriate "controversy" section or something on the main gubernatorial race page. Biographical pages aren't for listing random fundraisers and day-to-day or month-to-month occurences, and I think you know that. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: Well, can you add the details about her father? I did not see a reason to create a "controversy" section surrounding her funding. I have only just begun editing such articles and can add more to balance POV if needed. Thanks again for the quick response. --WMrapids (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Why can't you do it? You're the one who originally added the information and thus you have the proper citations and sourcing for it. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: Did not want to have it seem like edit warring.--WMrapids (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Standard 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 Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. 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.

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.

  // Timothy :: talk  19:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

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.

  // Timothy :: talk  19:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello, the war map of Karabakh has been nominated for deletion for the second time. Could you please state your views on the candidacy page?--Emreculha (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Beshogur (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Peru Barnstar
	I liked your contributions to Peru so I am giving you this barnstar. Cupper52 (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cupper52: Thank you for the barnstar! I really appreciate it!--WMrapids (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Spanish citation tags

Hi, could you kindly translate citations when you copy them over from other projects? Stuff like this is just plain unacceptable. Thanks. AngryHarpy‍^talk 07:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@AngryHarpy: Of course! Didn't notice that the citations weren't translating properly. I apologize.--WMrapids (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally, ever since I noticed that reFill still puts deprecated |deadurl= tags in articles due to its creator having effectively abandoned it, I've learned to always double-check with those pesky tools. Sorry if I came across a little harshly! AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Wyoming, Michigan lede

I saw you wrote the section currently at the end of the lede... which says Into the 2010s, development began to restart in the southwestern panhandle while efforts to .. Efforts to what?? I am guessing you lost the end of that sentence somehow. Just thought you might like to know! jp×g 03:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG: Thanks for the catch!--WMrapids (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Alliance for the Progress of Peru logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alliance for the Progress of Peru logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2021 Colombian protests

On 2 May 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Colombian protests, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. 172.73.7.196 (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

good

ITN recognition for 2021 Colombian protests

On 2 May 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Colombian protests, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. 186.168.102.122 (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

good article

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Colombian protests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

2021 Colombian protests

added a link pointing to The Hill

Democratic Center (Colombia)

added a link pointing to The Hill

Iván Duque Márquez

added a link pointing to The Hill

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Anarchism

Hi WMrapids,

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!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

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. czar 23:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Hendrik Meijer (businessman) was absolutely fascinating—had no idea of his history! Thanks for writing it. Also, if you haven't already considered it, this would be a great candidate for WP:DYK. czar 23:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Czar: I thought it was interesting as well and was necessary to include. The article needs some expansion still, but overall Hendrik deserved his own page instead of a redirect. Thanks for the invite as well!--WMrapids (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plan Verde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Q&A.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Great Resignation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strike.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Young Dolph

On 18 November 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Young Dolph, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Republican Party (Chile, 2019), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nativism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Institute of Peruvian Studies moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Institute of Peruvian Studies, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Institute of Peruvian Studies logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Institute of Peruvian Studies logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of John Pence for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Pence, 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/John Pence 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) 01:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Killing of Patrick Lyoya

Quote:

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Killing of Patrick Lyoya. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. In your edit here, you incorrectly add that the officer shot Lyoya "[a]fter losing control of the taser". This was not found in any of the included sources and is borderline vandalism. Please be careful with further edits on controversial articles.--WMrapids (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)}}

WMrapids, I have tried to engage you on the talk page in an effort to bring a more Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to the above article and to encourage you to stay focused on the incident at hand and not make the article about "social justice".

I backed away when you engaged in WP:EDITWARING as you repeatedly reverted my edits and the edits of others. At the time of your posting above, you edits made up 85% of the article content.

When the investigative reports come out (and I'll wait for that),

we will know if your claim was correct: the officer is seen pushing Lyoya face-down with his knee and then shooting Lyoya in the back of the head

or if my claim my was correct After losing control of the taser, the officer draws his service weapon which discharges as the two are scuffling.

If there are videos recording an incident in an article, we certainly have a practical obligation to consider challenges to content that are obviously inconstant with the video.Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The edit warring [WP:EDITWAR] has been going on for weeks now. I have put together a case to present to the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring with myself and others. I really don't want a confrontation with you (or anyone), we are upposed to be brothers writing fair and balanced articles. So I will ask, one last time, to please stop edit warring. Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wiki-psyc: I have been trying to work with you, but with your addition of false information and your copyright violation edits, it has made it difficult. My last edit had even tried to make it neutral while incorporating what you intended to place. Not sure if you are recognizing that your edits have been troublesome, but I am trying to keep a highly controversial article neutral and accurate.--WMrapids (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Institute of Peruvian Studies (May 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Institute of Peruvian Studies and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Institute of Peruvian Studies, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be tagged for G13 deletion.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, WMrapids! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Amazon Labor Union logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Amazon Labor Union logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, WMrapids

Thank you for creating Avión Torpedo.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Acrisure logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Acrisure logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:The Weather Company logo.png

The file File:The Weather Company logo.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused. Superseded by File:The Weather Company IBM Byline.svg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Institute of Peruvian Studies

Hello, WMrapids. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Institute of Peruvian Studies, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Institute of Peruvian Studies

Hello, WMrapids. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Institute of Peruvian Studies".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for December 2022 Peruvian protests

On 15 December 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article December 2022 Peruvian protests, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Indefensible (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For updating the page on the Peru protests. Firestar464 (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 Peruvian political protests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RPP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, WMrapids. Thank you for your work on Juliaca massacre. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your changes to my edits on the article for the “2022-2023 Peruvian political protests”

Hello, I was wondering why you reverted the vast majority of my edits on 1/21/23? I am especially confused by the tonal and phrasal changes I made having all been reverted, did I make a mistake with them? Thank you. TheStarOfTheNorth006 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheStarOfTheNorth006: Yeah, there were some errors made. Also, a lot of "specify" tags present in areas that were already pretty concise. Are there any major changes that you think need to be included? I can try to help you with those concerns.--WMrapids (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought my specify tags were appropriate? “Mining guilds” is a vague plural term that should at least have a sub-list of known participants. And I marked the charge of “severe injury” because it isn’t clear what that means in the context of local law. And shouldn’t “Riot” be crosslinked in the infobox section for “methods”? I was just overall puzzled by many of your reversions, partially because you didn’t write a very comprehensive edit summary. Thank you for responding so quickly. TheStarOfTheNorth006 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheStarOfTheNorth006: I removed the mining guilds since it could not be specified. Also updated the methods in the infobox. The severe injury wording is just how it is presented in the source and an explanation of a local law would probably be to cumbersome for readers. Any other concerns?--WMrapids (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Oumar Dia (disambiguation)

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

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

A tag has been placed on Oumar Dia (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gentex logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gentex logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Williams International logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Williams International logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Michigan State Police badge.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Michigan State Police badge.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Michigan State Police patch.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Michigan State Police patch.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Plan Verde into Alberto Fujimori. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, on 2022 Peruvian political crisis — Diannaa (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I apologize and I think I know which edit it was (forgot that it was copied since I provided different sources). If you look at my history, you can see that I have been attributing when necessary. Thanks for the reminder :)--WMrapids (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me for interfering

I have to tell you that I am not a puppet of anyone, this article simply appeared to me when I was looking for random articles with the Wikipedia function. Since I am someone from Peru, I was interested in the topic. Sorry for assuming things hastily. I only took a look at the edition history and saw that two users had contributed to the paragraph, and since your arguments did not convince me, I assumed that an edition war was going to start and that is why I tried to stop it. If the "reversal" seriously bothered you, I can delete the paragraph and you two discuss this. I have to say that I knew you from other articles about Peru where in general your reversals have bothered me, for his part I already knew the user Armando for more than a month and in general he is good at arguing, so I hastily gave him the reason.

I'm sorry I did that, I'm going to finish the paragraph right now. Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I say that he also did not know that he had been blocked in Spanish, if so he would not have reversed it. Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Alfredo18elguapo: How would you know that another user did not know they were blocked on Spanish Wikipedia?--WMrapids (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I just read it in Armando AZ's blocking discussion, I also answered there Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

i said, cherry picking Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of coups and coup attempts

added a link pointing to The Telegraph

List of coups and coup attempts since 2010

added a link pointing to The Telegraph

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Ultraconservatism for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Walt Yoder (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Fujimorist propaganda moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Fujimorist propaganda, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, WMrapids. 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. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

About Peruvian political crisis (2017–present)

Hey, Im ejrms. I've seen your edits on that aforementioned page. Could you maybe help me rewrite the article so it fits proper date format and also update it as well. I feel like the article needs some serious improvements and I can't really do it all by myself. Maybe you could help? Ejrms (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ejrms: I made some edits to the template you created. Overall, a pretty good template. I have been looking at reviewing the article since it is so large. Thanks for reaching out! WMrapids (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you want something done about this editor's usename?

[1]. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Yes, please. I tried reaching out to others in the past, though nothing really happened. Thanks! WMrapids (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, trying to get this sorted asap now. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Db-multiple

Hi. It looks like you used the code {{db-multiple|promo|club}} on a few articles. Unfortunately it looks like the formatting got messed up and part of the message was inside another box nested inside of the outer one. I changed it to {{db-multiple|g11|a7}} and that seems to have fixed it. I guess it works best with the shorthand codes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peruvian protests (2022–2023), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, WMrapids. Thank you for your work on Oppenheimer–Snyder model. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hey there! Hope you're having a great day. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia with your article. I'm happy to inform you that your article has adhered to Wikipedia's policies, so I've marked it as reviewed. Have a fantastic day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis into Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Peru over the motion of confidence proposed on 17 November 2022. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks again. I might forget which articles are included sometimes with large edits, but I think this edit included proper attribution? 2019 Peruvian constitutional crisis redirects to 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis, so could that be the issue? Either way, I want to make sure I'm making correct edits. WMrapids (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The edit in question was when you later restored the information. I did not realise that the addition had actually been properly attributed when you intially added it, so I don't think the attribution would actually be required the second time. Sorry for not noticing. — Diannaa (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverting you comment by mistake

Sorry an IP editors blank NoonIcarus comment, but my restoration onlyanaged to revert you comment. I've reverted my mixed up revert, so it should all be correct now. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Noticeboards can have rapid editing going on, so I understand. WMrapids (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I hope this message finds you well. As I have now also mentioned in the ANI, I appreaciate that you have striken down the comments in question: ([2][3][4]). The dispute has been consuming for my mentally and time-wise, but I can imagine you can say the same, just as I imagine you have other projects and goals in the Wikipedia where you would like to focus your efforts, like me. As such, it is probably user if we try to do this amicably.

There is obviously the situation at the Operation Gideon (2020), Efecto Cocuyo, Runrunes, El Pitazo, Tal Cual and El Nacional (Venezuela) articles. We both disagree in positions, but I think that we both agree that we would like for the tags to be removed, so I think it could be possible, step by step, to discuss solutions regarding the content. Would that sound alright? NoonIcarus (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should settle the disputes. My attempts to bring more users to discuss these disputes were in no way to personally attack you, so I'm sorry if that is how it was interpreted. For the news sources, WP:RSN might be the best space to include more opinions. As for Operation Gideon (2020), the talk page seems appropriate for the time being. WMrapids (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It's alright, I likewise imagine that many of my complaints could come off that way, so I want to apologize about it likewise. The discussions about the outlets content could be centralized in a page, while I agree that discussions about Operation Gideon can stay there.

As it is a pressing issue, I wanted to comment: when I started the current move discussion, I wanted to completely discard the option before there were more alternatives, also thinking they could come up in a new discussion. I had no way to know that your proposal would also include a move request, but I admit it was quite a communication error on my part, so I'm sorry about it too. Considering the low discussion, I think we both could withdraw the requests, without prejudice of starting them again if other editors express interest. Would that sound alright? --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this? --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: Well, it seems that your proposal was dead on arrival and my proposal was subsequently covered due to an edit conflict. Would you be open to pinging the same previous users that I pinged (for my proposal) to see what they think of your proposal? There was a pretty strong consensus in the previous move discussion that the current title is terrible, so this should probably be dealt with soon rather than later. WMrapids (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Notice

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I have been working with a fellow user to improve an article they created, so there may be some disagreement, though I appreciate their thorough feedback. Thank you for the notice and I'll ensure that my edits will be careful with this BLP and others.--WMrapids (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Runrunes and others

I'm worried about this edit: [5] You have mentioned that seek to discuss and work towards a common ground, but the edit doubles down and the position that you've had, without considering alternatives. I've offered some proposals that can solve the current content disputes and remain to receive a response:

• Withdrawal of both move proposals at Operation Gideon
• Use of the term "critical" instead of "opposition"
• Focus on the position regarding specific policies or events, instead of a generic one

You might not agree with them, but you should at least let it know (the only exception being possibly the second point), and it would also be useful if you had proposals on your own. Please let me know what you think. Best regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The placement of an additional source is not an attempt to push anything new and the wording to “broaden” the definition was in an effort to provide more context and less emphasis on Runrunes being strictly described as “opposition”.

I’ll reply to the first point when I have adequate time to dig through it. For the second point, we have already been discussing this on the talk page of WP:VENRS, which is where we can continue that discussion. Your third point is somewhat vague, but we can talk about that too if you’d like. Thanks for reaching out! WMrapids (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad to know about this. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or issues overall. Best regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: As I said in a separate discussion, I don't want to be drawn into the hellscape that is Venezuelan Wikipedia, especially since Peruvian topics are difficult enough and are not even my main concern. With me, when I see a need, I fill a need. This is why I became involved in Peruvian articles and subsequently with a few Venezuelan topics. When our paths collided, I saw conflicted titles, a list of sources with questionable descriptions and one particularly questionable source. After attempting to edit and subsequently being reverted a few times, I sought more input from the community since this was a new topic to me, but I didn't want to stay around for long. It's been months now and this is tiresome. Hopefully Venezuelan topics see more love from other users, but that area is so toxic that I don't see that happening any time soon. Please remember in the future to be welcoming to other users; I know we've had our differences, but overall it seems that we both want what's best for the project, so assume good faith with other people entering that minefield of a project. Even though we're not finished with some discussions, I wish you best of luck with your future edits. WMrapids (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Request

Hey, would you possibly consider move your refreshed comment here back above the start of the relisting discussion, along with the other responses? - where it currently is, it might get missed. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I tried to do this. Haven't seen this many collapsible boxes in a discussion before, so it is strange... WMrapids (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Bludgeoning, personalization, and multiple faulty RFCs

Wmrapids, I have pointed out here where you made demonstrably false statements about other editors and their motivations that can only serve to derail a discussion. Your multiple-bludgeoned RFCs and personalization have come to a point of impeding progress; it would be helpful if you would allow discussion to proceed without adding reams of your own opinions, and then let a less-involved editor be the one to put up the next, hopefully better formulated, RFC which would optimally occur after ample discussion of the alternatives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

A less involved editor was the one who led this last proposal after my proposal was shot down. The new move discussion was much better with less bludgeoning, but then users began to complain about the move process (it did get possibly get procedurally messy, but the discussion was still clear). It was appropriate to share my opinion on those opposing the move based on its process instead bringing forward new proposals or counterarguments. Though I don't think many other valid alternatives exist for the move, I have no problem participating and seeing what is proposed and will keep my mind open. Thanks for sharing your concerns. WMrapids (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Collaborating

WMrapids, I'm finding that the amount of time needed to do simple tasks like get clarification on sources and clean up faulty citations is taking endlessly longer than it usually does in my work. If you could answer requests for information on talk without personalization it would be very helpful. Samples:

1. I asked you three times on talk for your opinion on the Vox sources, which uses WP:NYPOST; when you answered, three days after my first query (while actively involved at the talk page), that answer included the unnecessary personalization of Please stop with making an apparent false equivalence of Vox with La Patilla (the latter reposts multiple deprecated sources in a partisan manner). Again, your behavior is seemingly badgering at this point and becoming disruptive. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia in an attempt to illustrate a point. A simple answer like "Yes, I've examined the NY Post content and am satisfied that BLP policy is not a concern here", or some such with your reasoning backing that position, would be a more collaborative approach and would have saved us all time and bandwidth, and would have avoided casting unnecessary aspersions.
2. In the "Attack" discussion section, after NoonIcarus raised a point that is supported by sources and at least worthy of discussion, you added the unhelpful remark Time to stop splitting hairs.
3. In the Recent edits to the lead discussion, while avoiding for multiple days answering good faith queries on talk, you replied instead with personalization: please stop with your possible badgering and sealioning behavior. I appreciate that today you did provided the quote, so that we can now move forward with a more collaborative discussion. But relative to both this discussion, and the one in item 1 here, you've not yet answered about the VICE source and others.
4. In the Discussion of 'use of coup' sources section, I appreciate and acknowledge that you mentioned I'm trying, and wish we'd see more of that collegial tone. I also appreciate that you eventually moved your list to sandbox, where we can hopefully better process through it (as time allows) without clogging talk. But while everyone else was trying to give you constructive comments to strengthen your position in support of your preference (which your original list did not support), your response included: Should we also ignore this because it’s a guideline? It’s like a guideline matters in one instance, or it doesn’t in another. I’m really getting tired of the bludgeoning and Wikilawyering on this topic.

I also appreciate that you have lightened up on the alphabet soup; it makes your responses much more digestible. But can you see a difference in the posts I highlight above compared to:

1. At 8:40 you asked me a question,
2. At 8:43 I acknowledged your query and told you'd I'd get on it tomorrow (Sunday), and
3. I did that as soon as I caught up after church.

I understand that you are feeling hurried to get the title/NPOV/"coup" situation resolved, but the approach you have taken has considerably slowed me down, relative to how much work I'm usually able to get done. The article is a complete wreck wrt sourcing and citations, and getting through them more expeditiously so we can move forward with the move discussion is a common goal; moving towards answering queries on talk without personalization would be a great help in getting to where we both want to be-- formulating the Move request. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

1. You personalized the response by saying "You have advocated vociferously elsewhere that we should never consider a source reliable if it reposts, aggregates or links to non-reliable sources ... How is it OK to use content sourced to the New York Post to cite BLP content? This was an attempt to prove a point about the recent reliable source noticeboard discussions regarding La Patilla. Vox and La Patilla are very different so yes, it was a false equivalency. And yes, context matters when it comes to sources.
2. It really is splitting hairs. They are arguing that since a source doesn't explicitly say that there was a "gunfight" or such, it doesn't support describing the event as an "attack", which is original research. Along with placing in the introduction the "massacre" information, such edits are bordering the opposition's conspiracy theory POV that the event was a false flag operation.
3. I would provide an answer and it was never good enough. That is why I raised the concern about "possible badgering and sealioning behavior" so that you would recognize that the constant demands regarding questions was becoming overwhelming. But you continued with the Vox questioning instead (see #1).
4. It's because we have been splitting hairs in some cases (focusing on which guidelines to ignore, how to define an attack, etc.) while ignoring the bigger questions (is "coup attempt" description applicable per WP:NPOV). You yourself said that WP:NPOV is more important than any guidelines and that is why a discussion was opened on the NPOV noticeboard about whether or not the use of "coup attempt" would be appropriate for use. No matter how the article is titled, it may still be defined as a "coup attempt" in the introduction if there is an agreement on its validity.

You know that I have been receptive to your recommendations ("I also appreciate that you have lightened up on the alphabet soup") and I have slowed down my editing processes quite a bit so we don't miss anything (again, your recommendation). But with your last points, you seem to want more prompt editing, especially when it comes to answering your questions and for your own benefit when you want things done? I have the liberty of answering your questions when I want to. Maybe I could acknowledge your question in discussions, but again, not a requirement on my part.

Overall, we have a lot of similarities while editing; we both want answers and results. How we achieve this may be different for us personally, though. Thank you for reaching out to me and I'll continue to be as receptive as possible. WMrapids (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

First, this is a much welcome improvement, which I appreciate. You stated where you stand on the issue without repetitive bludgeoning, lecturing, or personalization. Thank you for listening.

1. That was my third attempt to get you to respond; can you see that the discussion would have/could have/might have gone differently if you had answered the first time and I hadn't needed to press? I admit to still not being clear where you stand, and a more comprehensive answer would be to analyze the Vox source to make sure that no NYPost content is given UNDUE weight in the article; I don't know who added the source, or who has used it (I wouldn't), but that should be done at minimum, and I hope not to have to be the one to do it (I'm busy enough so far just cleaning up citations and checking sources).
2. I agree with NoonIcarus on talk that you may be mixing up two issues, but that can be resolved on talk; we'll make better progress if you work on keeping WP:AGF intact and avoiding personalization. (See my first line in this post at how you've better done that now.) Clarifying questions always help.
3. I continued because you didn't answer; I think you now may understand how a quote request works and hope work will be easier going forward. If someone doesn't have access to a book or paywalled source, you should just supply the necessary info from the source to back the content. That matter is still jumbled, but we can work that out on article talk.
4. The NPOV issue of "coup" will be decided by the community when we get the RM ready, and I'll be content with whatever uninvolved participants decide. My point with this post is that we'll get there much more quickly via collaboration and straightforward answers to good faith queries.
   Guideline is very different from policy; WP:CODENAME is often overlooked; WP:RS is not often ignored. One possibility is that the RFC/RM decides that the codename is the best or only option here, and such a possibility is mentioned in that guideline, but I'd be surprised to see anyone arguing against the appropriate use of the RS guideline. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

But ... in the 16:04 diff above you were doing fine, and then at 16:14 you reverted to accusations of OR and an acronym-laded policy lecture. Do you see the concern? What does your post do to advance discussion? If you'd work on your AGFometer, you might realize that I'm not posting that info as an intent to use it for synth, rather to inform others about why we might not have an update yet (basically, the ICC never moves quickly, and then chavismo stonewalled the issue for several years on top of that, but I'm not putting that in the article, and not advocating we add content without more sources). So now, I've not done a single bit of source work towards the RM in all my editing time this morning, rather tried to get the personalization on talk to stop; this is keeping us from moving forward as quickly as we'd both like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Assuming that the operation is not an "attack" based on a user's interpretation of a source (saying that "gunfight", etc. is not present in a source) is original research, plain and simple. I'm not saying that you are attempting WP:SYNTH, just that it could go that direction with future editing and we should avoid that. You should focus on good faith too as you are now writing a novel on my talk page about my editing. I've said what needed to be said. Can we please move forward with the article now? WMrapids (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Most of my day is gone now, so I don't anticipate making any progress for the day on the needed work with sources; perhaps tomorrow will be a new day for trudging forward with the hard work productively!

And the "novel" belongs on your talk page, so issues don't have to continue spilling over to article talk :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Casting aspersions in edit summaries

WMrapids, please catch up on the talk page before editing, and avoid casting aspersions on other editors in general, but in particular in edit summaries. You stated in edit summary that NoonIcarus ... arbitrarily removed this information, when in fact, there is a talk page discussion supporting reducing the parameters in the infobox. I understand you've been away from the article for several days, but you should catch up on talk before editing, and you should never cast aspersions in edit summary, partly, but not only because now you can't go back and strike your error. You can apologize, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, please avoid personalizing edit summaries; you can't then go back and strike your misunderstanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Not casting aspersions as they personally made a bold edit against a consensus discussion they were previously involved with. Please stop with these accusations. WMrapids (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, they removed information and it was to link to the previous edit. WMrapids (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not quite the case. You are casting aspersions, and you've already been warned about that issue at ANI. Anyway, while I'm here, would you mind not adding unnecessary quote marks to citations that don't need them?[6] See WP:REFNAME; the quote marks aren't needed, and they only much up the text in edit mode and make for much harder checking and editing for others. And taking away spaces that are useful for those with poor eyesight, while adding spaces where they aren't needed ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

ALso, in the edit I just diffed above, you removed cited content that is used in the lead, leaving a breach in WP:LEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Usually with visual editing, the sources self-correct. Is there a reason why this is not the case in this instance? WMrapids (talk) 04:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It did it automatically upon removal. Not my intention. WMrapids (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, if the visual editor is doing that all by itself, that really stinks (not the least because it obscures the rest of your edit); please pardon my intrusion for asking you not to do it, then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi. Given your last message to me, I wanted to make some clarifications about WP:ASPERSIONS: Casting aspersions consists in accusing another of misbehavior without evidence. This is specially the case when they are not directed towards the editor in question, when the discussion is unrelated to behavior and when the main goal of the claims is not correcting the conduct, but rather supporting one's position in said discussion.

On the other hand, when the claims are directed towards the editor, they are backed by diffs, and its main goal is to address or change the behavior, that is not casting aspersions.

This means that while I think your claims about activism are not well founded, in this instance I don't think it's casting aspersions since you're talking directly with me. However, I also mention this to prevent further aspersions in future discussions, as I feel this pattern as emerged again in recent reliability RfCs and I have not had the chance to address it until now. Regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I’ve done some reflecting on our editing lately (you might have seen it on a different talk page since you watch mine) and the concerns I had were shared, nothing more. Thanks for the message. WMrapids (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

No idea what this could be about. WMrapids (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Colectivo (Venezuela), you may be blocked from editing. NoonIcarus (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: Please provide an example of this. WMrapids (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

You have removed this sourced content, despite the reference specifically having the quote of the related information to the article. Please restore it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: Alright, it's done. WMrapids (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

While I believe that the dynamic has been more cordial today, I have to draw a line with this edit summary: [7]. You linked the Guarimba article from Protests against Nicolás Maduro, an article whose rename I request, have contributed for quite some time and would obviously would have in my watchlist. You cannot accuse me of hounding in a topic that I have contributed to for so long, and where there are clear ways that I learn of these edits. The condition that I put in the ANI to not take measures was that the personal attacks would not continue, but they have to stop lest we want the editing environment will irremediably sour again. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

You nominated an article I created for deletion and then removed much of an article that I recently created, so obviously you are following my edits. As I said, I kept much of the material you placed out of good faith, but you need to stop following me around. WMrapids (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

You mean the Guarimba article? Again, I found it through links from other articles.

At any rate, I'm not objecting only to the hounding accusations. This type of comments have no bearing in the discussions and makes any kind of comprommise way harder than it already is. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on La Salida. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NoonIcarus (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

And there's further edit warring at the Rupununi Rebellion article, too. Stop restoring disputed wording without even an attempt to find common ground. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: Do not threaten my editing. Half of that article is sourced by one book and is undue. WMrapids (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You are blanking content. Full stop, bottom line.

If the issue is that it is written in an editorial line, use attribution. If the issue is that you question its reliability, explain why.

Don't just blindly remove it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

La Patilla

Stop removing and tagging La Patilla without further analysis, it has become growingly disruptive. WP:RSP has already determined the the source in marginally reliable for Venezuelan topics. NoonIcarus (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It says to "be extremely cautious in referencing coverage of politics", so that is why a better source would be needed for the controversial claims they are making about politicians and political organizations. WMrapids (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I point this out mostly due to statements such as During the 2014 Venezuelan protests against new president Nicolás Maduro, colectivos acted with impunity against the opposition protesters ([8]), which given the current international reports is uncontroversial at this point. I only put this as the most recent example, though, as this pattern should not apply to non-controversial statements. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

If it is uncontroversial, we can find better sources. WMrapids (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Query

Hello WMrapids, I was wondering if you could assist me with a source verifiability like you did here, like you can make it votable and all that. I'll be on the lookout for the response Thank you. dxneo (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dxneo: Well, it depends on what you are trying to do. If you are trying to determine reliability, a lot of users try to see if the source has some sort of editorial oversight. For physical publications, this would be some sort of peer review and for news websites, there will typically be an "About" or "About us" section on their site that will preferably share information about an editorial team. Regarding secondary descriptions of reliability, reviewing WP:SET may be helpful in your search of how other entities describe the reliability of the source in question. In particular, you can see if generally reliable sources discuss the source and if the reliable sources use it without hesitation, which shows that they trust it as reliable.

Now, if you are looking to open a WP:RFC, then make sure to review WP:RFCBEFORE. If there is a previous dispute about the reliability of a source in an article, you can open a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, but make sure you review reliable sources/perennial sources and the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard first to see if there is an existing determination on reliability.

If you have further questions, feel free to talk some more here. WMrapids (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of The Right in Latin America: Elite Power, Hegemony and the Struggle for the State for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Right in Latin America: Elite Power, Hegemony and the Struggle for the State is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

NoonIcarus (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		For your contributions towards expanding Wikipedia's coverage of Latin American politics. Burrobert (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Blanking (again)

I really don't want to template you further, but I kindly ask you once again to not blank referenced content from articles, particularly when we're talking about so established sources ([9][10][11][12]). The silence and the scorpion is one of the most cited and influential works about the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt, and the fact that it is removed without citing reasons is troublesome to say the least. NoonIcarus (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It is used as a single source and presented in Wikivoice. This is an issue. WMrapids (talk) 06:32, 26 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) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023 ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:WMrapids (blanking). Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rupununi Rebellion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caribbean Studies.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Hi. I wanted to leave a note regarding these edits: [13][14][15][16][17], since you usually do when we happen to edit in the same articles. I believe that "hounding", as you have called it, requires a more consistent and defining pattern, but regardless I'll point out that the article is unrelated to any of your recent edit activity and you directly opposed to some of my changes in the page. I wanted you to be mindful of that, specifically before accusing me of hounding again in the future. Best regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Since it is a Venezuelan topic on protests, it caught my interest. You omitted actual critical reception in the "Reception" section and did not have citations for some information now. Looks better now. WMrapids (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)