I have a question on how to move forward with this. I was reading a random anime article and found the grammar to be atrocious. I started looking into who had left it in that state and I came across an editor who's grammar leaves much to be desired, often introducing typos or converting English words into Japanese. I've left a message on their talk page in the hopes that they respond, but given how they removed a warning about a copyvio by dismissing it... I'm not hopeful. Their edit count isn't huge, but it is causing damage to quite a number of articles. What do you suggest? --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 21:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I have a question on how to move forward with this. I was reading a random anime article and found the grammar to be atrocious. I started looking into who had left it in that state and I came across an editor who's grammar leaves much to be desired, often introducing typos or converting English words into Japanese. I've left a message on their talk page in the hopes that they respond, but given how they removed a warning about a copyvio by dismissing it... I'm not hopeful. Their edit count isn't huge, but it is causing damage to quite a number of articles. What do you suggest? --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 21:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
::{{tq|an editor who's grammar leaves much to be desired}}{{snd}}Oh, {{u|Tarage}}! [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 19:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
:I know there are some Japanese contributors with very poor English skills (of course there are also those with excellent English). It's certainly a problem. If their edits aren't numerous, would you consider improving the grammar yourself? Assuming the meaning is clear. About the copyvio: I see their comment, but that may actually be in good faith — they've never been to the website mentioned — fine — they may have copied from a three or four times removed copy of the material on a different website. Whenever I look for and find copyvio, I tend to get masses of hits, so that would be unsurprising. Anyway, it was quite a while back. I'm not sure what more to tell you, [[User:Tarage|Tarage]]. My own personal opinion is that we should discourage users with abysmal English from contributing, but I think I'm in the minority there ("They mean well!"). [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 21:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC).
:I know there are some Japanese contributors with very poor English skills (of course there are also those with excellent English). It's certainly a problem. If their edits aren't numerous, would you consider improving the grammar yourself? Assuming the meaning is clear. About the copyvio: I see their comment, but that may actually be in good faith — they've never been to the website mentioned — fine — they may have copied from a three or four times removed copy of the material on a different website. Whenever I look for and find copyvio, I tend to get masses of hits, so that would be unsurprising. Anyway, it was quite a while back. I'm not sure what more to tell you, [[User:Tarage|Tarage]]. My own personal opinion is that we should discourage users with abysmal English from contributing, but I think I'm in the minority there ("They mean well!"). [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 21:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC).
::I hope what I said didn't sound discouraging. I just get urked when I go to a page and see long existing grammar issues. I don't really want to take on trying to babysit their edits right now, though I did undo a few. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 22:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
::I hope what I said didn't sound discouraging. I just get urked when I go to a page and see long existing grammar issues. I don't really want to take on trying to babysit their edits right now, though I did undo a few. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 22:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear. I won't waste time with topic bans or the like for this, or further warnings, since the user has completely ignored all friendly advice by admins and others so far. Blocked indefinitely. Thank you very much, Adamstraw99. Bishonen | talk14:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
[Slightly embarrassed]: yes... yes... that's as may be. But there's only one actual Bishonen. The Bishonen of 2007 is the same as the one today. Bishonen | talk17:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict) x2 aah. Maybe something like this. By the way, I am sort of sad now that I wasnt on wikipedia in those days. The next RfA was a farce according to one comment on that RfA itself. But those days also seem to have a lot of wikidrama, so it cancels each other out. I am happy with current days. Now I should stop editing talkpages, and do some actual work. —usernamekiran(talk)17:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn’t realize that saga had its own shortcut. Good thing he still got to keep his sysop bit. It’s not like he would ever abuse it in any other circumstances, and he would never do something dumb like move a high profile BLP through protection for kicks and giggles. /sarcasm Also, I do like the dragons Bish!TonyBallioni (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello there, Tony. I think that's the only single shortcut I have ever created, bumblingly and inefficiently — it's difficult! — but I really thought there should be one there, that I could refer to if the need arose. It sometimes does. For the fine dragons, you can thank User:RexxS who created the Komodo Karousel. Bishonen | talk18:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict) I am on mobile, so couldnt see it. I had to switch to desktop view to see it. I like fun, yes. old-fashioned flavorful? even more. Wikidrama? As long as it clean, i think i am okay with that.
But only thing I could register from wp:blockabdicate, and that is that you are a lady! I always thought of you as a guy. Apologies. —usernamekiran(talk)18:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 28-Meme-Wounds. The list at Heather (given name) is only for notable people named "Heather". Your addition "Heather 'Hedy' Clark British YouTuber, Sister of Dodie Clark" was unsourced, and the Wikipedia link you added was red (= the article doesn't exist). Feel free to re-add Heather Clark with a link to a reliable secondary source — not her own Youtube channel — that shows she's notable according to Wikipedia standards. I don't understand what you say about Ms Hathaway and Summer Hathaway — I don't think I've removed anything like that. Bishonen | talk15:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Rajshekhar Reddy Arya
Hi, any chance of you keeping an occasional eye on the activity of Rajshekhar Reddy Arya? They're writing spiels of caste-centric stuff on article talk pages without any supporting sources and quite often using bellicose phrasing. Several people have left them notes on their own talk page, of which I am the latest. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: I daren't. They have a black belt in Karate! But it's nice to see you up and about, hope you're taking it easy. I notice the user is arguing with a section from 2008 — 2011. (No talkpage archive, apparently.) The sections "Is there anything really called as Reddy dynasty" and "Fake History", both very old, are full of aggressive mutual attacks, so in a way I can understand that your guy took his tone from them (presumably not noticing, or caring about, the timestamps). Let's see how he reacts to your warning. BTW, did you notice this diff, which is even more intemperate than the posts you removed? No signature, naturally, but it's your guy all right. I can't understand why it doesn't show up on the page. Maybe the interface itself rebelled against it? Pinging RexxS: do you understand why that doesn't show up? Any other little talkpage stalker? Bishonen | talk14:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. I was not intending to suggest that some immediate action was required - my note and those given by others previously should have sufficed at that point. But now they have said this. In the world of things caste on Wikipedia, it isn't extremely derogatory etc but it is yet again someone writing sort-of inflammatory comments without providing any supporting evidence. This is the type of thing that often spirals out of control on such talk pages and it bothers me that they are still not getting it after you and I had our say on their talk page. AS you intimated, I really should avoid dealing with this sort of thing at the moment! - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[2] and [3]. Friends might be reading it. In any event, no good reason for anyone to have to read it. Thanks in advance to you or another talk page watching admin. ---Sluzzelintalk15:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta admit I didn't catch that. But yeah, "most" is in the realm of 65-75%. There's still lots of people at all ages working hard to ensure that the rest of us have someone to look down upon. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing "seemingly" (or "seeming", for that matter) about it. I've met people IRL whom I knew online to be total assholes to me, and they acted exactly as if they were utterly thrilled to meet. Of course, that may have something to do with the fact that I don't look anything like what people expect, but I nonetheless noticed that, back online after the fact, they remained much nicer after that. Plus, it's been studied pretty extensively. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user believes that meeting other editors in the flesh makes it far less likely that they will be treated like a pile of dogshit online.
I actually wasn't talking about meeting IRL, but about posting as an IP, as in the case Sluzzelin posted about. (Hello, Sluzzelin, hope you're getting some use out of that teacosy.) I.e. without the more longtime "identity" or "avatar" of an account. That seems to bring it out sometimes. Don't beat me. P.S., to digress, I have in fact met RexxS, and he pulled me out of the way of an oncoming tram. Tells you something, doesn't it? Not sure what, except that he's never done that online. Bishonen | talk15:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources and edit-warring on Oeselians
Hello Bish. A few days ago you blocked Blomsterhagens(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) for edit-warring on Oeselians, but he's at it again, repeatedly making POV edits that aren't supported by reliable sources, and also aren't supported by a consensus on the talk page (see Talk:Oeselians#Ethnicity & language of Öselians and page history of Oeselians). So would you mind taking a look at it, because this is becoming a huge time sink, with anything other editors say being totally ignored by an editor with an obvious lack of competence, not being able to understand simple things, in spite of having them explained to them multiple times (such as mediaeval mentions of "Estonians" not possibly being references to the modern Estonian people, since neither the Estonian people nor the Estonian language existed back then, that we can only use reliable sources, and that we can't present claims in a paper written by a student as if it's the university they're studying at that says it...). Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk15:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I trust others to see the talk page contents on Oeselians & Norsemen, read the sources, see my diffs and those of Thomas.W and then make their own conclusions. The main problem is that Thomas.W makes it look like it's me against other editors, but there are actually several editors who disagree with Thomas and have provided ample sources. Also, the topic has nothing to do with what Thomas just mentioned. His latest "revert" was for "misrepresenting a source" where I was directly quoting a source. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit added among other things "A report published by the University of Helsinki finds the expression to support the identification of Oeselians as a Finnic language group" to the article, without explaining that the source (which shouldn't be presented as "a report published by the University of Helsinki", since it's not an official comment by the university, but a paper published by people active in "Folklore Studies" at the University of Helsinki...) is commenting on a document about a single event in the 13th century, and thus refers to that event in that period of time only, which is grossly misleading in an article that mainly focuses on the Viking Age, that is several hundred years before the event commented on, and is being used by you to support claims you're pushing on other articles about there having existed "ethnic Estonian Vikings"... - Tom | Thomas.W talk16:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are there academic sources about there having been "Ethnic Estonian vikings"? If not, it's not a topic to be had. It certainly isn't connected to what you're talking about right now. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair though - there's no battle for "Estonian Vikings" to be had on my part. There are two main questions right now: 1) What language was spoken on Ösel during the Viking Age? 2) Were there Norse settlements on Ösel during the Viking Age? I support whatever is written in academic literature, contributed to by people from uni. Stockholm, uni. Copenhagen, uni. Helsinki, uni. Tallinn, uni. Tartu, etc. and hope that enough editors will take their time to form an opinion. Luckily other editors agree with the sources. I don't really even care what source is being used, as long as it's an up to date source, written by a Viking Age researcher. The topic has not been about "Estonian Vikings" for a long time. Anyone can see the talk pages on Oeselians or Norsemen and make up their own mind on what's been happening today. I only have an issue with a single editor. Thomas, in his own words, believes I have a nationalistic agenda. I'm also a "POV-pusher" and some other words I can't remember anymore. He's also said today that he thinks Estonian Viking Are researchers have a "nationalistic agenda" "like me". I suppose I'm just a part of a big conspiracy then. Have a good weekend everyone and thanks for keeping Wikipedia alive. Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's me - I was asked to change my username by the Danish wikipedia because of wiki policies on not having usernames after famous people... which I guess makes sense Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Local Danish policy, maybe? I've never heard of it, other than, of course, as regards living famous people. You can hardly be accused of impersonating Søren Kierkegaard (1813 — 1855), can you?
Yeah, I guess maybe people wouldn't be so friendly to someone named Winston Churchill on the english wiki either? Not sure, maybe it affects some people's national identity. Awesome re Enten-Eller! Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before he became SørenKierkegaard his username was JonSonberg, and before then JaanMatti, since he has had numerous namechanges. All of them names that can be seen in discussions on the talk pages of articles within his rather narrow field of interest... - Tom | Thomas.W talk19:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can add that it's less than two years since he started to change usernames, and the latest name change was only a few months ago, so you don't have to go far back in history on talk pages to see more than one name leading to the same account, which can easily confuse other editors, and make them believe that multiple editors share a certain opinion. - Tom | Thomas.W talk19:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas this is fascinating. What else can you find out about my sinister plans? I just opened a can of beer and reading your comments is way better than my usual routine of dressing in pink latex on friday nights. Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please both pause for breath? The more complaints you post, Thomas, the less likely it is that some kind admin talkpage stalker will want to dive in and take care of your original issue. And I really wish that one would. It's getting overwhelming. Bishonen | talk19:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Thomas.W and Blomsterhagens: Sorry, I can't face immersing myself in this. The subject is too complicated as well as too uncongenial to me. I also don't think it's ready for ANI: it would probably be blown off as a content dispute. How about trying Wikipedia:Third opinion? There are obviously too few people on article talk. Try inviting some more. Winston Churchilltalk. 14:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Hello I have been topic banned on that for years and I would like to KEEP that ban, please. Unfortunately, I discovered some potentially dangerous outdated information quoted by the CDC which has since changed (also by the CDC) to the exact opposite of what our article currently says. Not sure how to proceed as I am aware that I am banned on talk pages as well, and the talk page in question has no traffic anyhow-thank you TeeVeeed (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More info. so the article itself is not directly ABOUT vaccinations so I think it is safe to say here that it is the Immunocompetence article. What happened was that I noticed recent better definitions of contraindications precautions and safe to give/when to some types of vaccines and "altered immunocompetence" was listed for something and I wanted to look it up so I landed on our page there. The cite is from around 2011 and there is another one from 2016, (from same source CDC)- that says the opposite of what our article says. Thanks againTeeVeeed (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TeeVeed, this thread is a topic ban violation. You're asking an admin (who is free to block you for this violation) to make edits on your behalf. Have you ever heard of a facepalm? Because now would be a good time for you to make that gesture. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.22:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TeeVeeed, MjolnirPants is right; you must not post about vaccinations on user talkpages either. Also, I checked the CDC guidelines as updated in 2017, here, and I can't see the change you indicate. But I'm not going to discuss this with you further or argue about it, sorry. Don't do it again. Bishonen | talk08:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Just for the record, the reason I posted here is because Bishonen was the blocking admin and said this, "You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 07:56, 22 April 2016 ". Not related to this topic in particular, I am noticing that old vs newer/updated/conflicting info. being posted on US Government health sites is a problem in general. When recommendations etc. are changed I am noticing more and more that the outdated stuff is just left up without being changed in any way to indicate that newer/changed info. is available.TeeVeeed (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To wrap this up before TeeVeeed gets into trouble, I've reviewed the latest CDC guidelines and updated the reference at Immunocompetence to the latest version. As far as our content is concerned, their conclusions remain the same, so nothing further needs to be done. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Hello, I just want to say thanks for annotating my block log-book. I would have said it earlier, but I got scare when confronted the lizard. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your message on my talk page: It should not be necessary to go through an elaborate talk process to amend text which is clearly and obviously POV. "Trump is bad, Trump lied, Trump is racist, Trump is not as rich as he claims, etc." Not a single good point appears in a prominent position. But, hey, that's what Trump does to people, even to experienced wikipedia editors, they lose their independence of mind. The text of the current article is so blatantly a hit-job, which is unworthy of wikipedia. We are not CNN, but nor do we want to be Fox. Somewhere in the middle would be nice. And those responsible for this bias are attempting to maintain it by inserting "DO NOT CHANGE" commands within the text. Some serious and systemmatic rebalancing work, including a thorough line by line examination for bias, conscious or otherwise, needs doing on the article, including an examination of the tone of the article in general. How should we go about that?Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) You've been around long enough to know the answer to that – or at least long enough to know not to ask rhetorical questions here. We go by what the best quality sources say. If the American public were to be stupid enough to elect an evil, lying, racist fraudster, then we would expect the best sources to say so, and that's what our article would say, isn't it? We don't want to be Fox or CNN, or any other news outlet for that matter because Wikipedia has no POV other than that expressed by the quality sources that we rely on for our content. "Somewhere in the middle" would not be nice, because we have no obligation to set off the ravings of a lunatic fringe against the well considered rationales of quality sources. --RexxS (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lobsterthermidor, if you continue to ride roughshod over consensus, you're heading for a sanction; either a topic ban from American politics, or a block, depending on the circumstances. As hidden text in the edit field states in many cases (and I note you don't pretend you have missed it), many or even most of the phrases you change or remove are the result of, indeed, "an elaborate talk process", often an RFC with many, many editors involved; what we here call "consensus". And you think it's up to you alone to override the agreement they have arrived at, because you believe these editors have 'lost their independence of mind'. Seriously? Bishonen | talk16:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen, yes, seriously. The article has such an obvious anti-Trump bias it's almost funny. Like watching 2 minutes of CNN. It's just dig after dig after dig. No mention of anything positive whatsoever. All sourced from anti-Trump media. But that's what Trump does to people, makes them lose their minds. TonyBallioni, good advice. I'd rather edit something less contentious, like Zionism, lol. Even an attempt to correct something so obviously biased as "Trump's policies have caused protests" into "some of Trump's policies have caused protests" apparently has to go through a lengthy talk page discussion. So the article is basically irrevocably set in anti-Trump treacle. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was mentioned: my advice to everyone is to avoid American politics as well as ethnic and nationalist disputes. Life is too short to waste time arguing with people on the internet who know The Truth (tm). On your actual complaint: that’s one of the most watched and discussed articles on Wikipedia so yes, just about every comma reflects either consensus by agreement or compromise so it’s likely that any bold change you make will be reverted and need to be discussed. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, done. Perhaps I should have given them the discretionary sanctions alert as well — the one they got has expired — but quite frankly they're not the kind of editor where a topic ban is likely to be meaningful. Here be dragons! Bishonen | talk10:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Editor unintentionally introducing bad grammar into articles
I have a question on how to move forward with this. I was reading a random anime article and found the grammar to be atrocious. I started looking into who had left it in that state and I came across an editor who's grammar leaves much to be desired, often introducing typos or converting English words into Japanese. I've left a message on their talk page in the hopes that they respond, but given how they removed a warning about a copyvio by dismissing it... I'm not hopeful. Their edit count isn't huge, but it is causing damage to quite a number of articles. What do you suggest? --Tarage (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are some Japanese contributors with very poor English skills (of course there are also those with excellent English). It's certainly a problem. If their edits aren't numerous, would you consider improving the grammar yourself? Assuming the meaning is clear. About the copyvio: I see their comment, but that may actually be in good faith — they've never been to the website mentioned — fine — they may have copied from a three or four times removed copy of the material on a different website. Whenever I look for and find copyvio, I tend to get masses of hits, so that would be unsurprising. Anyway, it was quite a while back. I'm not sure what more to tell you, Tarage. My own personal opinion is that we should discourage users with abysmal English from contributing, but I think I'm in the minority there ("They mean well!"). Bishonen | talk21:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I hope what I said didn't sound discouraging. I just get urked when I go to a page and see long existing grammar issues. I don't really want to take on trying to babysit their edits right now, though I did undo a few. --Tarage (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Was my edit summary not clear, PackMecEng, or do you just think it's a good idea to troll me? A sentence in the article occurred twice in succession. The second occurrence was removed by a user who unfortunately didn't use an edit summary,[4] so another user mistakenly thought actual content had been removed and restored it.[5] I removed it again when I noticed the doubling. My edit summary was a reference to that of the user who restored the doubled sentence; theirs had been "no reason to remove this". I hope it's all clear now. With some effort, I'll assume that you're somehow trying to be helpful, and that you actually believe I'm not aware that our probably most controversial single article is under consensus required. Bishonen | talk15:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
The material was removed here, challenged via revision here, and then you reinstated it here. But eh WP:IAR and I do not care that much. Just trying to be helpful and thought it was funny. It of course should be removed but I couldn't help myself.PackMecEng (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't "challenged". (And if it had been, it wouldn't have been via "revision".) There's no need to invoke IAR, and no need to act like a troll either. Please just write me off as humor-impaired next time you want to be funny. Bishonen | talk16:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
(talk page stalker) More importantly, PackMecEng, you're almost certainly in breach of Template talk:Ds/alert/doc #Usage: "Some pages and topics on Wikipedia are authorised for Arbitration Discretionary Sanctions (DS). Users editing these pages may be alerted that discretionary sanctions are in effect. You must use this template to do so" and WP:AC/DS #alert.dup: "Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. It is a sanctionable offence to deliberately or carelessly notify a user about sanctions that they are clearly already aware of. --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That only applies to the official alert. It was a technical breach of the sanction because in general any reversion is considered a challenge (per wording of "challenge (reversion)") but that is pedantic. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Galobtter: The official alert is the only alert allowed per WP:AC/DS #Alerts, and giving alerts is restricted in this way because of the possible chilling effect. There's no getting around the restriction by trying to make up an "unofficial" alert. --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is the only alert that counts - not the only alert allowed. People are allowed to inform people of the restrictions (and indeed the formal {{Ds/alert}} makes no mention of this specific restriction, being only a notification of general DS on WP:AP2, and so informing people of the specific restrictions is often necessary in a good faith manner to let people self-revert violations instead of dragging them to WP:AE) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the documentation of {{DS alert}} is absolutely clear and I've already quoted it above. You must use this template to do so can hardly be read any other way, and when AGKwrote that, I don't believe he was under any misapprehension about the requirement to use the template to make other users aware. One reason why the template must be used is that it creates a log; and that is part of our protection against malicious, intimidatory or frivolous notifications. I'm quite certain ArbCom did not intend that editors could place "ad hoc" alerts willy-nilly. --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so, that is unfortunate. Also RexxS really, that is what you see here? However, these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message I did not place a formal Ds template here since they would clearly be aware of the sanction they railed against in the past. PackMecEng (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PackMecEng: Yes, in the opening post I see a clear example of "Users editing these pages may be alerted that discretionary sanctions are in effect". I don't believe it's possible to read your post as anything else. If you'd prefer, I could test opinion at ANI – when you get sanctioned as a result, you'll know I was right. --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Bishonen is certainly aware of the American Politics Discretionary Sanctions as they have issued sanctions under them. But this is beyond stupid; "consensus required" doesn't prevent someone from removing an obvious mistake first added to the article this week. No admin nor the community would ever do anything about this even if you found some rule-lawyer way that it is not allowed; WP:IAR is a rule too. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For crying out loud, it was just a topic ban from one bio..! Weird. But as Oshwah says, there was a lot more iceberg below. I've indeffed. Now I go indef Oshwah for referring to me as "he". Bishonen | talk18:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
PackMecEng (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Also RexxS really, that is what you see here? 
