User talk:Procrastinator acc

January 2023

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --Ferien (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for all of your recent changes patrolling! Keep it up! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Astro Xiao Tai Yang

Hi, I've created an SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshua Boniventure Chen 1. about the sockpuppets you reported to AIV, since AIV isn't really the place to report most kinds of sockpuppetry.

You can drop your comments in the "Comments by other users" section.

Thanks! — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Linghe

Hi Procrastinator acc, when patrolling biographical edits, please keep in mind that restoring material others have objected to in good faith may be prohibited without obtaining a consensus first, and that repeating gossip or self-published sources' statements is problematic. In the moment you restore material on Wikipedia, you are legally responsible for it.

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

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

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

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

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

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FAIR

The text I removed from the FAIR article is disgraceful left wing propaganda from the hate group SPLC. This goes against every principle of Wikipedia. Do you support Wikipedia as a source of dis information? 69.72.79.46 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources states that the SPLC is a reliable source (Link to the exact SPLC entry on the list). This was determined through consensus.

Of course, the list is on Wikipedia, and the consensus is determined by people who may be biased. To further your point, the list itself does say that SPLC is an advocacy and may be biased.

My recommendation is to talk to other editors about the reliability of SPLC on the FAIR talk page, or possibly specifying that SPLC labels FAIR as a hate group, but that other organizations do not label FAIR as a hate group. Citing sources that disagree with SPLC would also probably be needed. I would also be careful about which sources are used; propaganda can come from both left wing and right wing political groups. Procrastinator acc (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]