![]() | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
(This first section, including the table below, is my personal space for taking notes and stuff) - Daveout
Older messages are archived here.
Some shortcuts: stats \ perennial sources \ request page protection \ warn \ report vandalism inline footnote: ((efn|...)) + ((notelist)) A welcome template that doesn't suck on mobile:
|
---|
Simple. August 8 1973 was the day the then-worst series of murders in America was discovered. Corll's death is better covered in a subsection.--Kieronoldham (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 16:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I've noticed that you believe that the large number of IP comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalen Berns (2nd nomination) should be deleted due to sockpuppetry. Do you have any evidence of this? Simply deleting them is not good practice. Comments by proven sockpuppet accounts may be struck through. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I see you reverted my bias warning. Thanks for the talk invite, I'm new to this process, happy to have got your attention. I came across the article lateish last night and was irritated by what I think is its unbalanced position, hence my comment. (My comment was not very carefully crafted so I'm happy to see it removed.) But this article reads to me as an odd mix of potted history, lurid detail, cherry picked facts/arguments, and in the extradition section quite openly promoting a pro-extradition view rather than assessing two opposed views. I have no desire to whitewash Polanski, but I think a more scholarly piece is deserved.
An example of lurid - the repeated listing (once in the intro, then in a bullet list at the top of the article) of the charges. What is served by repeating "rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor" twice in a single view of the page? Isn't that the kind of sensationalism that Samantha complained about as traumatising news coverage?
Wouldn't this article be better served e.g. by opening "On March 10, 1977, then-43-year-old film director Roman Polanski was arrested and charged in Los Angeles with six offenses against Samantha Geimer, a 13-year-old girl[1], including rape by use of drugs[2]." Then, provide the full list at the opening of the main article, as a sentence, not as a bullet list. Note that ref [2] is to a showbiz blog. I would expect a more accountable source e.g. published trial documents, LA Times, almost anything except a showbiz blog which is actually about what Whoopi Goldberg said about the case etc. And BTW ref [1] is again to media, here BBC 1 minute news featuring the word "Creepy" above the fold. Is that the best we can do? Finally, what are these crimes of perversion and sodomy? Were these crimes in the context of a rape, or of a rape of a child, or just crimes such as male homosexuals and "sexual deviants" were routinely criminalised for in the past and are not now (one hopes)? Is this a California thing or an America thing? Were these the only way the prosecutors could reflect the full horror of the crime, or did they just throw the book at Polanski in order to obtain leverage in negotiating a plea bargain? I don't propose that the article *must* ask exactly those questions but there is not much attempt in the article to explain, let alone explore, the procedural dimensions of the trial. Given the referenced sources, that's not much of a surprise.
To give an example of missed opportunity - the extradition attempt, almost 30 years after the fact and over the protests of the victim, raises questions about how justice serves or does not serve victims, how women fare under the law (well? badly? do they get justice?), American legal overreach, European legal independence, and a host of contentious issues that are not mentioned. Instead we have opinion poll numbers supporting extradition!
For me the whole piece is full of this kind of dubious argumentation and misses the chance to factually report a case which is still significant for lots of reasons.
Interested to hear what you think. Best, Ben.
((POV))
to the article's code (normally at the top), the following banner will appear:Daveout
(talk) 18:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)I'm aware of the 1RR and discretionary sanctions on Israel, Palestine, and gender-related articles (there is no need to warn me with templates, thanks).
If I accidentally break 1rr, please just revert it or ask me to revert it. - Daveout
(talk) 03:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Warnings I've received so far are in the collapsible table bellow:
Extended content
|
---|
You've violated the 1RR at 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis with now 3 reverts. Kindly self revert your last two reverts or you may be reported to arbitration enforcement. nableezy - 20:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
You again violated the 1RR at the same article. Kindly stop trying to edit-war your position in to the article. nableezy - 17:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
1rrYou have violated the 1RR at Israel, kindly self revert or you may be reported. It is also manifestly untrue that material is not in the body. nableezy - 16:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Daveout nableezy - 16:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
NoticeThis 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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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. nableezy - 16:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Trx96 (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Palestine will be free you zionist Warning![]() Being involved in an edit war can result in being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Discretionary Sanctions alertThis 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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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. Clarify about discretionary sanctionsYou've been given an alert about the Arab-Israeli conflict. You must follow these page-specific restrictions until you have 500 edits and have been here 30 days For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing
Also, 500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. 2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required. 3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator. Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time. These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC) |
Hello, the issues is the same person under multiple banned sockpuppet accounts keeps adding unsourced images. Also there was no consensus on who were the top war criminals that escaped. The person seemed obsessed with the Fascist Croats especially. They were banned for disrupting pages and puppetry. Another user reverted them after calling their readding vandalism. I hope I was able to give context. Just now that Ip was banned as another puppet account abusing wikipedia guidlines to push edits. It’s a mix of things.
Daveout
(talk) 22:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Thanks for correcting my mistakes on english grammar in the Stallman part of Trusted_Platform_Module. Glad that our contributions complement each other. As I see on your talk page is that you already got invited to the FOSS task force. How is your opinion about it? It seems pretty dead so we might be able to revive it. You can check it's current talk page GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 15:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)I am not that interested in this article but did you even bother to read the lead? At line 3 it says "It is not a right recognized in international law." so you (and the editor who inserted it to begin with) saying it is a concept in international law are simply inserting contradictory (and unsourced) information into the encyclopedia. I suggest you revert yourself.Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
did you even bother to read the lead?I could ask you the same thing. The line you're referring to is unsourced, whereas the following paragraph states that the concept has been present in writings about International law for a long time (this one is sourced). In fact, I think the line you just mentioned should be removed. In any case, that's not why I reverted. There must be a better wording for that short description.
Daveout
(talk) 12:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
You should use ((Ds/aware)) to show that you are aware. Put it at the top of your talk page. I think what you've done would work, just not as obvious. You also need to add one for the ipa area, eg ((Ds/aware|ipa)) More importantly, if you add an NPOV tag you are expected to explain it on the talk page. I've reverted you. I understand why you put it there, but it still needs a talk page discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 15:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
This edit verges on vandalism. "current lead looks awful."?? Seriously? You deleted a whole bunch of sources at the same time. Any recurrence will produce a report at AE. Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 05:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The section was expanded but was removed [1] Shrike (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 09:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)I’m starting to have an issue with you regularly restoring edits of a banned user. Please reconsider doing that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 04:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 16:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Hi Daveout. You said in your revert "enrolling seems to be enough to count as an alma mater".
Firstly, please let's be correct about the historical facts. RMS was not "enrolled" at MIT. He was *working* there as a programmer.
Secondly, the concept of an alma mater means an academic institution that "nourishes" you in an intellectual way, in other words, an institution that forms and shapes your intellectual character and academic personality. An alma mater certifies and documents this "shaping process" by awarding you an official degree.
Just enrolling has nothing to do with that. Take me for example. I have degrees from two universities, so those are my alma maters. But I visited two further universities (one as a student and one as a scientist) which didn't award me any degree. So, those two are NOT alma maters of mine. I don't have four alma maters, I have two.
You can think of it also in another way. If enrolling was enough, many people who never finished any academic classes or took any exam or dropped out after one semester would have alma maters. That is obvious nonsense.
So, in total: RMS wasn't enrolled at MIT, but even if he was, he wasn't awarded a degree, so MIT isn't an alma mater. ʘχ (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 13:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)You inserted "or" in "perceived its primary goal as an ideal ingathering of exiles (kibbutz galuyot) in the ancient heartland of the Jewish people,[15] and, through a unique variation on the principle of national self-determination[16] or the establishment" in your 24 June revision of the Zionism article. Why at all and why there where it sounds awkward rather than instead of "and" following "people"? Mcljlm (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 07:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)I dont really care too much, but I think you should maybe give people a day or two to digest and discuss a pretty big change to the lead, and I also think you should probably give attribution to the people who wrote the change in the edit-summary like you would in a page to page move of content if it is being taken from the talk page. nableezy - 22:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:BLPREMOVE very carefully, before you find yourself blocked form editing. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 22:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)I believe with this edit on Jordan Peterson, you violated that article's current WP:1RR rule. If that's the case, you should probably self-revert. (And thanks for starting a discussion on the talk page.) Korny O'Near (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
At Palestine you have breached 1R.
Revert of Sharontse121, readded de jure
Revert of myself, again readding de jure
Kindly self revert. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I see you have now also reverted my edits at State of Palestine which I suppose is where this "de jure" business came from to begin with although it was uncited, I have started a discussion at that talk page. Meanwhile I have reinstated my removal and per WP:ONUS you need to justify the inclusion of this material.Selfstudier (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
That's fine in some instances, not so much in others. Contentious page moves require an explicit talk page consensus for them. Now I dont really fault the impulse to try to cut through the bureaucracy and make an edit to a lead or move a page, but in a DS restricted area under things like a 1RR that impulse needs to be restrained a bit more. You cant just decide that your preferred title is the correct one, you cant just decide that a discussion in which only one person has suggested that title is enough to make the change yourself, in a page your involved in. There is being bold and then there is being reckless, and there are a few times youve exceeded the bold part of things. This isnt a warning, or a threat to report, or anything of the matter. I think you try very hard to edit in a NPOV, yes I have a view on how well you succeed at times, but let me be very clear that I have 0 doubt as to your good faith intent to improve an article with every edit you make. So while this isnt a warning or a threat to report, it is a request that for things like contentious edits to the lead or page moves, that you follow the process of gaining consensus first, and making the change after. nableezy - 15:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
The previous title was too inaccurate. The conflict was restricted to Gaza. –Daveout
(talk) 15:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
As you did at Talk:2022 Israel–Palestine escalation. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)