This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Hi, Cambial Yellowing! Thanks for ensuring that articles are supported by reliable sources. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit WikiProject Reliability for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Participants". Thanks! — Newslinger talk 07:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hey, how do you do that to your name? I've also seen others with colourful or artistic name designs but I have no idea how it's done. Thanks man Nate Hooper (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Cambial Yellowing! You created a thread called User talk at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) (ban this bot) or ((nobots)) (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you’ve made some very helpful changes to the lead, but your insistence on including a tiny label that is rarely (if ever) mentioned in overviews of James's career (and not even naming it, implicitly admitting that it’s not significant enough to mention!) is inane. He recorded for several other labels during that time too, and you’ve not bothered to mention those—rightly, because it’d be silly. Include those details in the article body. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clearly, Gentlecollapse6 we differ on this. Fine. Your presumption of ownership, however, is not appropriate, and neither is pretending to be making accusations of edit warring while in fact actively instigating an edit war yourself. Do not do this again. The appropriate place to discuss content disputes is generally the article talk page. It will be helpful in discussion if you refrain from seeking to dictate what is "compromise". I.e. in this case: I think a brief mention of how artist emerged from free party scene and gained fame/recognition is at least as notable as an "inane" recounting of which aliases he was recording under in which years, when he signed to Warp etc, and hence should be included in the lead. You do not. Not including it is not compromise. I suggest you respond on the article talk page. Cambial Yellowing❧ 01:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aphex Twin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orbital (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) 07:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	Your fight for unbiased distribution of references is most valuable for en.wikipedia.org FrankBierFarmer (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Les Bonbons (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compilation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not going to pursue the Charity v Think-tank argument but are you sure that they really describe themselves as a think-tank? I haven't looked but it is a very tabloidish phrase so best you check as you wrote it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. As to the sentence, John Maynard Friedman, I think it is now clunky, and prefer simply "charity" given that that is what it is precisely defined as in law and in British English. I did not revert in order to accommodate the concerns you expressed in your edit summary. Cambial foliage❧ 12:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

and I'm not arguing because technically you are correct. I just worry that the rest of the world understands the word 'charity' as on organisation that feeds the hungry and tends the sick. (Think of the Sally Anny commenting on the Offside Rule). I won't pursue it but shan't be surprised if someone else does. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

put it back to just 'charity' then, as it is just too clunky as is. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm surprised by this edit, which restores the rather unsightly [[John F. Kennedy] construction. I take it the actual source contains a reference to Kennedy which doesn't use his name? Eelworm (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a direct quote hence why it sits in the quote parameter. I explained the reason in the subsequent edit. Cambial foliage❧ 19:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The second edit makes perfect sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Eelworm (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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-1992 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.

Doug Weller talk 15:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Lennart97 (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Senedd.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lol isento (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 ChefBear01 (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC) ChefBear01 (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edit. Two things: I was restoring an old sentence, and, as you can see, my name is Denis and my Irish passport has my name as Denis (English) and Donnchadh (Irish). Regards Denisarona (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your passport is not a reliable source Cambial foliage❧ 15:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't particularly care whether this release is classified as by AFX or Aphex Twin as they're all the same dude in the end, but we should be consistent across all articles. The article refers to it as by AFX, not Aphex Twin, and as I said in my revert summary, James's own website prefaces it as by his AFX moniker here. The only sources I'm seeing stating the contrary from a quick Google search are Discogs (and they're not reliable per WP:USERG) and uploads of its tracks on websites. Ss112 20:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It’s unusual that this article does not appear in the English-language version of Deutsche Welle, which I have checked. Could you confirm/clarify please: by paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 do you mean starting at "Britisches Gericht lehnt Freilassung von Assange ab" and ending immediately before "Wikileaks-Gründer in Isolationshaft"  ? CWO (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for responding @CWO:. It is indeed highly unusual. As the article has been translated into Bosnian, Spanish, Croatian, Romanian, Albanian, and Serbian, the absence of English is odd.

Yes, those are the paragraphs I refer to. Cambial foliage❧ 14:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I have now completed this. To make it easier for myself, I copied and pasted the Deutsche Welle article into Google Translate then copied and pasted the result in English into a Word file. Then I checked the translation against the original German text, correcting it where necessary: e.g. the Google text made it appear that while Merkel was visiting Washington, so was Biden; "konstuiert und haltlos" appears twice but was given two different translations. I've also inserted a couple of clarifications of my own in square brackets mostly to do deal the fact that the article was dated 2 July 2021 and the tense the verb has to be in accordingly, and one explaining the German abbeviation ROG.

What should I do now? How do I pass the translation on to you? It's so long since I last did this, I've forgotten how.CWO (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time @CWO:. There are probably better ways of doing this, but I suggest we use Pastebin.com - Link

The simplest is if you paste the text using a short expiration time (1 day or so). If you are concerned about this method you could even use a "burn after reading" expiration if I know when you intend to post the link here. Alternatively I can provide a "burn after reading" link on pastebin.com for my email address. Cambial foliage❧ 14:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have signed up to Pastebin and posted the text a few minutes ago, with an expiry of one day. However, I have no idea how this works or how one knows where to access other people's posts. My username is "CWOwen1952".CWO (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CWO: If you have created an account you can go back to your paste and copy the url here. As long as the setting for "Paste Exposure" is set to "Public" or "Unlisted", I will be then be able to view it. It's not compulsory to use an account to make a paste. You can make an anonymous one with an expiry time on it (while logged out). To share the Paste simply copy and paste the url. Like this: https://pastebin.com/MPmd3Ugn . A burn after reading paste can only be viewed once: https://pastebin.com/XLN21f9R. Cambial foliage❧ 15:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cambial Yellowing - the IP editor who started this thread did not notify you. Levivich 17:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes I might get over aggressive in whacking a vandal. I am sorry for removing your edits in addition to the vandalism. Cheers with a bubble tea. Whpq (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was wondering what on earth you were up to with the archive pages but I understand now the archiing must have bombed out halfway along doing an archive and left an empty one. Thanks for the work fixing it up rather than leaving a gaping hole that might leave people thinking all sort of weird things. NadVolum (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey man. I'm sorry for wigging out on you. Regardless of the content, I feel bad. Hope all is well. And thank you for making the improvement to the article possible. It would have been lesser without, for better or for worse. Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I see on your user page that you use JSTOR and I'd like to know more about your experience. By my calculations, a good 70 % of the main JSTOR content is now available for everyone at Internet Archive Scholar, with full text search provided e.g. at https://scholar.archive.org/ . The service is still in beta, but I've used it for some source-finding and it seems quite usable to me; I wonder whether that's just my experience. If you have a chance, the next time you'd be looking for a source on Google Scholar or JSTOR or similar, to perform the same search on IA scholar instead, I'd be curious to hear how it ends up. Thanks, Nemo 19:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Cambial Yellowing,

You recently posted on my talk page that I am canvassing,then proceeded to delete it.

Canvassing is posting large amount of comments on users page asking them to support your opinion to influence an outcome.

I simply asked one individual for their interpretation or understanding of what an opinion piece is. The posting was limited and the message had a reasonable amount of neutrality to it.The user I asked has disagreed with me before on multiple occasions and wouldn't be considered particularly partisan. This entirely follows the rules of notifying other editors. Basedosaurus (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Basedosaurus: I removed it only because I noticed that, unless you have abandoned an old account, you are a relatively new editor, and I do not wish to Wp:BITE a newcomer, as you were likely unaware of the policy around gathering wider input. As you've opted to engage here, I'll respond.

These two edits that I referred to in my comment are not appropriate notifications, and fall foul of the canvassing policy. The description of canvassing you've given above does not reflect how we define canvassing on this website; we use a wider definition. There is a list of appropriate notifications and a non-exhaustive list of inappropriate notifications in the canvassing guideline. Your messages were nowhere close to neutral. Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner, as your notifications did, is contrary to the behavioural guideline. I recommend getting acquainted with the bulk of the conduct guides, particularly WP:CONSENSUS. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm about to break 3RR (if I haven't already) at Pound sterling, with an IP editor who seems largely to know what they are doing but seems to be a traditionalist and very insistent. For the long version, see talk:Pound sterling#STG abbreviation. It may be that it is I who am in the wrong. Administrator oversight would be timely if you would, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: I'm not in a position to help; holding no such power. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How strange! It must be your regal bearing! . --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: Just because I think your username is witty does not mean you can ignore the very important rules. If you out me like this again I will fucking report you (I may not be an admin but I have a direct line to Adam Weishaupt). I also have contacts in the Stonecutters. We can have you personally revdeleted... forever. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too late! By your incautious editing, you have revealed your true lizardman origins and Sea Org is now on your trail. You can run but you can't hide for a billion years. They will be waiting for you at your secret spaceport or your gateway to the forbidden dimension. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are you redirecting articles like this one? If you think the Scientology topics shouldn't be stand-alone articles, then you need to get a consensus before removing all of this content. APK whisper in my ear 19:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would you remove a template link to a FA? APK whisper in my ear 19:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@APK: It’s appropriate to Boldly implement long-overdue changes. Fourteen years top-tagged with severe sourcing problems, clear lack of SIGCOV, and obvious replication of the organization's promotional material in wikivoice, with essentially zero effort to improve them and no available SIGCOV in secondary sources. Do you have any actual reasons for opposing these changes – ie. reasons to retain the promo content, not just admonishments to gain consensus. I see you've made no effort and have no apparent interest in making the articles into appropriate content (there is no way to do so). Can we just confirm that you're not looking to advocate for the organization or the cult members, when you restored fourteen-year-old promotional material as wikitext? Cambial — foliar❧ 05:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would you restore a double redirect to a template? Please look at the changes you are making rather than mass reverting. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirecting a highly viewed article that was started 20 years ago without a good reason is not bold, it's perplexing to say the least. You're using the template excuse but what about L. Ron Hubbard House that you redirected without a reason? After I restored it you slapped on templates which I'm removing. There are sufficient sources and it was on the Main Page in 2009 as a DYK so obviously it met notability requirements. Why did you remove a FA from the Scientology template? You're accusing me of having no interest in these articles and implying I'm here to advocate Scientology propaganda. Is that how you deal with everyone here you have a disagreement with? Attack and accuse? If someone edits Fascism does that mean they're a fascist? APK whisper in my ear 22:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since there's been no response, I assume you're done engaging regarding List of Scientologists or other issues. If you think the article should not exist, nominate it for deletion. I'm restoring the page. APK whisper in my ear 07:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

there was no response because nothing in your comment merited a response. The reasons are clear; you’ve offered nothing whatsoever to counter them. I don’t know what a “template excuse” is, but articles which would largely cease to exist were the primary-sourced material removed should be redirected to an article that covers the subject and that does meet GNG. Your ramblings about fascism (?) are not relevant and there was and is no reason to respond to them. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The other thing I would tell you about LISTN, though, Cambial, is that it only mentions that the "group" or "set" itself must be notable, not that a "List of X" is notable. And I think you would be hard pressed to argue that "scientologists" as a group are not notable. There are certainly plenty of sources demonstrating the notability of Scientology and its adherents. I'm bringing that part of the discussion here because you're right, ANI is not the proper place for it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the group or set. We have an article for the set of beliefs called Scientology, and we have an article about the business/institution Church of Scientology. Neither is the same as identifying "Scientologists" as a notable group. But this is not the proper place either; that would be the discussion I've opened at article talk. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC) @Shibbolethink: - ping added. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not edit the header I used to describe my talkpage topic, especially not to replace it with a misleading one that does not cover the topic I actually raised. CMD (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please follow WP:TALKHEADPOV. Thanks Cambial — foliar❧ 02:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is already in line with such, as well as the bullet immediately preceding this. CMD (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it isn’t. It’s not neutral. You claim OR, you produce no evidence of it. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The evidence was provided in the discussion. You yourself removed some of the OR. CMD (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've raised multiple other sections of the article in the discussion, and the vast majority of what you claimed was original research was fully supported by the academic content. The bulk of the discussion (>85%) is about war crimes. It's fully supported by the paper, written by a specialist in the field, which was already referenced. I am not tied to any specific title heading, as you can see from my edits. I do not see why you wish to avoid a title which is specific to the page section or content under discussion: you have reverted "Lead" which is the clearest for editors to understand what the section is about. You have reverted "Alleged Original Research" - not ideal as it gives no information about the topic, but you seem to wish to include reference to OR in the title: this is at least neutral. I don't think it's very useful for indicating to joining editors what the topic is but you reverted other suggestions. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The topic raised was the large amount of OR added by a sockpuppet, and it was not supported by any content. The new (current) text is supported because you found actually relevant sources and wrote information from them. Reaching that was a long process, but it was a productive conclusion to the topic raised, as the Sockpuppet OR was either fixed or removed. I am perplexed as to how this has reemerged as an issue. (As for the suggestion of "Lead", I point again to the diff I specifically linked in my comment above, which is emphatically not part of the lead.) CMD (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough, you say "Lead" is not appropriate, I've not suggested that a second time, and have sought a different neutral heading. You could have done the same. Your blanket reversions to all other attempts at finding a neutral compromise are not helpful or appropriate. I have no issue with you creating a heading which is neutral and which you think appropriate, if my suggestions do not fit your concerns. Presuming all the content under discussion is original research, as your original heading does, is not neutral.Cambial — foliar❧ 03:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The topic I raised was the OR added by the sockpuppet. There is no neutrality issue in describing OR as OR. It was OR to the extent it literally included deliberately fake sources (I again point to the diff as an example), and to the point where you had to find new sources for the topics relating to the content which you did not remove, and these new sources necessitated changes to the text so as to actually reflect the new sources. CMD (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that was the title you used, I'm aware of that. Much of what you then went on to discuss was in fact not OR at all, but was supported by the Siver article or by Newsinger or the Asli article already referenced. To resolve this, would you be happy if the text after "CMD (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2022 ", which pretty much entirely discusses exclusively one issue, was separated off into a new section - "Geneva Conventions". The text above it to be restored to your original title? Cambial — foliar❧ 03:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate this reframing, but the split doesn't make sense as the very last comment in the discussion, which I made on 10:10, 23 February 2022, was still on the topic of the unsupported sockpuppet OR. This was only resolved later, when I removed the remaining probably fake sources and used a cn to separate the unsourced text out, and you later added actual sources (and changed the source I left to boot!). My comment prior to that final comment (01:49, 23 February 2022) was also about these sock sources, as does my comment three before that (09:56, 18 February 2022) and prior. Out of the 8 comments I left, only 2 were specifically about the Geneva Conventions, which was at the time an unexpected derailment from the topic at hand. CMD (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In what sense was it an unexpected derailment? It was content you removed, claiming it was original research, and then opened a talk section, explicitly claiming in your comment that all the material you removed was original research. It was not perfect e.g. some of the citation placement was not exact (Siver citation a sentence late, but the topic it discussed was v. obvious) and not quite exactly rendered (a Newsinger page number was out - p. 52 instead of the correct p. 50). You said it was OR. Much of it was nothing of the sort, and several of the citations used are the same ones in the article now. Inviting talk page discussion on the basis of all the material being OR, when much was not, is not a neutral opening heading. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The citations are the ones used in the article now, because they were just copies of citations already in the article. The Siver was just copied from elsewhere in the article, as were most of the others. Following your fixes, only one of the apparent citations I removed remains in place (Newsinger 2013 p.220, which I can't check, although a snippet search of the 2006 mention finds nothing for Agent Orange there so that seems suspect too). Newsinger p.52 was not added or removed in the edit, so I'm not sure why you're raising that, and Newsinger p.50 is not in use so if you have access and can fix that now please do so. CMD (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Siver source, which you refer to in five of your comments because it forms most of the discussion, supports the text. It’s good that there is a larger work in which it is included. You’ve pointed to nothing that suggests otherwise, nor could you. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you yourself pointed out earlier, the Siver source was not attached to the current text it is now attached to. It has been removed from its erroneous use, along with the other fake sourcing. Why woudl I point to a current failure or a larger work? You fixed a lot of the fake sourcing, you should take credit for that rather than whatever is going on here. CMD (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Siver source was not quite in the right place. In that case, which is what the long discussion was about, there was no “fake sourcing” other than that which occurred in your imagination, presumably a product of the zeal and unfortunate accompanying carelessness with which you pursued the removal of other sources which were misused. As to whatever is going on here, you opened a discussion on my talk page; if you were hoping I would not respond, that was a suboptimal course of action. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Talk:Robert Fisk, your lack of a timestamp on your last comment in the section about Katerji has made my plugins (and the default edit engine) very confused about which one of us made that comment. Please fix it, thank you! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weird: signature intact; no timestamp. Fixed. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's what happens when you put 3 ~s instead of 4. If you put 5, you get the timestamp only. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did not know that thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Cambial Yellowing:, I have restored the article back to a redirect after page review. More than 90% of the article is unsourced; that is unacceptable in an article in mainspace. I've no choice but to redirect it. I've asked for page protection. scope_creep^Talk 14:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cyber Anakin § A mountain out of molehill?. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right of course. However: A piece of advice I was given on another AN/I thread... Walls of text discourage administrator action. Which is quite possibly why he does it. In any event, I do not claim to know the answer to the questions about refactoring, but I think you have established a pattern of behavior. At this point it may be best to refrain from answering every post, although that last one did cry out for it and I was considering doing so myself.

Elinruby (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elinruby: I LOVE kittens! Imagine my distress, having seen your subject heading, upon coming here and finding that it is not a kitten after all. If I send you my address will you please send me a kitten to correct this regretful happenstance? UPS are totally into it. Thank you for the advice, and I know the thought was there about the kitten. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mmmm pretty sure the kitten would not survive the portages ;) I could send you a picture of my cat, though. 11:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If 2022 annexations are not included we must do the same for Crimea. Panam2014 (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Scottish independence into Potential breakup of the United Kingdom. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not ever remove another users comments without good reason. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Slatersteven: Huh? I restored Softlemonades' comments that were removed inadvertently in an edit conflict three minutes later. Even before you posted here! :) Cambial — foliar❧ 16:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You also removed my comment, as part of that process. Please take more care, and rather than create edit conflicts start from scratch, as I now try to do. For the same reason, warnings about removing user's comments through the careless over use of edit conflicts. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Slatersteven: Oops! Also accidental. You are completely right, and as a general rule I do the same thing, because the edit conflict feature almost *never* works at just right. I should have stuck to that way of doing it and copied and pasted to start from scratch. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) Some friendly advice for both of you. I've found that the reply tool has a far lower chance of creating edit conflicts than the traditional visual or source editing. It has a pretty nifty feature of alerting you whenever a talk page section you're replying to gets updated while typing your reply, and can seamlessly reload the discussion while keeping a copy of your draft reply.

My only recommendations when using it are to stick with the Source mode of it, because the Visual mode has this annoying tendency to insert nowiki tags whenever you try to manually add a template, and that whenever you want to use ((od)) you have to fall back to the older section edit source method as for some reason the reply tool will just not gracefully handle inserting outdents into replies. Aside from that, it's pretty solid now and I can't remember the last time I've had an issue with using it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To give an example of how gracefully it handles edit conflicts, it seems as though both Cambial and myself hit save at approximately the same time, but before I got the alert saying there was a new reply. Despite that, neither Cambial's comment nor the minor correction Slatersteven made were lost when replying :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, and it auto-inserts the four ~ signatures, so you don't get accidental three or five ~ signatures, like Slater's reply just below this :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough, well all (I did) make mistakes. 16:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: You accidentally put the wrong number of tildes after the sentence we all make mistakes so it didn't sign properly. I only know this because someone pointed it out to me just a few posts above after I did the same thing. I award you the barnstar of meta- irony! 😃 Cambial — foliar❧ 16:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After doing hours of painstaking independent research into the release date of Garlands by Cocteau Twins (convinced that the date in my own database was wrong), I found the sources you'd already added to this Wikipedia article. I'm sure you're already aware of how infrequently release dates (particularly for albums whose releases predate the Internet) lack citations. To see those already in place was very pleasing. Cheers! alainsane (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a contentious topic. 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.

-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Mellk (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding this edit at Twelve Tribes Communities, keep in mind that newspaper articles from many newspapers pre 21st century are not usually readily available through google or other simple searches. All three citations you removed were Boston Globe articles and were verifiable by a search of the newspaper. If you don't have access to the tools to verify a newspaper article, then don't just remove it simply because you can't google it. Tag them as needing verification. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All three are available as image scans of the original newspaper through Newspapers.com via the Wikipedia Library. Grorp (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC) (talk page watcher)Reply[reply]

Hi thanks for your interest in and edits to the Twelve Tribes article. I’ve noticed a particular user there seems to be quite protective of that article. Do you think something is afoot?

Thanks 160.20.230.23 (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's rather overstepping to consider this man not a RS in New Religious Movements, https://yorksj.academia.edu/GeorgeChryssides and his publications here. https://www.academia.edu/44807757/Chryssides_list_of_publications. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Littleolive oil: It looks like he’s a junior academic (not even full faculty) at a low-ranked institution. But that’s beside the point.

Reliability takes account of several factors, including the publisher, editor etc. If this individual has been published by serious, reputable, peer-reviewed academic journals, feel free to cite such output. WP:RSP#CESNUR is not anything like that; it’s an apologist organisation for cults, with a poor reputation for reliable and accurate reporting of the facts. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chryssides is a recognized world expert in this field. He is not in any way a jr academic given that he is a research fellow and was what would be considered in the US a department head or chair, who graduated with a PhD from one of the most prestigious universities in the world. Department heads are faculty and in fact, head all other faculty in that discipline. He is extensively published. I suggest you check out the link I posted to his publications. This man could write on the side if a barn and it could be considered reliable. I am very familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines including the one in place for unexpected circumstances- ignore all rules. Probably this ref has remained in place because the writer is recognized and while this publication might be close to the side of a barn the writer is a highly reliable source. We can argue as to whether we can include a poor publication when the writer is recognized as expert in the field, but we cannot argue against these kinds of credentials. I have very little time to edit these days; if I do have time I will replace the source. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Littleolive oil: I’m glad to hear of your great expertise in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I myself was unfamiliar with the one about the sides of barns. A point of clarification: expertise sometimes applies to allow for self-published sources, but does not mean we can use generally unreliable poor-quality publications that distort facts for their client cults. Given your deep familiarity, you will know that WP:IAR applies only if an edit were to improve Wikipedia. Adding scurrilous unreliable sources is not an improvement. You’ll also no doubt be conversant with the policy about WP:CONSENSUS. If you intend to restore a publication that site-wide consensus has determined to be unreliable, remember to overturn that community consensus first, so that you don’t end up editing against consensus. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am suggesting replacing the source not readding the contested one. Like many long time editors yes, I have a working knowledge of policy and guidelines. What I do have is expertise in contentious situations. I will if time allows and as I suggested, try to find another less contentious source. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On rereading the article and this edit, I don't see that adding Chryssides matters a great deal, so for now, I'll leave him out. Please feel free to add a more reliable Chryssides source if you think it's necessary.Littleolive oil (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Aphex Twin, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, one of the guys from Turning Point UK messaged me (told him I am editing their stuff, didn't edit on their behalf) and says he actually preferred your intro as he would rather TPUK be 'linked to according to experts' than 'described variously as' far right. Given that, happy for you to revert my edits to the intro (not the ones to the body of the text!) It's a bit of a choice but for some reason they think 'linked to GI according to an expert' makes them look better than what I wrote! PompeyTheGreat (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit to Danny Masterson has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you know if the English wiki accepts fair use?, I would greatly appreciate the help. I have a problem with images from copyright free sites that have use restrictions or for other reasons do not come Creative Commons ChefBear01 (talk) ChefBear01 (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ChefBear01: If you have questions about copyright you should direct them to editor and admin Diannaa. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing, Ok thank you for your assistance. ChefBear01 (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need help with fixing the previous redirects to the current article name Food and drink industry in England, please could you advise me as to anyone who could help it would be greatly appreciated.ChefBear01 (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Talk:Auditing (Scientology). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that there are two evasive sockpuppet accounts making edits on the Economy of England article User:Adamjen2 and User:Englandsupport4 possibly by the same main account and I need assistance.ChefBear01 (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I filed a report at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, User:Englandsupport4 had the same one character user page as another editor that is confirmed to be a sockpuppet but they have now edited and removed it, they stopped editing and a and other account only days old User:Adamjen2 started make edits on the same article Economy of England which is why I suspected they may both be WP:SOCK of User:Lam312321321, there is a long term issue as they have shown that they will continue to make sock account and interrupt and cause disruption on articles. ChefBear01 (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Cambial Yellowing, as described at the bottom of the recent edit-warring noticeboard discussion, I have removed some examples of unproductive remarks by all mentioned editors in Special:Diff/1194995281. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you about the IP edits. Be careful not to repeatedly revert, though, as you run the risk of being blocked under WP:3RR. ~~ MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MichaelMaggs: Thanks Michael. Note that reverting blocked users is the oldest and most well-established exception to 3RR. Nevertheless, I'm in the process of requesting page protection. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great. You just beat me to it! MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MichaelMaggs: Oh sorry if I wasted what you had already prepped! I will be grateful if you will add anything relevant there that I have missed. ✌🏻 Cambial — foliar❧ 11:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was going to do it later today, so nothing wasted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]