Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Undid your reversion because it appears to have been performed in error—the passage in question concerns Andrew Jackson, not John C. Calhoun.

The article Disappearance of Lars Mittank you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Disappearance of Lars Mittank for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llewee -- Llewee (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Disappearance of Lars Mittank you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Disappearance of Lars Mittank for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llewee -- Llewee (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FinnV3 (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm FinnV3. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. FinnV3 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FinnV3, you have some nerve to call that uncivil after making this comment. Display name 99 (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify this for me, please. You are probably right but I don't recall making an entry that is unsupported by its content. Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd, you added content to the John Adams and Thomas Jefferson articles without mentioning its source. All content on Wikipedia articles, aside from the lead section, must have citations. Additionally, I felt that the mentions were not notable. Important figures like these men have been mentioned innumerable times, and it would be immeasurably tedious to try to chronicle each one. The poem didn't seem important enough even if there was a citation. Display name 99 (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I must say you are wrong on two counts at least. One, the sources were given directly by links to the poems themselves, which are on Wikisource. No stronger citation exists on any entry. Two, they were written contemporaneously with the deaths of the two statesmen and in response thereto by a major American poet. Both died in 1826 and I did cite that they were published in 1827. Esme Shepherd (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd, that's not how it works. Content on Wikimedia articles can link to each other, but those articles aren't sources. There has to be a citation for everything. See WP:Verifiability. No, you did not cite that they were published in 1827. You wrote it in the article but provided no source for that or anything else. So what if they were written contemporaneously with their deaths? Do you have any idea how many other obituaries and poems must have been written for them? Just because a primary source exists doesn't mean that it's notable. See WP:SUSTAINED. If an event happens and is not widely talked about afterwards, it's not notable to discuss on Wikipedia. If these were very famous poems that were frequently referenced after they were published and a very wide number of Americans read them, we could include them. However, I'm not seeing any evidence to suggest that's the case here. Display name 99 (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I accept some of your points, although I was not referencing a Wikipedia article as you state but linking to a source document in Wikisource, which actually includes on its title page the date of publication, title, author, publisher, etc. There does seem to much out there that falls foul of your stipulations. For instance, in the Frédéric Chopin article under literature it is stated 'The earliest manifestation was probably an 1830 sonnet on Chopin by Leon Ulrich.' It is extremely unlikely that this sonnet was any more widely read or talked about than the poems that I referenced and there is certainly no link to source here. There will be thousands of similar instances. Anyway, you are the arbiter, so I must accept your judgment. Esme Shepherd (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd, thank you for your response, but there are a few things that I need to correct.

• I said Wikimedia, not Wikipedia. With an m, not a p. Wikimedia includes all Wiki projects, including both Wikipedia and Wikisource.
• For the Chopin article, that says that he was featured extensively in literature. If that's the case, it may be appropriate to mention the first instance. Adams however has not featured extensively in fictional literature.
• I'm not an arbiter. True, I'm the main contributor to the article, but editors don't own articles on Wikipedia, so you are still able to contest my actions if you wish. Display name 99 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry about the confusion. Only you stated I gave no source when quite obviously I did. I quite happy to accept your decision. Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd, thank you for your acquiescence, what you have said is false. You provided no source. Do not blame me for your sloppiness. Display name 99 (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all I can say is, I do not know what you mean. I did at least provide, as I mentioned: the date of publication, publisher, author, title of volume, all in the original, as published. Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd, mentioning information about the publication in the text of an article is not a source. A source is a citation. That's it. Display name 99 (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to understand that what I gave was not information about a publication but that very publication itself. Esme Shepherd (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to understand, or refuse to accept, basic Wikipedia practice of citing all sources in citations. I skimmed your edit history and you are not a new editor, which makes this rather alarming. Display name 99 (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Andrew Jackson for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FinnV3 (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you and I disagree on a lot of things regarding the article, we may even disagree on a lot of things in life in general but you are not my enemy in any way. I am not in a hurry to get anything done on that article. As @SandyGeorgia pointed out, think long term. Wikipedia is a marathon, not a sprint. I know the atmosphere has been charged around the article lately and its primarily due to very passionate positions, such as mine. I am a principled person but I am also empathetic and I understand you have put in a lot of hard work and continue to do so trying to find a solution. I know you have experienced stress surrounding the discussion. Everything is going to be okay. Nothing has to happen today or tomorrow. It may not happen for years. The point is to have the discussion and continue open dialogue about it. I appreciate you and your contributions to the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf 13:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ARoseWolf, thank you for the message. It's appreciated. I don't see you as an enemy either and appreciate your interest in trying to improve the article. Display name 99 (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too late to auto-revert, but consider a self-revert of bibliography year-to-date changes incorporating your proceeding minor change, as per CS1 documentation: "year: Year of source being referenced. The usage of this parameter is discouraged; use the more flexible |date= parameter instead unless both of the following conditions are met: 1. The |date= format is YYYY-MM-DD. 2. The citation requires a CITEREF disambiguator." It's not a change to citation style per MOS, as it's a change to the template source per documentation which doesn't change the style or functionality itself. If it's not changed here it will be changed by bots at some point in the future. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SamuelRiv, I copy directly from Template:Citebook. That template has date instead of year. I see no reason to alter it. I undid the change because it appeared no explanation was provided. So long as the default template of "cite book" uses "date," I think that it is fine to add that to the article. I've used "date" on citations for years on articles that I've edited, and it seems no bot has changed them yet. Display name 99 (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm color-blind apparently and got your revision inverted. Date is the correct field. Disregard and/or delete. Sorry. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt your edit summary There is an active discussion on the talk page. Please propose changes there rather than making them directly to the article: Please respond to my contributions on the talk page, made just before and after my edit on the article. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yopienso, please see my post there. The editor who removed the content before you came was in the wrong; disputed content should remain until there is a resolution. Display name 99 (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for disruptive editing, including a perennial lack of WP:CIVIL conduct, edit warring and WP:BLUDGEONING (even at WP:ANI). Enough is enough. Even at a glance, you're approaching the article and talk page with undue entitlement and combativeness, and an overall uncollaborative approach. Assurances from you that this will be corrected is necessary in order to see this block lifted. BTW, I want to preemptively ask that you appeal and otherwise engage the matter here (WP:PING if needed) or at ANI, rather than on my talk page (I say that because that's what usually happens with p-blocks).

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  El_C 15:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Display name 99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I can't get the point when my nobody has explained to me my supposed history of combative behavior at those pages. So far all we have is one slightly uncivil comment to an editor after that editor had been wreaking havoc on parts of discussion on the talk page for weeks. That doesn't seem like enough to warrant an indefinite block from the talk page or its associated article. (To any reviewing admin: Please see my first unblock request for appropriate diffs. I was blocked initially after filing an ANI complaint against an editor over a dispute at Talk:Andrew Jackson. Complaints were made about the length and tone of my ANI post, and I was then blocked indefinitely from the Jackson talk page and the article itself despite no specific examples of misconduct being levied against me there. Only one example of an uncivil comment was mentioned later by the blocking admin, which to me does not justify an indefinite block on that talk page or the article. A few days maximum, if that.) Display name 99 (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I haven't discussed El C's original reasoning for the block with him, but here's what I noticed. According to WP:Editing_restrictions, the topic ban from post-1992 American politics, which you agreed to as an unblock condition last time around, is still in effect. Setting aside the sarcastic personal comments you directed towards Cmguy777, you also wound up breaching your topic ban more than once. For example: being conservative doesn't make it non-mainstream. A recent U.S. president lauded Jackson and moved a portrait of him into a prominent place in the Oval office. Trumpism is a mainstream political philosophy espoused by millions of its Americans, and its leader, who occupied the White House for four years recently and may attempt to regain his position in 2024, is an admirer of Jackson. That is a major indicator that it is still within the mainstream to have a favorable view of Jackson. This isn't borderline, it is very obviously about immediately current US politics, and as such is a blatant breach of your ban. Until such time as that topic ban is lifted, you need to stay away from articles like this, or you need to carefully restrict yourself to the historical aspects, and stay a long way away from what recent politicians think about the subjects. Unblock request declined. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(talk page watcher) Display name 99, I'm thinking you should quit while you're behind. You've been indeffed twice. In 2015, you were given a "second chance" before you were indeffed again. Many admins would call that done - indef period. I'm thinking it's a decent chance that any reviewing admin might change this specific block to a broader, [perhaps well-earned] indef block. You're wasting a ton of everyone's time at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1, I fail to see how. I have asked many times for specific examples of misconduct by me on the pages from which I've been blocked. I received belatedly only one example of an uncivil comment made against an editor who was consistently obnoxious and disruptive. This, in my mind, is not even close to a good enough reason to block me from these articles. Multiple examples of gross misconduct are needed. They have not been provided. Display name 99 (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about this, from your own talk page archive? If you recall it was based on your comments in this discussion on Trump.[1][2][3] It would seem that the part where [you were] supposed to give a damn has long since passed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? An incident at an unrelated page from almost two years ago has nothing to do with the current issue. Display name 99 (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it shows that your attitude and behaviour have not really changed in two years, so the current issue should not really have come as a surprise to anybody, least of all you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for any reviewing admin

For any reviewing admin, this might be a relevant read, along with the mess above it. Toddst1 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps this one, in which an administrator rejected your vengeful and wildly inappropriate suggestion that my talk page access be blocked and unblocked me. Display name 99 (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear - you were only unblocked because you (reluctantly) agreed to stay away from the topics that caused your block in the first place... Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. And I have. Your point? Display name 99 (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point is that your unblock from the admin was unrelated to the suggested blocking of your talk page by an editor, so what's your point in bringing it up? Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]