Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

– bradv🍁 05:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kees de Jager, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 29 May 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Kees de Jager, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Diff, as I know I'm awarding this to myself)

17:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

On 2 June 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Hodge (engineer), which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 2 June 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article IRIS Kharg, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Mjroots (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 7 June 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article David Dushman, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

On 8 June 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article ANOM sting operation, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

15:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

16:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

17:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of one week for violating the 3 revert rule. But it's not just the edit warring. You need to familiarize yourself with what vandalism is not, because calling a good faith edit vandalism is a personal attack. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 23:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Uses x (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Complete details below. I was the first to be reverted, I was the first to have 3 reverts against me, I was the one who was insulted and attacked. I stopped reverting the edits after other editors agreed I need to seek consensus for the future, and went towards improving the article after that. Meaningless campaign statements "he would be throwing the kitchen" at his campaign" don't belong in the list of candidates, and there's precedent to not include realtime election info beyond results (take a look at my user page. I'm well aware of the rules around editing current events). As for the "vandalism" revert, agree with you; I didn't check the edit history and without trying to remember the details of it I it was someone trying to advertise a candidate (it's a current election on a page with thousands of views a day) so I immediately reverted it. If I were targeting that editor I would've used undo or RedWarn - I edited it from the page itself without looking at the history. I would like an uninvolved admin to weigh in on this, as I know El_C watches the relevant editor's talk page, and so, is involved in this.

Accept reason:

this block would have been legitimate IF the other party to the edit war had also been blocked. Since they weren't, I'm removing this block, although it looks like you've left. I hope that is not the case. Floquenbeam (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a very simple matter and I shouldn't have had to get to this point because I wanted to remove two citations and prevent WP:OVERCITE, but here it is. The issue isn't with keeping the citations themselves, but the constant reversions when I'm attempting to improve the article; I had no doubt that this will continue into the future if I left this alone.

This began with the design of the WP:VisualEditor in which it removes spaces before the pipes (|) in citations, where there's no rule to have the spaces, after which the user pinged me in the edit summary (Diff) "restore spaces before cite parameters to improve usability. @User:Uses x, please stop removing them". I engaged with the user on their talk page (Diff), explaining it was a feature of the VisualEditor, and later stated that it is not a rule and so I'm not required to scrub through the source to correct that. That matter seems to now be resolved with a request from the editor stating "but please can you try to avoid it in future".

After that, I tried making edits to the article, as I've regularly done for the past 3 months, to improve the citation work of the article; I removed an opinion piece which makes a passing mention of the information that's covered in-depth in the other citation, and another from an old article which states the candidate is expected to be elected which was used to reference text confirming their selection. (I now realise this had a small bit of information stating they had run before, covered in multiple other citations. I later replaced that with a citation already in the article instead - reverted). That entire edit was reverted by the user, without leaving me any kind of talk page message or seeking any kind of consensus. (Diff)

I then left a second comment on the user's talk page, stating the above. Among the replies from the editor were I will now have to waste time going back to it, and identifying that issue. I wish you would stop making more work for others., and It's not me that's making a problem. The problem is you .... (Discussion). I couldn't seek resolution on this matter.

I again tried to make the changes again, to appease the editor instead replacing the citation with another in the article (Diff) as apparently multiple citations are needed to say "yes, the candidate is running", which is stated in near every article anyway - reverted. I tried removing the opinion piece again after I confirmed it doesn't back up information that's not already stated elsewhere - reverted. (Diff)

Through all this, I sought discussion on their talk page, and the talk page of the article. (Diff). They did not leave me any message throughout any of the reverts that wasn't a reply to those. After they continued the reverts, I left a 3 edit revert warning on their talk page (after 6 reverts) and they still continued the reverts. (Discussion)

Their entire reasoning for keeping one article is because a minor candidate said they'd be "throwing the kitchen" at their campaign [26] (Comment saying this was the reasoning) was apparently was essential to add after this issue came about and apparently couldn't have been added after I made my changes, and because there might be useful information in the other (there's not). They also suggested they can be removed later once the flurry of media coverage has subsided, when there's very little media coverage (it's a by-election), and the articles I tried to remove are outdated and contain no other useful information.

Regards, Uses x (leave me a message) 23:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uses x, I am very much uninvolved, both with the article and the disputants (you two). It doesn't matter if BHG's talk page is on my (+100,000) watchlist —yours is too, btw— but at the event, I haven't used my watchlist in many months now. I happened on your dispute by happenstance. Anyway, the WP:3RR bright line rule is set at 4 (which you have reached and BHG did not), not 3. I'm sorry to say, but when you issue someone the uw-3rr warning, you are expected know about, well, 3rr. In any case, I recommend you review WP:GAB, because, in my view, your unblock request falters in a number of ways (not least of which being its length). Best not to expend time and energy for naught. El_C 23:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@El C I have 6 messages in my email inbox informing me of direct reverts by BHG. In most of her edits, BHG made manual reverts. They're not undos, but they revert what I added. Please re-count this figure. Uses x (leave me a message) 00:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, I miscounted (didn't scroll down enough — you two edited a lot today!). So, that's 7 reverts for you and 6 for her. Not good. But, again, it isn't just about breaking 3RR. For example, when BHG pointed out WP:NOTVAND to you in response to your vandalism accusation (again, a personal attack), you responded with fine. I don't like that. Too much WP:BATTLEGROUND for me. El_C 00:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@El C: I will now have to waste time going back to it, and identifying that issue. I wish you would stop making more work for others., and It's not me that's making a problem. The problem is you ...}. As well as that, I only began the large amount of reverts after I had already sought discussion on their talk page and in the article talk page. So, we both violated 3RR, we both made "personal attacks", so where's BHG's topic ban? Uses x (leave me a message) 00:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@El C Seriously, please make that topic ban. She's now adding odds from gambling companies to the article. Most of my contributions on Wikipedia are on current events, I know what I was doing. Uses x (leave me a message) 00:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) Uses x, it's a partial block (WP:PB), not a topic ban (WP:TBAN). You can still use the article talk page. About "the problem is you": it may be uncivil, but I'm not sure it really rises to the level of a personal attack outright (also, there's no diff, so I don't know how that passage continues beyond your ellipsis).

Anyway, I'm not gonna block BHG now, because now that the edit war is done, it'd be punitive rather than preventative, per WP:NOTPUNITIVE (though from your standpoint, I can understand why you'd want that to happen for the sakes of parity).

The thing about you seeking to have this partial block lifted is that there's no indication the edit warring wouldn't resume if that were to happen. Which really is the alpha and omega of GAB. That said, any admin should feel free to lift/adjust my block as they see fit. I need not be consulted or even notified. El_C 00:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uses x, that's a content matter which you may raise on the article talk page, or maybe WP:RSN. El_C 00:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@El C Thank you. I think we've all wasted enough time on this as is, so I'll leave the project on that; if an editor is effectively advertising a gambling company in the lead of the article, putting campaign material for a candidate where it doesn't belong, and being the first to start any reverts and incivility, and your first thought isn't "this needs to be stopped" with you reverting them yourself, please delete and revdel:

• User:Uses x and edits where possible.
• User:Uses x/To do and edits
• This identity commitment

I can confirm that, yes, in a week or beyond I would remove those gambling odds and that campaign material. On that basis, please issue me a sitewide indefinite ban. Uses x (leave me a message) 01:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uses x, I'd really rather not. You are prevented from editing one article (and may still participate on its talk page), it's pretty much the mildest sanction there is. As for the content dispute, it's inappropriate for me to involve myself with it at this juncture. Also, did you know that you can hide text (WP:HIDDEN)? It was possible to have stopped the contested cites from being displayed, but still have them remain on the page (as hidden text). Hindsight, foresight — insight! El_C 01:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand the request, both rev ID's point to the same diff (which I didn't even think was possible). If you do still have access to this account, please explain. Also, isn't the "personal info" hashed so no one can decode it? I don't understand. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I understand, it is not possible to reverse engineer the string you chose using the hash, so there is no privacy reason to revdel any versions. If this meant revdel'ing a handful of versions, I'd probably do it anyway using IAR just as a courtesy. But that's a lot of versions, including altering some previous comments, and I don't think I can justify using IAR when there is no actual privacy benefit. The template itself is kind of misused, too, so I've removed it. Let me know (via email if you prefer) if I'm misunderstanding something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m sorry that a misunderstanding and a dispute has caused you to leave. I hope you can come back, your contributions are valued and appreciated. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 22:55, 9 July 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) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 14 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at the 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election, voters were asked to bring their own pen or pencil? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Dublin Bay South by-election. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Precious

One year!

Precious anniversary

We miss you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]