User talk:Aquillion

Please see my comments at talk:moral panic. I'm writing this here since I don't know if you watch that page or not, and I didn't ping you there. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  11:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I like when someone, in one sentence, encapsulates an incredibly difficult WP policy point. So thanks for posting "politicians or people from think-tanks calling their opponents 'fascists' doesn't belong on Fascism, because we recognize that as a rhetorical device and unlikely to to reflect any sort of political-science consensus" on the talk page for Moral panic. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how well these ping things work nowadays, so here I am to mention that I have responded to you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Aquillion,
On Talk:Gamergate controversy, I see you refer to Sexism in the circuitry: female participation in male-dominated popular computer culture by Heron, Belford & Goker but as far as I can see in the talk page archives, only selective quotes have been offered and the entire article is not available. Do you know of an online location where the entire article can be read in order to see the the context of the quotes? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Liz: The lead author has uploaded it here. — Strongjam (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Strongjam, that's exactly what I was looking for! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you had some comments on the Bill Cosby talk page and was hoping you could help us resolve an issue. Please see the section titled "Discussion: Should the lead sentence mention the sexual assault accusations?". Thanks! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This thread is forum shopping and IDHT behavior. Hamster totally reordered talk page sections, placing them in opposite order and thus changing the meaning and progression. They also changed headings made by others, and also created an improperly formed RfC to hijack the discussion. All is now restored. We had a consensus until this disruption occurred. This is massive IDHT behavior, and this thread should be closed. Such behavior should not be rewarded. Hamster should be blocked for this. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 19:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Political correctness. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Campus sexual assault. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Hey, I'm just dropping you a note because you previously participated in this RfC on the Campus Sexual assault Talk page. The dispute was never really resolved, in part because of a lack of participation. I've posted a new RfC that deals with the issue, and, if you have time comments would be appreciated!

P.S.:I know this is tedious, sorry for roping you in again. Nblund (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I collapsed a discussion that you had responded to, because the individual in question was an antisemitic troll who's a regular at the refdesks. If a brand new account mentions the refdesk and Jews at the same time, feel free to just revert. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You reverted a dubious tag at Political Correctness about something the concensus is currently for changing. Next time it gets reverted I'm taking this straight to ANI. In addition you claimed it has stood there for long. As of currently it has stood there for 4 days. Before that it stood there for three months, as long as the RfC has been open about it. The RfC is now 3 months old as well. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding reason for discussion. The thread is WP:TAGTEAM, WP:YESPOV and breach of WP:CONSENSUS at Political Correctness. Thank you. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate your input on some of the recent Pinto edits and concerns that I have attempted to raise on the article talk page. Certainly getting a long time article voice might help. In 4 days the new editor has added over 150 edits! Springee (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, on the Talk for the argument from authority page, you said you didn't support the example since you were "not seeing any sources on the chromosome example that describe anyone involved as relying on an argument from authority". But now a source has been added that explicitly refers to it as an argument from authority, and which uses it as an example of a bad one. On page 40 it says "The power of argument from authority, the power of routine 'givens', and the influence of peer-group pressure are all revealed in this case" and discusses our example of how "In 1923, the eminent American zoologist Theophilus Painter pronounced that there were 24 pairs. This authoritative conclusion was repeated in...".

Would you still be opposed to the example, or would this allay your concerns and make you neutral? (Or even in support? :D) Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to have it moved. As you probably know Guzman put a completely misrepresentative quote there so to avoid edit warring I added the rest. Useful quote though I think. Doug Weller talk 05:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Mark Roosevelt page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Artw (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Jack bros Japanese boxcover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your removal of those statements because the reasons you stated don't appear to hold up. There is no question that those two people accused Puar of those things - BLP is not applicable, so I have reverted those edits of yours. However, you could argue that those two folks' opinions are represented in the article with WP:UNDO weight. Toddst1 (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussing on article talk. Toddst1 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Afternoon, I would appreciate your input to an RFC introduced by an SPA relating to the inclusion of SRS in the "Controversial Reddit communities". SPA has canvassed to overturn 3 years of consensus on a 4 day vote. Koncorde (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in discussion.

I explained on the article talk page.

That section is only for one organization's statements, not all info on all unrelated other rewards.

Hope you can understand. Sagecandor (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I would gladly self-revert, but it seems moot at this point in time. Sagecandor (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I created a separate Rewards section.

Look better ?

Sagecandor (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hope it looks better now ?

Sorry about all that.

Thanks again for your participation.

Again, my apologies and I would self-revert, but I think at this point in time it is more in line with what you were thinking with one main "Rewards" section.

Hope that's okay with you ?

Sagecandor (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

i have found links for people who have been calling themselves altleft since 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-left#The_Alt-Left_already_existed_prior_to_reinvention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-left#irl_altleft_movement https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeLeft/ https://www.facebook.com/alternativeleft/ https://altleftjournal.wordpress.com/ http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.il/2016/09/a-proposal-for-alt-left-political.html https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/liberal-race-realism-precursor-to-the-alt-left/ http://altleft.com/2015/11/14/a-clockwork-greenshirt-introducing-the-alt-left/ https://web.archive.org/web/20151119073815/http://altleft.com 110.141.68.184 (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Your amendment request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Amendment request: Eastern Europe (September 2017). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 23:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion,

I'm the IP user that worked with you on Race and genetics recently.

I want to tell you that I am very thankful for the magnanimity you displayed when we worked through our conflict. I have never had such constructive conflict anywhere else on the internet.

Best,

IP user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:8100:D8B2:3602:86FF:FE40:6AFA (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is I am literally being stalked on wiki by EdRivers56, Aquillion, and Davey2010. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Your edit restored text that was challenged via reversion without gaining consensus, in violation of the article's Consensus required Discretionary sanction. Please self-revert until consensus is reached. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you're a dork, or trying to score points. If I gave off that impression with my hat message, I am sorry- my bad. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Feldman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You were right about the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party revert. I thought that the paragraph had been in for longer than it had, so thought that the version with it in was the stable version, but it was only her 1-sentence bit that had been in for a while. Sorry about that. EddieHugh (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited White genocide conspiracy theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions for correcting my RfC concerning "Instrumentalism." But I don't see that that procedure can solve my problem. I stand accused of deleting an article identified as conforming to WP protocols, and replacing it with a new article that violates those protocols. I can only respond to those charges by showing why I find both charges in error--involving the substance and structure of legitimate articles, which you convince me is not allowed in RfCs. I suggested to my accuser that we should mediate, but he is unwilling, saying I am asking him to do original research which is forbidden. Two questions: would the mediation format allow us to debate substantive and structural issues about articles, and how can I convince my accuser to accept mediation? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You've reverted this guy's editorial on the WikiBan of a national newspaper, claiming he was obscure. On the talk page I've added a link to his most famous work: the Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone. Your logic in reverting was: "WP:UNDUE to put so much weight on a newsblog post by such an obscure figure ". I hope you are able to see what others reading the talk page will see: that this guy's observations on wiki-process during the Daily Mail ban are certainly at least as notable & weight-worthy as those of its competitor's digital reporter Jasper Jackson. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Aquillion, Happy New Year! Be brave, be prosperous, and be happy! May every day in 2019 be a good day to make edits! My best wishes be with you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 00:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

In regards to diff, the stable version for this is this (21 Jan) (this bit of info was stable since creation) which reads " Israeli exchange student", the information first added in diff. Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Race and intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James R. Flynn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I've explained on talk why the order I edited the Ideology section was important to readers, and I strongly feel this is appropriate... but at the very least you should not see it is very critical overall. We're still working on that section, and becoming petty about ordering is the least you should worry about. It is unnecessary to revert my change, spiteful, and smacks of wanting to have the last word and impose. Sometimes, its ok to just let non-harmful edits sit for a day, wait for responses on talk, and then agree on a direction. If we move back to the order I had, with the sourced self-statements (quote and "nonpartisan terms" line), neither of which we much disagree about, we can probably move the dispute tag below it in that section.

Secondly, your reversions to my edit clearly included errors on your part and untrue accusations of errors against me, saying I had made "presumably-accidental changes" but in the same edit you re-added the duplication I had fixed, which you later caught on to. You also made the mistake of re-added "consistently" which is totally inappropriate editorialization, of course, which you also had to later fix.

Third, the word "Nonetheless" is also editorializing on your part. It is a word that strongly implies that what preceded it is actually incorrect... which a subjective viewpoint with no definitive stance can't be. I don't think that's your intent, but that's what the word implies.

So, please, in good faith, self revert back to my last edit in the interest making the section order more readable, but feel free to keep the this>their change. -- Netoholic @ 06:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I have your TP watchlisted for some reason - RE this - DS alerts run out after 1 year and need to be renewed for notification to be in place. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Alerts - alert.dup. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that later. Oh man, has it been that long? I feel old. --Aquillion (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

It's sort of the standard knee-jerk response to DS alerts. They are supposed to be informational, but with the carefully crafted jargon (including "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.") they really come of as very unfriendly (as if you were handed a court summons or something). Icewhiz (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there- I realise this was from a few days ago, but I read what you wrote on the talkpage, and thought it was really good. As it looks like your suggestions seem to have got lost in the discussion, I thought to drop you a line here (apologies if it's not correct wikiettiqutte). At one point I was trying to expand the history section to introduce some of that information, but wasn't quite sure how to lay it all out. (How much under straight history, and how much under political stances/whatever you want to call it) I'm good with history, but haven't written about politics at all so far, and well as you mentioned, that's what the paper is known for, hence all the debate. After researching it seems obvious to me that the article should follow lines similar to those you started on; there is so much material out there, and its really quite interesting; seems a shame not to be able to write what could actually be a decent, informative article, using academic sources. For instance I found a great article on the early cartoonists, and how they shook up how political cartooning evolved in Australia. Not to mention all the rest of it. Would you be interested in trying? I thought perhaps trying to build a section up in a sandbox first might work. Curdle (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate on how you reached, your conclusion that Task and Purpose is a “blog”. I did some digging and weighed in on the Reliable sources. I do not concur with the assessment Task and Purpose is a blog. I think it meets the criteria for wp:rs. Certainly want to hear how you came to that conclusion. In fact the writer of the Nathan Phillips Stolen valor is listed as and editor in cheif Paul Szoldra. Can you also source the claim that Buisness Insider didn’t exert editorial oversight when they republished that story? I don’t think they did, but I can’t source either or, but assume based on my research of Task and a Purpose that they meet the journalistic standard and Buisness Week concurs. I just want to ensure we don’t have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling#Unreasonable_sourcing_demands occurring here.0pen$0urce (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, just to following up since I don’t see a reply. Made some bold claims about “Task and Purpose”. Can you source these claims, because at this juncture seems subjective and POV. Here’s 2 sources that rebut your unsubstantiated blog claims. Furthermore proclaiming a blog and spouting BLP repeatedly create a perception that your intentions may not be NPOV. Again scrutinizing sources is great, until it enters the threshold status quo stonewalling. https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/news-opinion/the-far-right-is-attacking-task-purpose-a-popular-military-website

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/a-popular-military-website-is-attacked-from-the-right/567598/0pen$0urce (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Just a friendly note about this edit, since I had just recently copyedited the comma back in. When writing the full month-day-year, American English style, a comma should be placed after both the day and the year (thought the first link does acknowledge that there is one major grammar source which has opined it is unnecessary when used as an adjective). Grandpallama (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This is the source of his claim she was laughing at male suicide. ^[1]

A more charitable interpretation is that she was visibly and audibly laughing at the idea of a MP wanting to discuss male issues like elevated level of suicide and prostrate cancer in Parliament. But by no means groundless, possible less than charitable an interpretation at best.

He has stated many times this exchange is the reason for his dislike of her and for his opinion of her laughing at male suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vingthorr (talk • contribs) 06:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

First, that's an opinion piece. Second, nothing in it even remotely suggests that she was laughing at male suicide. --Aquillion (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe you have a misconception about see also sections. If something were already mentioned in the article there would be no reason to put it in "see also" so that is actually a negative reason for inclusion. From the MOS:

The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.

So I would say that clearly in a comprehensive article on online harassment of female game developers ("the topic" in a broader sense), Kathy Sierra would be mentioned. In fact I think such a link is quintessentially appropriate. If not for such a link there would be little reason for "see also". —DIYeditor (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Conversation started at Talk:Gamergate controversy#See also link to Kathy Sierra. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, the kids at Call-out culture are back at it, adding back in excessive and unreliable sources, again. I'm done fighting the dodgy citations on the page, not by choice, but hey I don't want to get blocked. Would you be interested in casting some uninvolved eyes over the new section? Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a researcher with the Anti-Harssment Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation. One of my colleagues passed along a message you wrote recently, about anonymous reporting systems for English Wikipedia. I'd like to invite you to participate at our user reporting system consultation, since it sounds like many of the features you propose are similar to the ones proposed by other editors that we've talked to over the course of this project. If you are interested, you can also see the research we have conducted to date about reporting systems.

I look forward to seeing your perspectives on this topic! CLo (WMF) (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, kindly respond to the comments in the talk section of the page under the neutrality discussion regarding your edit revert. Many Thanks Bhistory 17:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Im the one that include these links. Please i invite to discuss the including of these links in the talk page of the article. Thanks.--BrugesFR (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. About , I understand your view, but please note that it was going from 2 sources to 1, not 3 to one (I used the wrong summary, and explained my mistake in my next edit) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

And about this, you're both right. Everything else and this fade with time. Not just in the future or on September 8, 2019, but constantly, even right now. Nothing good can last, nothing bad can last and everything in between is always the same. Anyway, don't think too hard about it, whatever it's all about. Just keep on keeping on, fellow traveler, and say hi to Danny for me! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion. I am looking for advice on how to handle an who isn't logged in, who appears to be the same person but whose IP keeps changing. You've already responded once to their addition of a NPOV tag to List of concentration and internment camps. They've now also taken their problem with the camps in question to Internment by removing the entry from that page as well.

They've now pinged, Sir Joseph, who specifically asked not to be pinged on Talk:List of concentration and internment camps back in August and who is currently blocked. They've also pinged Hurledhandbook, who hasn't been active anywhere since mid-July, and was never active aside from these two articles.

All of their arguments are a rehash of what was discussed during the "List of concentration and internment camps" RfC, including that they think the entry should be removed for factually incorrect, and I said as much. I don't know what else to do.

So, my questions are 1) should I continue to ping Sir Joseph? 2) How does it work to bring up a previously-settled argument in this way? As I responded to them once, I'm not really interested in relitigating old arguments with someone new who hasn't brought any new sources to reevaluate the section. And 3) how does it usually go when two articles with similar subject matter have that material challenged on one page, where it's upheld? Basically, does the RfC conclusion to keep the migrant concentration camps on "List of concentration and internment camps" have any bearing on whether the entry should remain on "Internment," with respect to its factual accuracy?

Apologies for this being a bit long. I hope it isn't too much.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding edit war. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Call-out culture".The discussion is about the topic Call-out culture. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - Sridc (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm taking it upon myself to try to moderate a discussion among Portal power users with the intention of creating a draft guideline for Portals, and I'd like to invite you to join this discussion. If you're interested, please join the discussion at User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| [soliloquize] || 21:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct in portal space and portal deletion discussions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: If you genuinely feel that you're not involved enough to be listed as a party, I give you my permission to remove yourself from the "involved parties" list without discussion. ToThAc (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this edit and similar ones: ordinarily I wouldn't bring up typos. However in this specific case, I just wanted to note that though I'm sure most people just substitute "deprecated" wherever you wrote "depreciated", it's a little jarring when you write about how the proposal in question may redefinine "depreciated". It's not a big issue but a bit ironic given that you are arguing for maintaining a standard definition, yet are mistyping the word. isaacl (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2019

Hi, I reverted your edit in the article Qasem Soleimani since it was obviously a mistake, the person is dead (read the article) and WP:BLP does not apply here. --Z 06:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, could you please help with that discussion? It really doesn't seem to end and JLMadrigal seems to be always asking something more, continuing to deny the common name and making this edit to make it sound like right-libertarianism isn't a real thing, but just a made-up term used to distinguish various forms of libertarianism; as both Pfhorrest and I explained, the article isn't about the term but about the concept, so adding that to the lead isn't necessary (there's the Definition section for that), is an unusual way to start a lead and Right-libertarianism is contrasted with left-libertarianism, a type of libertarianism that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources.[11] In contrast to socialist libertarianism,[4] right-libertarianism tends to support free-market capitalism.[1] is a better and more concise way to say that. What do you think? Should I revert that?--Davide King (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It's still going on and I'm honestly really tired. I worked on wording for compromise, but they seem no happy unless they get their own exact wording. I don't really think there's a big issue, if there's any, at all. I think Pfhorrest hit the nail in the coffin here, here, here and here, but it never ends.--Davide King (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Aquillion. You have new messages at Talk:Sticks & Stones (film).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If you have any opinions about the Audience response section, and my attempt to include a version of it in keeping with Wikipedia rules and rare exceptions, I would appreciate if you could add them to the article talk page. Thanks. -- 109.76.131.91 (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion, I just read the thread you started last year at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_68#WP:ONUS_vs._WP:QUO. I wholeheartedly agree this needs to be clarified, and I think a majority of the comments in the thread did too. Did you ever take it any further? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have started an RfC. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I see what you mean about the source you questioned. I am not familiar with the NGO Monitor. I found their report interesting due ot the amount of data reviewed. Is there a way to use the source other than being for the truth of all their facts? Or are such sources partisan forbidden for any use? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Soros&diff=prev&oldid=960732266 Thank you! --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

hi, I also see you are using press releases as sources, that is most certainly not allowed as a valid source and especially not in the IP area. You have also removed valid sources that support NGO Monitor. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Matt Taibbi is a well established and repected author. I wouldn't describe his piece as 'random'. It is relevant.

Ppescan Jun 30 13:03:37 2020 UTC

You straight up put out fake facts about trump I don’t even like trump like past republicans but this was a joke by you BrianMcGuinn (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see this, for the closure of a discussion you started. starship.paint (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion,

Hope you are well. If you'll oblige my reaching out, I'm a student doing some research for a summer internship related to improving content safety online. The company I'm interning with is trying to keep the web free of misinformation. We are hoping to learn from dedicated Wikipedia editors about their motivations to spend time doing editing work online (so that we can motivate others to do the same on other platforms). I saw that you are fairly active with edits; would you be willing to chat with me about your work for about ~20 min one day? If you prefer I can give you my questions in writing, too.

Thanks for considering!

LailaAtTrustLab (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion, I was wondering if you could have a look at this discussion around sourcing and weight, if you have time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Rally#Right_wing_populist I have found you to be an excellent editor in the topic area, particularly in assessing sources, so I'd like to hear what you think. Cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Better that the editors come to consensus about the photo please discuss here Lightburst (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Aquillion. Recently you posted a complaint at AN3 about the editing of Hamas. Please look over the recent comments at WP:AN3#User:Debresser_reported by User:Aquillion (Result: ). In your opinion is there still a live dispute? Consider also the comments at User talk:Debresser and at Talk:Hamas#Militant. There is a claim that later edits have mooted the problem. If you disagree, can you add your own comment at AN3? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, have you seen this? Since no one has proposed any new wording and since already proposed another rewording that had success, I would like to ask you if you could do the same for this. Thank you. :) Davide King (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:JohnnyTurbo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion, I saw that the edit regarding Ilhan Omar’s real name was removed because it cited Twitter. I understand that we’re generally not supposed to use Twitter as a source but as I understand it, Wikipedia’s page on sources makes an exception for Tweets written by the subject that contain information about themselves. If I’m mistaken, please let me know. I won’t try to put it back or cause an edit war—I just wanted to get my question cleared up. 100.14.159.49 (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. 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.

Crossroads ^-talk- 04:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Has it been another year already? Jesus, time flies. FWIW I believe I was a party to the original Gamergate Arbcom case, so. --Aquillion (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion!

I am conducting an interview study about how Wikipedia editors collaborate in the English edition of Wikipedia. The project description is on the WMF meta wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Collaboration_Models_in_the_EN,_FR_and_ES_Language_Editions_of_Wikipedia.

This research study is part of a larger project where we are trying to understand how editors collaborate in different language editions of Wikipedia. I was looking through our team’s prior dataset and came across conversations that you have had on the Birthright Israel article talk page. I am interested in learning more about those conversations.

Would you be willing to participate in a 1 hour interview about your experience? The interview will take place virtually over Skype, Hangout, Zoom or phone.

Our research team will make our best efforts to keep your participation confidential. Participation in our study is voluntary. If you are willing to participate in this interview, or if you have additional questions please email me. Or, if you are concerned about direct email you can contact me through Wikipedia’s mail feature.

If you are interested or have any other questions, please let us know.

via Email: tbipat@uw.edu or English Wikipedia: tbipat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbipat (talk • contribs) 00:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

In the recent BLPN discussion (now archived) I asked you to substantiate the claims you made at BLPN or implicitly in your edit. You never replied.

Maybe I wasn't being clear, so I'll ask again and expand. Does The New Republic source (a piece by author Colin Dickey) support these claims:

1. "speculating ... that Trump will go to prison"
2. "speculating since at least August 2018"

? If the answer to these questions is "yes", would you kindly explain a) where the source makes these claims and b) why focusing on #1 does not give undue weight to certain views?

Thanks, Politrukki (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

It is quite likely that I based using it there off the fact that it was used to cite similar things in the lead (and hadn't been challenged there, so I assumed that was good); if it doesn't support it then feel free to take it out. --Aquillion (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC) (moved from my user talk page) Politrukki (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Not challenged? Not true. I already referenced the talk page challenges in my last message to the BLPN discussion. This is a timeline of relevant edits:

1. 18:13, 28 November 2020 – original edit
2. 18:23, 28 November 2020 – challenged
3. 18:25, 28 November 2020‎ – restored
4. 18:34, 28 November 2020 – article fully protected
5. 18:41, 28 November 2020 – challenged (though full protection)
6. 14:15, 3 December 2020 – restored
7. 19:24, 5 December 2020 – challenged
8. 22:52, 5 December 2020 – restored

The last edit is also the last edit before your edit. As you can see here, the edit was challenged by three different editors.

Thanks for the discussion. I will revert your bold addition. Politrukki (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Newimpartial § Do not hound me. Actually, as it happens, I was following Aquillion. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Your comment on whether MEDRS are mandatory before editing a claim implying the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy/fringe idea is requested by this Diff in this page, please take a look. Forich (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Aquillion and thank you for your offer to formulate a better RfC. Frankly, I do not know how to continue now. Taking into account what happened at Talk:Bitcoin Cash#Bcash altname again and how, e.g. my tag was handled, I decided to challenge the recent close. Perhaps that is not the correct way. You may not know it, but there were significantly poorer "sources" (actually press releases) in history maintained by edit-warring that I had to remove using RfCs, since there was no other way how to achieve that. Now, there is still a "source" that actually forecasts the creation of Bitcoin Cash and that is still used as a "reliable source" for the claim and maintained in there by edit-warring. It seems quixotic to do it this way, but it looks to me that a simple question not removing the sources one by one will just determine that there are many editors claiming that the sources cited are all "exceedingly well cited" and that, in their total, they confirm the claim "exceedingly well". Thanks for your time. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. I have got an answer from the editor closing one of the RfCs at Talk:Bitcoin Cash now. See User talk:MJL#Closure challenge. Taking that into account it appears best if you helped to reformulate the RfC. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

First round of discussion about 'Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?' in relation to Wikipedia article titles has been initiated at some article talk pages, including @ Talk:List of former Muslims#Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?

You are being informed of the discussion, since its seems you have edited related topic previously.

Please do join in discussions, Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I found your explanation good. Can I use this in the statistics section here? In fact I'd like to use the whole portion there if possible.. Vikram Vincent 04:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, though when it comes to statistics one extension of what I said there that I didn't bring up is that ideally it's best to cite secondary sources covering statistical studies (ones that can provide interpretation and analysis to say what the numbers mean, taking methodology, context, any limitations of the study, etc. into account) rather than citing primary sources of statistical data directly, for much the same reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. Vikram Vincent 08:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your name is listed as a participant of the WikiProject Countering system bias in religion.
I would like to know if you agree with this edit: DIFF.
24.78.228.96 (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

They're not wrong, though. That project has been inactive for over a decade and was tagged as defunct back in 2012. --Aquillion (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stonkaments (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion, would you suggest to delete the entire controversy section of the journal HAU as it's based on sources Wikipedia doesn't consider legitimate, such as blogposts about living persons? Thestudentspirit (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was why I deleted it. I left the one decent source (and found another one, although it's from the same site) and wrote a little bit covering it - I don't think those are a problem, so a few sentences summarizing them are fine. We could expand from there if other good sources can be found, or a bit more can be added from those two sources, but we definitely can't cite a massive section making extremely WP:BLP-sensitive claims about specific individuals to stuff like blog posts, Google docs, pastebins, and primary sources. And in general the scale of the section was probably WP:UNDUE in the first place given how slight WP:RS coverage was. --Aquillion (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense, the only citable sources are either the InsideHighered piece or the Chronicle of Higher Ed piece then? If any of them are included it should be both. And the fact they they contradict eachother should be highlighted, InsideHigherEd publishes allegations from personal websites, while the Chronicle piece dispels them after a journalistic investigation. There is also a Quillette piece which is well researched and from a reputable source. Can this be cited? Thestudentspirit (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)thestudentspirit

I saw your post about Coda Story at WP:RSN and wanted to say that I broadly agree with what you wrote. I was loathe to cast a !vote in that RfC, because I felt that it was a misuse of the RSN - bringing a vague RfC about a source in general in order to try to settle a dispute about a specific use of the source in a particular context. However, after seeing that the RfC was going ahead anyways, and after reading more about Coda Story, I decided to write up my views on Coda Story in general, only to see that the RfC had been closed.

Two things I noticed about Coda Story:

1. They mix opinion and fact fairly freely. I would describe most of their content as essay-style, rather than straight news reporting.
2. They publish what I would describe as one-sided "hit pieces" fairly often. They recently published a piece about two popular Chinese YouTubers who make videos about their lives in rural China. The videos are basically arts-and-crafts videos, without words, set in the countryside. I think most people watch them as a form of escapism. Coda Story strongly implies - without presenting any actual evidence - that these Chinese YouTubers are somehow government propagandists. The Coda Story article has a lot of lines like this: Both women have faced accusations of providing content that serves the interests of the Communist Party of China. Accusations by whom? There's a strong Fox-News-esque "people are saying" vibe here. The only "evidence" that Coda Story really gives is that the women who make the videos are Chinese and not banned by the government, and that the videos might help improve the image of China. In other words, the Coda Story piece feels very much like an attempt to take down two apolitical arts-and-crafts videographers from China for the sole reason that they might inadvertently give people a positive image of China. Given that Coda Story is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, I guess this isn't surprising. I'm concerned that editors might start using Coda Story articles to insert poorly grounded attacks on living persons, especially now that it's gotten the green stamp of approval.

Anyways, this turned into more than I expected to write. Happy editing, -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion, please can you help with formulating an RFC on Covid-19 in WP:MEDRS? Can I send you my draft by email?CutePeach (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey to stop the back and forth I created a dispute resolution here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

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 Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. 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.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

A discussion that may interest you: Wikipedia_talk:Editing policy#Edit summaries for reverts. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! I notice this RfC is still rumbling on (and not, I think, in a good way). If you judge your question has been answered the way is open to you simply to remove the {{rfc}} tag and put it out of its misery, per WP:RFCEND. Personally, I think this would be a good thing given how stretched editing resources are over the COVID topics, since the open RfC seems to be encouraging wibble. Alexbrn (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

You've probably got a few pings from it already, but I thought I'd ask if you could contribute to this discussion at Talk:HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory#HAU controversies section, since you edited the page in a related dispute a couple months ago. Thanks! —Wingedserif (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what the convention is but the sockpuppet's remarks are still visible (indeed, for visitors using screen-readers, the strikeout is ignored). Per WP:BMB, should we not simply delete and replace with a simple note saying something like "background noise"? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

If you want to do so, I have no objections. I've seen people do both depending on how many people participated in the conversation and whether there is anything worth retaining. They could be removed, or anything that hasn't gotten a reply could be removed, or they could be collapsed, or archived immediately since it is very unlikely the conversations will continue. --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I was going to look for the proper place to post, maybe just at ANI, but there's at minimum meatpuppeting if not also socking, but maybe concerted brigading organized from an outside source over at Julia Salazar. Look at the contribution history of those accounts that came out of nowhere. Not all of them, but the first few and the quick response times. I didn't correct, for instance, the good-faith moving of the standard "Early life and education" section header and order into a non-standard sub of "Personal details", or respond further on the Talk to see how many more might show up. Not a problem that you did of course, it's a tricky allegation, but wanted to give you the heads up, as I might post later today if I can find the right venue and the time. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything yet, but it may be worth looking at banned users who have edited that page in the past. In particular, E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs) was banned for extensive sockpuppetry, and was also heavily focused on that page for a while, so if you suspect someone might be a sockpuppet the first thing I would do is compare them to him and his socks, see if it seems likely that one or more people is him, and if so start putting together evidence for WP:SPI. Other banned users who edited it include Icewhiz (talk · contribs) and SunCrow (talk · contribs), but they are less likely both because they made fewer edits there and because AFAIK there's no reason to think they've socked in the past, whereas E.M.Gregory was abusing sockpuppets even before he was banned. --Aquillion (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was specifically looking at the ODDoom99 and the Knowitall who sound a lot more like the Competition Lawyer or whatever. And, of course, the 24...IP who followed me around for months and there's a lot of stuff at ANI about those accounts and this particular article. One of the "new" ones even "found" the buried in the middle of my user talk Julia Salazar section instead of starting a new one -- I don't archive and it's 530kB, so they didn't just read it and find it in situ. Thanks for the reminder about those older accounts too. Will maybe put it together tomorrow. JesseRafe (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

FYI, Posted at ANI without notifying the users so as to not get flamed yesterday. Prior admin, El-C, who gave the article temporary EC protection two years ago moved it to indef basically right away. I made the edits to largely restore status quo ante and expanded a little. Don't know if the EC protection extends to article talk, but we'll see what happens, maybe the update will show up on their little discussion boards again. If so, I'll just sit tight on it and not engage see who shows up. Obviously it's on my Watchlist. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

FYI a response to a comment you wrote a few months ago is here: . Onceinawhile (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I was going to ask this over on the Gamergate talk page but I don't have an account to beat the semi-protection. I was reading the lawsuit filed against Activision by the California Dept. of Labor and in the intro they cite Gamergate several times (see the footnotes) as an example of hostility to women in the field of video game development. I was wondering if that should go in the Gamergate article? Or would referencing the lawsuit itself constitute Original Research? 130.44.133.220 (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Usually for something like that it would be best to look for secondary sources that cover it, rather than citing the lawsuit directly. A lawsuit is a primary document and anyone can say whatever they want when suing someone else, so it's hard to say that it's WP:DUE until it has secondary coverage, and even if it is due we'd be very limited in what we could say about it without a secondary source to provide interpretation and analysis. --Aquillion (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Wapo and NPR have now both covered the suit and mentioned Gamergate in their coverage: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/07/22/california-activision-blizzard-lawsuit-sexism/ and https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019293032/activision-blizzard-lawsuit-unequal-pay-sexual-harassment-video-games. Is this enough yet? 130.44.133.220 (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I note you have previously commented on the talk page for the Civilian article. There is currently a straw poll open and I would appreciate feedback. Hemmers (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd be interested in your take on Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Fresh_take_on_"unless_the_reason_for_them_is_obvious" Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey,

I wasn't sure who to ask this. I saw your vote on an AfD from 5 years ago and most of the other accounts who voted seemed inactive. You raised good concerns about OR and 5 years later many of those articles are still based on primary or not very reliable sources (eg Expedition of Alqammah bin Mujazziz). Should I go through them one by one and delete poorly sourced material, or should someone mass nominate them for deletion like before? VR _talk 06:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I have added a citation for the domestic violence complaint against Jacob Blake. -- Frotz(talk) 09:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your citation was the New York Post, which is not a reliable source; see WP:RSP. It is completely unusable for a claim of this severity. --Aquillion (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Given exclusion of the disease/pandemic origins from WP:BMI by RFC: Disease / pandemic origins (subsequently reflected in Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus)) I would like to ask you to put the WT:BMI, WT:MEDRS, and WT:MED on your watch lists to ensure consistent application of the said RfC outcome. My best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You are obviously correct about the the VoC's Dissident blog, and you clearly know how WEIGHT works, so I would like to kindly ask you if you could analyze the article more in deep. Because the whole article is essentially "he said, she said" but rather than attribute this to secondary coverage for each author's views,1 we cite it to the author themselves.2 This is not necessarily an issue because we are not disputing their reliability but whether their chapters or mentions about Communist regimes were cherry picked and misused to treat this as a separate or new topic.3 Additionally, while Valentino et al. are clearly secondary sources about the events (e.g. mass killings happened, many people have died, etc.), they become primary sources when they are putting forward their ideas and theories about it, which is what the main topic should be. Is this correct?

It does not mean that we cannot cite Valentino for what he said or thought, but it needs to be backed up by secondary coverage to make sure that we are representing him, and any other author, fairly — and that we are not cherry picking quotes and mentions about Communist regimes. If we cannot find such coverage, it means they are undue and should be removed; the fact that there is a lack of literature about MKuCR as currently structured, it shows that those scholars are acting in isolation and do not represent majority views — but we cannot write a NPOV from the POV of a minority, can't we? This is why the article must be rewritten around the only topic for which we have tertiary sources, i.e. this4 — the "victims of communism" narrative, 100 million deaths, communism as the main cause, therefore communism should be criminalized like Nazism.

I am asking you this because you are clearly good at source analysis, literature finding, and weight comparison. If you tell me I am wrong, I can move on and make peace with myself. In particular, I would like to ask you if The Four Deuces is correct—as I think they are—about SYNTH and grouping.5

Notes

1. A few exceptions are Rummel cited through Totten & Jacobs 2002, or Singh cited through Jahanbegloo 2014; however, none of this secondary works are about Communism (e.g. Totten & Jacobs 2002 is about genocide studies, and Jahanbegloo 2014 is about non-violence — this shows that such sources are cherry picked to push the view of Communism as a separate or special category, and new topic, when it is clearly not the case, and Communist regimes can simply be discussed at Mass killing, like any other regime type.

2. Another exception is Fitzpatrick 2008 (a work about the Russian Revolution) for a useless and decontextualized quote by Lenin. Fizpatrick is one of many wrongly used sources who do not operate or write within a Communist grouping as the article ostensibly does.

3. Compare secondary coverage of Valentino's work (quotes). Majority of sources do not discuss Communism as a separate category that warrants a new topic or article, unless we are discussing the theories and narratives, and Communist regimes (Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes) are discussed within works about mass killings in general, and some sources do not discuss them together (Jones discusses Stalin and Mao together, and Pol Pot in a separate chapter, which proves TFD's point about lack of connection).

See also "'The Cold War Struggle (1): Capitalist Atrocities'. ... —Davide King ... An interesting source. That confirms an obvious notion that when some author group some fact into one book chapter, that does not implies a new topic is created." —Paul Siebert

4. I would really appreciate if you could comment on this topic, sources listed (you may add more), etc.

5. We need sources, and they need to represent a mainstream, majority viewpoint, making a connection between Communist regimes. To quote them:

Valentin[o] for example, while noting that mass killings have occurred under Communist regimes, provides no theory about the connection. It would be the same as if he said that there have been mass killings in Asia and we created an article called "Mass killings under Asian regimes." ...

While Valentino does say that, he does not elaborate on his theory. Furthermore, it would only justify creating an article on his theory, although the lack of secondary sources covering it meets it fails notability. ... I know that Valentino's book has a chapter called "Mass Killings under Communist Regimes," but it provides little that connects them and only discusses Stalinist USSR, Maoist China and Kampuchea. ...

The next source (Mann), says, "All accounts of 20th-century mass murder include the Communist regimes. Some call their deeds genocide, though I shall not. I discuss the three that caused the most terrible human losses: Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia." That is consistent with what I said about Valentino's article: "it provides little that connects them and only discusses Stalinist USSR, Maoist China and Kampuchea." ...

The article title implies a causal connection between Communist regimes and mass killings. Unless we can show that reliable sources have made that connection, it is synthesis or the topic lacks WP:Notablity. Note we do not have an article "Languages in Communist countries" although we might have articles about languages in North America or languages in the EU. If there is no connection, then what is the point of an article? We had a similar discussion about Jews and Communism, which implied that there was a connection between Jews and Communism. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination).)

Thank you in advance if you will find the time to read this and do such analysis. Davide King (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

In regards to this, I agree. We actually have WP:MKUCRSA, and I think your comments would be very helpful. Here and here, you can see the most cited sources, though they have been mainly used in support of A/C. For a proposal for B, with non-primary literature, you may find this useful. Davide King (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I wanted to ask why Thomas Sowell's part under Commentary -> Economists got completely removed (Minimum wage in the United States). I fully understand where the WP:UNDUE argument is coming from, but if that's the case, the paragraph citing Paul Krugman's arguments should also be removed. Can we find common ground here? (as always, WP:FAITH) 46.193.66.211 (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to give you a heads up; I’ve reverted your addition per the core content policy WP:VNOTSUFF. The content very well may be suitable for inclusion, and consensus may well find that to be the case, but the policy now requires that consensus to be garnered (and with it being a BLP, this is especially so). Please bring up the issue on the talk page and allow a discussion to take place. And I hope you understand I’m not taking a position on your edit, this is just to ensure we follow necessary protocols at this stage. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for your articulate reply in the thread. You made some great points but there are some minor disagreements on how the guideline applies here that I'm excited to reply with in the morning. Fun debate! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree with your excellent post on the RfC at Uyghur genocide, but thought you would want to know that Finley is a she. "Joanne Smith Finley joined Newcastle University in January 2000, where she is Reader in Chinese Studies". Pincrete (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
• Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
• A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
• Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Detransition § Regarding the James Shupe Entry Of This Page:. I think your advice here may be beneficial. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to make a comment about this thread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1089#Invalid_vandalism_warning. and to address the "chip on my shoulder" comment by Bbb23.

Yes Bbb23 struck the vandalism warning, but I have seen terrible behavior from that admin before. That admin flags people and blocks people for no reason, and then when called out on it, Bbb23 removes that discussion. Years ago, Bbb23 reverted legitimate AFDs as "spam" even though all articles were actually deleted via AFD later on.

How do I know this? Bbb23 was a fellow admin with me, but I left. Bbb23 does more damage to WP than help. Bbb23 thinks far too much is spam, and then takes an authoritarian stance when called out on it.

I'm shocked, simply shocked, that Bbb23 actually relented and realized my latest edits were not spam. Of course they weren't. But Bbb23 admitting one mistake in 20 years is just not good enough.

Chip on my shoulder? About Bbb23, you bet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This guy has been giving me trouble and harassing me. can you ban him or send in the word of his harassment up to the chain of command? Pleas Persesus (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Consider reading WP:BOOMERANG. Also I’ve reported you for vandalizing my talk page. Dronebogus (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Would you like to consider archiving your talk page? It contains posts back to September 2005 and is about 176,000 bytes right now. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:A1C1:3A98:A9E5:AD32 (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If you think I violated the three reversal rule. Have you already filed a complaint?--Berposen (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If you think that for this moment, the denounce is prudent. Do it, greetings.--Berposen (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey Aquillion,

I removed the clause in the main paragraph of the Daily Wire Wikipedia Article, "Its coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic has been described as "junk health news," is a clause that specifies certain criticism that has already been mentioned in the Accuracy section of the article. By placing specific criticism of the Daily Wire on the main paragraph, you misrepresent the article's neutrality and present a biased perspective. On 5/4/22 23:09, but you reverted the removal of the clause with the reason that the description of the Daily Wire as "junk health news" is a key point, thus can be used in the main paragraph.

The Oxford Report — titled "Social Media Misinformation about the WHO" — only mentions the Daily Wire once in their examination, and their role is used as a support for its section's main examination of The Daily Caller. The citation is a minor mention of the Daily Wire and is by no means important enough to be in the main paragraph.

To keep 3RR, we ought to best agree before proceeding further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuardianH (talk • contribs) 19:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion. Per your question here, does that imply that you're currently preparing to submit evidence about ARS to the case, beyond the specific evidence you've already submitted about 7&6=thirteen? I was considering doing a deeper dive on ARS canvassing and battleground mentality, and refactoring the evidence I provided to focus more heavily on that. But if this is something that you're already working on, then I might spend my time elsewhere. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I haven't done anything beyond what I've posted yet. My question was mostly trying to get a sense of whether it would be useful to do it in the future. --Aquillion (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I refactored my evidence, and also did a quick analysis of the last year's worth of rescue-tagged AfDs. See User:Scottywong/ARS canvassing survey if you're interested. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I would pay attention to the reply I got from an arb in the discussion you linked; it is probably more useful to focus on evidence that relates to individuals. This isn't totally unexpected - realistically ArbCom isn't going to take action against a Wikiproject unless its core purpose is so egregiously against Wikipedia policy that it calls for the At Wits' End principle, which isn't the case here. Otherwise they would effectively be creating policy. Also, I mean... at this point most meaningful ARS activity amounts to a handful of editors anyway, so it's easier to just look at them and see if there are issues. Like, based on your own data, there are just a few really active ARS members; if there are issues with what ARS is doing then that should also show up as, and be easy to demonstrate as, issues with their own individual conduct. --Aquillion (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think what you said in the last sentence here was what you meant to say. Surely you're arguing against making it easier, not harder? —Cryptic 00:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, fixed. --Aquillion (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your tip on the workshop talk page. I will keep it in mind as I organize my evidence. Regarding your WP:BEFORE evidence, WT:Speedy keep/Archive 4#Failure to follow WP:BEFORE rejected enforcing it using speedy keep. The discussion was from 2014–2015 with fairly low participation, so you may not find it worthwhile to include. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI, WP:3O says "Be sure to provide a notification of your request on the other editor's Talk page." Accordingly I note that I added a request on Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements re Talk:The Post Millennial#Ankle monitors. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why you feel that the tag at NOCON requires or is equivalent to the tag you have placed at ONUS. ONUS merely states that Verification is an necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion in an article. It's to prevent tendentious reinsertion of irrelevant or UNDUE text with the sole justification being that it appears in a Reliable Source. As you know, we see that quite frequently. But the NOCON bit and some editors' unfortunate extension of ONUS to apply to changes in longstanding text (notwithstanding other reasons to prefer longstanding text) is without basis and paradoxically leads to the same kind of edit-warring ONUS is intended to forestall. I think your tag in NOCON is fine, but I'd ask you to reconsider the one in ONUS, which I think is a different matter and not "disputed" in the same way that the NOCON sentence is disputed or unclear. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't add the tag on NOCON; I'd lean towards having neither tagged, but I object to tagging only one during a dispute over a conflict between the two of them, since that gives the impression that ONUS is uncontroversial while NOCON is not. And while the first sentence of ONUS is not disputed, look at the talk page; there is clearly substantial disagreement over what the last part of the paragraph means. --Aquillion (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Right, I know you are not responsible for the NOCON tag. I think we agree as to the central point wrt ONUS as well. I'm just saying that "disputed" sounds as if some follks believe that Verification is sufficient for inclusion at any time and place. I just wonder whether the ONUS tag needs to stay for as long as the NOCON tag is in place? As to the larger issue, I'm at a loss to understand how there could be such widespread and varied misreading of the very simple language in the current ONUS text. It's quite remarkable. SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's only intended for the last sentence; it could be made specific to that. Regarding the larger issue, I think that it's a combination of factors. One issue is ONUS' wording is so simple (because that page wasn't really the right place to put it); another is that WP:ONUS has unusually sweeping language compared to our actual dispute-resolution policies and guidelines, which leads people to reach for it to "win" disputes. I don't generally think policies worded like that are a good idea - they don't encourage useful discussions or compromises; instead, they push people towards bludgeoning each other with red tape and process-wonkery. A policy that explains what our ultimate goal is and why it's that way is generally more useful than a policy saying "always do X". I also think there's a divide between people who are picturing WP:ONUS primarily as something getting invoked in good-faith disputes between experienced editors, and people who see it as mostly existing for use against inexperienced, bad-faith, or WP:TENDENTIOUS editors. This is probably also related to how it ended up in WP:V - WP:CONSENSUS is something that is mostly referred to while dealing with experienced editors in good faith, for intricate disputes that involve complex enough and prolonged enough arguments to require guidance on how to resolve them. WP:V is more basic and while obviously its intricacies matter everywhere, citing V as your core objection is more likely to happen when dealing with inexperienced editors, probable hoaxes, etc. You can see this in a lot of the examples people are posting to argue for a maximalist interpretation, which tends to presume the need to block innumerable hoaxes or which focus on the idea of people trying to "get away" with something. I don't think it's feasible to have a dispute-resolution policy premised on that sort of assumption. (I also don't think that ONUS, if actually enforced the way they suggest, would have the effect they want it to - part of the problem with stridently-worded policies is that they themselves can become tools in the hands of the same bad actors they're intended to stop. We reach good outcomes by encouraging people to focus on the outcome, not process-wonkery. Completely honestly, I do not think I have ever seen an invocation of ONUS improve discussions in any way - not in terms of resolving things, not in terms of getting people to understand each other's positions, nothing. It mostly derails things into pointless process-wonkery. The principle of the first sentence is important but the idea of "I don't need to explain my position, the ONUS is on you" is an unhelpful way to frame it.) --Aquillion (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, thanks for taking the time to lay that out. I find myself repeatedly having to point out that text can be longstanding with almost no editor scrutiny or awareness -- this is actually the case more often than not on our millions of article pages -- and that while there can be a strong implicit consensus on actively edited pages, that is not the most frequent circumstance. But at any rate, I would have no objection to moving ONUS to the NPOV page, from which it could just as easily be cited and with more supporting context. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jim Shooter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Byrne. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey. Just wanted to say I really do not appreciate being taken out of context in the Talk:July–August 2022 United States floods#RfC about mentioning of climate change discussion. You probably will just ignore this request, but I would ask if you changed your statement to reflect the meaning of my statement instead of the (not even) word-for-word statement. Not taking someone out of context shows respect for the other user, and right now, I have lost a lot of respect for you as an editor with this incident. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

You might want to provide a diff. I think the context of your comment was pretty clear and while you may think you have effectively masked your agenda, I think Aquillion was dead-on in their evaluation. Shame, that. I think people pursuing degrees in meteorology ought not to be so blinkered by politics that they think teaching people about climate change is somehow "controversial". jps (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I think reverting GiantSnowman's close was a bad call, would you consider undoing that? I feel like little benefit in having parallel discussions. 28bytes (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like someone else has already closed it again, so I'll just let it lie. But I think it's a mistake to close it, since at least one arbitrator, Worm, has said in the RFAR that I believe we should wait until the ANI thread reaches it's conclusion. Closing a discussion that an Arbitrator has said they want to see play out before starting a case because that case has been requested makes no sense. In particular whether the community endorses the indefinite block, turning it into a community one, would be vital and might mean that all ArbCom has to do is desysop by motion; since an indeffed administrator can't do anything, there is no need to rush to drop the entire question on ArbCom when ANI was in the process of handling it. --Aquillion (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Aquillion. I am glad it’s (re-)closed, but I understand your reasoning and I appreciate your response. 28bytes (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I closed on the basis that ANI had reached its conclusion, given it was at ArbCom... GiantSnowman 17:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing - I didn't get a notification that my edit was undone, meaning that it was done manually rather than clicking 'undo' - please can I ask why this was? GiantSnowman 17:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I started an RfC on Male expendability. Let's invite the community to help us settle this. Here's the link: Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey. I said I'd notify you when I made the other RSN discussion. You can find it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lipstick Lesbian Pride Flag controversy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

While Round and Roudner was a sockpuppet, previous consensus for the article was to include the names and the edit there was simply to revert an edit done without discussion on the talk page. Per WP:BLOCKEVADE However, this does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. I will be reverting the change, and re-including the names. Cheers! Freedom4U (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Normally it would be helpful to link a section about this to a main page rather than a category; however it's exactly the same text without the tagging. I tried to remove it as undue, since we have collaboration in other countries that affected hundreds of people that remains unmentioned, and I don't agree with the hyperfocus on the Warsaw ghetto. However, it was reverted back in, in addition to the new article. Given that and the input I've received from another editor that there are worse problems, I've been working on those, and verifying the references in the section, in particular the very-overused Times of Israel reference, which got a scathing reception at RSN. Just saying, I don't revert people, but I think you should reconsider that edit, and btw I could use some help with this article if you are so inclined. if so see the talk page. Elinruby (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I certainly don't disagree that that article is terrible; but that means that it ought to be either fixed to be not-terrible, deleted, or merged to elsewhere. Linking to it means more people will see it which ultimately means that it's more likely that one of those outcomes will occur; and in any case it's weird to link to the category when we have a main article. While the sourcing is still an issue, I just tweaked it to fix what I feel is the most glaring deviation from the source. --Aquillion (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if you can help me, but on my Android, talk pages are now formatted oddly, with no TOC. I don't like it. Do you know anything about this? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Scratch that. I think I found the problem. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

since we have to evaluate the way potential misconduct could slant the sources when eg. looking at our section on the source in our article on it. The section was written by me and I have neither edited the topic area prior to the G&K article nor been acquainted with Icewhiz. There was some intense discussion at t/p where others appear to concede the unavailability of reliable sources that portray Glaukopis in a positive light. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Aquillion,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking with the original issue concerning the mass removal of "committed suicide" over at ANI. Every additional voice today seems to have been taking issue with me, my opinions, my justifications for bringing it to ANI, etc. and trying to respond meaningfully and intelligently to them all is wearing me out. I know you have no particular reason to help me out any further, but I don't want to drag in uninvolved editors just because I'm beginning to feel personally attacked—something I've tried to avoid saying explicitly over there for fear of inviting warnings about civility and assuming good faith—and it's becoming hard for me to do that when it feels like none of the arguments go to whether the behaviour I reported was or wasn't disruptive.

Something particularly upsetting was said to me tonight concerning a suggestion I made on another page to add something to the list of alternative formulations for "committed suicide"—something I think is unrelated to my report, although obviously my thought was prompted by the discussion. One of the editors who hadn't posted until today said that I had no business suggesting anything of the sort while the report was under discussion—or for the rest of the year—which I perceive as a thinly veiled threat of retaliation for making the report and continuing to defend myself for having made it. Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but it really does feel like I'm being told to stay away from the topic for the foreseeable future, and I don't know of any Wikipedia policies that would support that action based solely on the discussion at ANI.

I don't know what to do about it—obviously making another report at ANI would be courting disaster, although I suspect that threatening other editors, explicitly or implicitly, in retaliation for their arguments in other forums is potentially a serious breach of Wikipedia policy. I know that constantly having to reply to one accusation after another is emotionally draining, which I think is the point—making people sorry for reporting something/arguing something that you disagree with. Or as I said, I might just be paranoid. Do you have any advice, or am I barking up the wrong tree? P Aculeius (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:JohnnyTurbo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Aquillion. Your reference to WP:WHEEL at the RFAR is a mistake. Read the policy and you'll see there has been no wheelwarring. Bishonen | tålk 13:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC).

Whoops, fixed. But the basic point is the same; an ArbCom case should examine the behavior of everyone involved (even if it's likely to find that some of them did nothing wrong) and should avoid a title that overtly casts the blame on one editor from the start. --Aquillion (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that you undo that reversion. Reverting a close is considered disruptive and can result in sanction.

If you disagree with the close, open a discussion at WP:AN. - jc37 15:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The close itself and its precise implementation are different things; the discussion on talk plainly failed the WP:CONLEVEL for the implementation you suggested. You have sufficient experience as an editor to understand the difference. --Aquillion (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Closure review - WP:NOT. Thank you. — Newimpartial (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 4, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

A brand-new user issued an edit request that is a near verbatim copy of a previous request by a then-undisclosed COI editor. Thirteen minutes later, another brand-new account supported both editors' requested changes. This stinks on ice, could you have a look? Thanks, Xan747 (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:JohnnyTurbo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The proposed decision in the SmallCat dispute has been posted. You are invited to review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Have you considered it? Long-term sensible editor with a content focus who edits in sometimes contentious areas without being sanctioned (that I can find) would be a positive with the tools. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been here long, but everywhere I go Aquillion seems to be there making calm and reasoned arguments. I often find myself reading something, thinking it seems abnormally well thought-out, and then being not at all surprised when I see their signature. I've never participated in an RfA but I would strongly support this if they wanted to go ahead with it. lp0 on fire () 13:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC) Edit: didn't notice this was 2 years old (guessing you don't fancy being an admin then) but my opinion is unchanged.