Jump to content

User talk:HJ Mitchell: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Legobot (talk | contribs)
Line 59: Line 59:
== Your [[WP:Good articles|GA]] nomination of [[Death of James Ashley]]==
== Your [[WP:Good articles|GA]] nomination of [[Death of James Ashley]]==
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article [[Death of James Ashley]] you nominated for [[WP:GA|GA]]-status according to the [[WP:WIAGA|criteria]]. [[Image:Time2wait.svg|20px]] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by [[User:Legobot|Legobot]], on behalf of [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]]</small> -- [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 15:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article [[Death of James Ashley]] you nominated for [[WP:GA|GA]]-status according to the [[WP:WIAGA|criteria]]. [[Image:Time2wait.svg|20px]] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by [[User:Legobot|Legobot]], on behalf of [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]]</small> -- [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 15:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

== Sadko reverted me under false reasons ==

On [[Sarajevo wedding attack]], the user Sadko has reverted me under false reasons. While I did have a dispute with another user Amanuensis Balkanicus earlier, because he was distorting sources and seemed to be POV-pushing, I did resolve it. Thus I don't have a dispute anymore and Sadko reverted me under false pretenses.

Regardless, AB unilaterally changed the article to "Nikola Gardović was the first casualty of the Bosnian War" when the sources he used only said his death is only regarded by many as the first death or often regarded so. It didn't claim it as a fact. There are opposing viewpoints as well which AB despite adding himself earlier, unilaterally decided to remove. He didn't object to it, there was no dispute for now.


However after I corrected the false claims in hos edits, I also wrongly believed the Economist source he used was a blog withiut any credentials. So I removed it and we had s dispute He pointed out I was wrong and the author was the journalist [[Tim Judah]], I realised my mistake and let him revert me.

I even let him remove my edits which he claimed were flimsy like only one person saying that only one person claimed the wedding attack was taught in schools, so I can't say it as a fact is taught in schools. I didn't agree with his reason but I didn't want a dispute.

I made some further edits which Amanuensis Balkanicus never disputed (nor has he disputed until now). Sadko reverted me and claimed there was an edit dispute (the aftual edit dispute was already resolved)

Later he changed his reason to "there was clear disagreement before". I just added a small sentence about when the war is considered to have started. That wasn't a major change unlike what Sadko claimed and I do have the right to present opposing viewpoints since AB had decided to unilaterally consider only one viewpoint as true and remove everything else.

This is only done so the article is balanced and AB hasn't disputed with me. When I pointed out there was no dispute, Sadko started claiming that there was a dispute earlier so now I must discuss even my new edits. I am not opposed to discussion, but no one seems to have any dispute with them.

Also Sadko earlier taunted me for being Indian saying "Dear ''Indian'' editor". I didn't like it and thought he was making fun as I couldn't see any other reason for it. He hasn't cleared up why he made such a statement like that. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sadko&diff=957472233&oldid=957471159]. His behvaiour since then hasn't helped. While he initially claimed to be a fan of my nation and culture, his garbled English later on seemed to be like a stereotype [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sadko&diff=prev&oldid=957977940].

What has pointed my suspicion to him at the most is that numerous users have stated that he is wrongly (or falsely) classifying them as unconstructive or a vandal over him actually not agreeing to their edits even if they're not unconstructive. If this was just me, I would have let it go. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sadko&diff=957547615&oldid=957483963], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sadko&diff=958071273&oldid=957978975]. I don't believe he is being neutral. [[Special:Contributions/117.199.87.125|117.199.87.125]] ([[User talk:117.199.87.125|talk]]) 22:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:44, 21 May 2020

Hello and welcome to my talk page! If you have a question, ask me. If I know the answer, I'll tell you; if I don't, I'll find out (or one of my talk-page stalkers might know!), then we'll both have learnt something!
Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.
A list of archives of this talk page is here. Those in Roman numerals come first chronologically
This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

TFA

Thank you today for Spalding War Memorial, "not for a big city or a county or a rich company, but a relatively obscure town in Lincolnshire. It's interesting for several reasons, not least the personal tragedy suffered by an aristocratic family that led to its creation. Also curious is that little was written about it from its unveiling until relatively recently."! - Did you know my memorials? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Death of James Ashley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battery (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) 12:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobin (magazine) Vandalism

Hey how are you I recently joined wikipedia and added a section to the wikipedia of Jacobin (magazine), that section being "Praise, Criticism & Controversy". The section has been deleted two times outright. I believe that this is vandalism, and wanted to request an experience third party to protect the page and vet the section for inaccuracies.

The reason I believe that this is vandalism is that other editors gave great feedback and removed sources deemed "depracated" and asked for better sourcing without removing the entire section. Also the reasoning provided by the two users who vadalized the page is shaky. Thanks, please do check it out.

The wiki is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin_(magazine)

The two potential vandals are: Dsakey1978 and Asoka89

Hi BuilderJustLikeBob. Welcome! :) From a quick look at the page history it appears the other editors have some concerns about the content you're adding. I would suggest you start a discussion on the talk page (Talk:Jacobin (magazine)) and outline what you think the article is lacking, then wait for other editors to comment and discuss it with them. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. However I did point out the errors in their reasoning and they still deleted entire sections. If the problem persists may I ask for you assistance again?

Your GA nomination of Death of James Ashley

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Death of James Ashley you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SchroCat -- SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadko reverted me under false reasons

On Sarajevo wedding attack, the user Sadko has reverted me under false reasons. While I did have a dispute with another user Amanuensis Balkanicus earlier, because he was distorting sources and seemed to be POV-pushing, I did resolve it. Thus I don't have a dispute anymore and Sadko reverted me under false pretenses.

Regardless, AB unilaterally changed the article to "Nikola Gardović was the first casualty of the Bosnian War" when the sources he used only said his death is only regarded by many as the first death or often regarded so. It didn't claim it as a fact. There are opposing viewpoints as well which AB despite adding himself earlier, unilaterally decided to remove. He didn't object to it, there was no dispute for now.


However after I corrected the false claims in hos edits, I also wrongly believed the Economist source he used was a blog withiut any credentials. So I removed it and we had s dispute He pointed out I was wrong and the author was the journalist Tim Judah, I realised my mistake and let him revert me.

I even let him remove my edits which he claimed were flimsy like only one person saying that only one person claimed the wedding attack was taught in schools, so I can't say it as a fact is taught in schools. I didn't agree with his reason but I didn't want a dispute.

I made some further edits which Amanuensis Balkanicus never disputed (nor has he disputed until now). Sadko reverted me and claimed there was an edit dispute (the aftual edit dispute was already resolved)

Later he changed his reason to "there was clear disagreement before". I just added a small sentence about when the war is considered to have started. That wasn't a major change unlike what Sadko claimed and I do have the right to present opposing viewpoints since AB had decided to unilaterally consider only one viewpoint as true and remove everything else.

This is only done so the article is balanced and AB hasn't disputed with me. When I pointed out there was no dispute, Sadko started claiming that there was a dispute earlier so now I must discuss even my new edits. I am not opposed to discussion, but no one seems to have any dispute with them.

Also Sadko earlier taunted me for being Indian saying "Dear Indian editor". I didn't like it and thought he was making fun as I couldn't see any other reason for it. He hasn't cleared up why he made such a statement like that. [1]. His behvaiour since then hasn't helped. While he initially claimed to be a fan of my nation and culture, his garbled English later on seemed to be like a stereotype [2].

What has pointed my suspicion to him at the most is that numerous users have stated that he is wrongly (or falsely) classifying them as unconstructive or a vandal over him actually not agreeing to their edits even if they're not unconstructive. If this was just me, I would have let it go. [3], [4]. I don't believe he is being neutral. 117.199.87.125 (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]