User talk:SashiRolls

Email

Hi SashiRolls. Thanks for the kind words in your email. I wish you every success in your renewed career on Wikipedia. A word of advice—I know it's sometimes hard, but try to avoid meta-issues for at least a year and stick to article space and uncontroversial subjects. There's lots of fascinating subjects out there . Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Voceditenore: I'm confused. I did not email you. (there are only two contributors I've emailed since I've been back: one was Drmies and the other wasn't you). Please help clear up this mystery... by sending me an email through en.WP. — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies, SashiRolls! I've reread the email. The person who sent it to me has a very similar name, and concerned the Arbitration request where we have both participated, but I now realize that he/she is clearly not you. Once again, I'm very sorry for the confusion. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could say kind words about your sandbox and the many fascinating subjects out there if you'd like. I think I'll file this in the been fairly quickly, but I did want to be sure that no bad crawlers have hijacked my valid-alt @Rosashills: account. Even if the person said nice things, I would still want to be sure it wasn't through any account I operated as my !own, when it had been possessed by Others. No meta issues, for another whole year? ... ;o ... — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice to my alter-self to point out that my ping(ouin)ing above was a complete fail. I also appear not to have been hacked. — 🍆 RosasHills ^{t · c} 13:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks and welcome back

Hi SashiRolls, thank you for your improvement to Forconi, I had definitely missed that entry. And welcome back to Wikipedia! Dr. Vogel (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. (I noticed you fixed that quick addition up nicely.) See you around. — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	You've put an amazing amount of brave effort into the Yellow vests movement, an event which has attracted controversy - your patience and humor is also a relief. You need to be recognized for it! Sıgehelmus (Tålk) 22:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

blush: ^^

"Mais Harry à Paris n'a pas eu de chance
On le stoppe sur le périph' avec sa diligence
Puis on le place à Fresnes pour que Fresnes le freine
Victime des directives de ce que l'on appelle
Le nouveau western..."

— MC Solaar (Nouveau Western)

— 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

heyy Wikicat get your present! Lyaman97 (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh. What've I done now? — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Digitization of administration"

Bonjour! :-) Thank you for all your recent work at Yellow vests movement. The article would be a mess without your careful eye and pen. I have a question about your addition of "and the related digitization of administrations" to the infobox after "Austerity measures." I do not understand what "the related digitization of administrations" refers to. The cited source is written in French and quel dommage, mon cerveau est trop petit et ma langue est trop maladroite pour parler français. What does "digitization of administration" refer to? Is it about "outsourcing" of work from people to robots (mechanization of labor)? Thank you in advance for explaining it! Levivich (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, the author talks about how the primary contact with the tax service (in particular) is no longer face-to-face with a tax agent but by email in rural areas (35,000 tax agent positions eliminated in the last 12 years). He says that those not adept at "tax speak" are much less likely to be able to successfully appeal an onerous tax burden (providing data showing that the "classes supérieures" are more successful). In general this is related to the gilets jaunes' complaints about reduction of services in the countryside (post office, train service, tax offices, etc.) It's in the section "Un Ėtat lointain, au service des puissants". Your French looks fine: if you want to see the whole article, the CGT posted a pale photocopy of it. [1] I'm not particularly wedded to that particular infobox line, I just wanted to add something sourced for austerity. Perhaps improved rural government services would be a better way of putting it, since that's in the 42 directives and pretty widely attested...

I asked for semi-protection on the page yesterday. Maybe that will help, I don't know. I haven't looked at the entry today. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that's not my French, that's Google's. Which is pretty good, but the accent still needs work (still a bit monotonic). Thanks also for the explanation. I made an edit to the infobox changing it to "improved government services for rural areas," and moving that from causes to goals (although I suppose "poor government services in rural areas" could be a goal?). Because I don't speak French, I don't want to Google translate an entire article and then make edits based on that translation...otherwise I'd end up calling them the jaundiced-vest movement. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the snoog cries wolf

snoog added two diffs here and a lot of nonsense. I've pared it down to the relevant info: [2][3].

Snoog, if you boast about how stupid other people are on your userpage, expect blowback if you are stealing a journalist's writing without attribution, as in the first diff. You asked RSN people in a discussion I participated in to come to the page on media bias, where I have, as you know, improved the page. why does that annoy you so? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"stealing a journalist's writing without attribution". That's a blatant lie. I hope you get a thrill from this. It sure is annoying and creepy for me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate where the author you quote (Harry McGrath) or his article is linked [here]. While often our historical disagreements have been about your POV editing, another even more frequent problem is your lack of care in contributing. (I actually didn't know for sure you were the one who had added it until you cried wolf here, but since you made a stink about it... this is indeed looking like yet another copyvio, unless you were, as I assume, just being slipshod.) The copyrighted text is 30 December 2018, you are citing an article from 1 March 2018 as its source. Here is the source you wanted: [4] SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The text clearly attributes the quote to a review in the Herald, even if there was a mix-up in links. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you never take responsibility for your errors, Snoog. Sure, if you want, you didn't make a mistake yourself, there was just a mix-up in the links. Are you saying you should check the links people in your email ring send you more carefully lest you be blamed for copyvio? I have trouble understanding how you made this specific mistake, but since I don't have access to the 1 March 2018 article by Elizabeth Teague which you are (still) citing as a review/reaction to a book that was published in November 2018, I'll let you fix your "mix-up" yourself.

In the same vein, I am amazed that you were able to fight on the Media Bias/Fact Check article for nearly a month without bothering to correct the misspelling of the site owner's name... attention to detail is important, Snoog. More important than hammering the latest DIFF to your user page to boast about how you irritated yet another person with your sloppy editing.

Any chance that you will reflect on the toxicity of your behavior and set a resolution for next year to 1) be more careful & 2) to quit accusing others of misbehavior until you've got your own affairs in order? This would make for a more pleasant 2019. I hope you'll give it a try. Sincerely, SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with regard to the original allegations: I note that you followed me to a page you had never edited on Christmas Day. I forgot to write a furious message on your talk page about how you must have been stalking my edits. I *did* notice that with that edit you deleted reference to an essay from a well-known figure because he had it published in Forbes. Strange how that same publication was fine when you wanted to import harsh language into a candidate's BLP back in 2016. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misclick

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to A Thousand Plateaus, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I misclicked. My apologies. I did not mean to identify your edit as "vandalism". It was disruptive, however. And the consistent disruption leads to misclicks. Out of curiousity could you provide a link to a major edit I marked as minor below? Thanks. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing disruptive about my edit, SashiRolls. You made an addition that was good faith but inappropriate, because it consisted of undue material. It was reasonable of me to remove it, because there was a very clear justification for doing so. You should not have restored the material. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your third opinion request

Hello, SashiRolls. I suggest that you rewrite your third opinion request. Third opinion requests need to begin with a link to the section of the article's talk page where the dispute is being held. Your request does not follow that format, which may cause it to be declined. Also, it is too long. Best regards. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018–2019 Sudanese protests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I used to get these all the time until I turned on the "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" feature at Preferences/Gadgets. Now the bots leave me alone! ^Leviv_ich 15:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good tip, thanks! :) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign influence in national elections has been nominated for discussion

Category:Foreign influence in national elections, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — JFG ^talk 18:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good proposal. Thanks for the notification, @JFG:. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Sudanese protests (2018–19)

On 24 February 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sudanese protests (2018–19), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RE AE typewriter

Thanks for letting me know. What made you think you could be "banned" for this though? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]