User talk:GPinkerton

Welcome GPinkerton!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 47,405,066 registered editors!

Hello GPinkerton. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Galendalia, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles   Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates   Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to:

• Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
• Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
  

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 01:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 01:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, GPinkerton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 19:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Four-centred arch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Timurid (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) 21:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Late Period of ancient Egypt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Pelusium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of Augustae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Anastasius I, Zeno, Leo I and Leo II

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

March 2020

Hello, I'm Jingiby. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Jingiby (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in a loss of editing privileges. Jingiby (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jingiby (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, GPinkerton, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article? Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews

Hi, can you please point me out where in the source [1] is used the term "Nazi-allied Bulgaria" that you added to the article? Also, can you please provide the exact content of the pages 98-104 by Walter, because having in mind misusing the previous source, adding the "Nazi-allied Bulgaria" out of nothing, I have a doubts, that you're trying to "over-Nazify" the state. Regards! --StanProg (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Bulgaria was allied to the Nazis in WW2 and fought on the Germans' side. This is not a subject capable of dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPinkerton (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The source may not use the exact phraseology "Nazi-allied Bulgaria" but it is evident throughout that Bulgaria was in an alliance with Nazi Germany, as all the world knows. It is therefore beyond doubt that Bulgaria was allied with the Nazis and can be fittingly described in English as "Nazi-allied Bulgaria". I am struggling to understand what issue you are taking with the words. GPinkerton (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is not if it was allied or not, the problem is with overusing the term "Nazi", which can be seen as an agenda in your latest edits. It looks like you intentionally overusing it, even when supporting your claims with online sources that can be easily checked. What about the pages 98-104 by Walter? Can we see what is exactly there? --StanProg (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I have used it exactly once in the lead. I have never said the source you mentioned uses "Nazi-allied Bulgaria". My only agenda is to use reliable sources to create encyclopaedic content. Unless your agenda is to somehow exonerate Bulgaria for its involvement with Nazism and Nazi Germany, there is no reason for you to have a problem with the concept of Bulgaria being allied to Nazi Germany. It was, and the article ought to say so. It also helpfully ties the content to the wider history of the Holocaust because the expression "Nazi-allied Bulgaria" as succinctly as possible describes the international position of Bulgaria during the war and neatly explains why Bulgaria began confiscation of Jewish property, expulsions, race laws, deportations, and eventual genocide between 1939 and 1944 and helpfully excludes the remainder of Bulgarian history before the war and after 1944.

You appear to be removing well-sourced factual information for no good reason. Please desist, or else find suitable reliable sources that support the claims made in your edits. Your edits are being disruptive to Wikipedia. Please consult the sources cited before removing important information; you might learn a lot. Otherwise, you appear to be making partisan edits to obscure the facts and present a POV. GPinkerton (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary - I am adding information, based on a reliable academic source, confirming exactly the information along with the full text of the source. You have removed the provided source and the information, while you have provided no text from your sources, so we don't even know if they are real. This is called vandalism. Please, stop vandalizing the work of other editors and start providing reliable sources with quoted texts. --StanProg (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Read the footnotes I have added. I have added no fewer than seven reliable sources to this page. No information I have added is not backed up by at least two if not all of these sources. If you don't believe the information read the sources. If you can't read, don't delete sourced information out of spite. You have repeatedly removed the information relating to forced labour - you have obviously not checked the citations I have added, which all of them say "forced labour". You appear to deny this, but you have no reliable sources to back your claims. Find reliable sources, or I will keep deleting your non-idiomatic nonsense.

There are only references, no footnotes. I can see only one of the sources (by anonymous author from ushmm.org). Is this source part of your reliable sources? I don't own the rest of the books, so I can't read the text of the sources. This is why I asked you to provide the texts. In the only readable source it says "Bulgarian authorities also confiscated most of the property left behind by those deported." in the article you have added "The Jews, whose deportation from Bulgaria was halted, including all Sofia's 19,000 Jews,[5] nonetheless had their property confiscated", so which properties were confiscated, the ones of the deported Jews (according to the source) or the ones that were not deported (according to the text you added)? This is why I needed to see the text of the sources you quote, because I'm starting to think that you're intentionally misquoting the sources. I have provided 1 source (not from anonymous author) which you can freely translate it with an online tool and check if it matches my text. --StanProg (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not you can read them is of no concern to me - I and anyone else reading the article can read the citations cited through the hyperlinks and see the facts written there. I have done nothing but transfer that information into Wikipedia. A machine translated text from a blog by a one-time member of a government committee does not constitute a reliable tertiary source, and certainly gives no grounds whatever to overturning the wording used by a half-dozen reliable, verifiable encyclopaedic soruces. (Oxford Handbook of Holocaust, US Holocaust Memorial Museum Encylopaedia, Crewe, Chary, and the rest). Perhaps there's a reason you can't find that one Bulgarian politician's POV opinions repeated in reliable English-language sources ...

I think you have been missing the point. Though Sofia's Jews were not deported outside Bulgaria, they were all deported from Sofia and other Jews from other cities likewise deported to camps and ghettos within Bulgaria and their property seized. GPinkerton (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Please, answer in this discussion by pinging me. That's the normal way Wikipedians do discussions. I think you're missing the point. "Bulgarian authorities also confiscated most of the property left behind by those deported.". Deported is not related to the people that were expelled from Sofia the country interrion. Deportation is a specific term, it has a specific meaning, including in the source provided by you (Note the "expulsion" part). An of course in this source it says "most of the property", and you wrote in the article "had their property confiscated". --StanProg (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

What part of deportation do you not understand? In English, deportation means eviction from one's place of residence and removal elsewhere. That's the specific meaning employed by both the sources and this Wikipedia article. The US Holocaust Memorial Museum Encylopedia says: Shortly thereafter, the Bulgarian government announced the expulsion of 20,000 Jews from Sofia to the provinces. (In 1934, the Jewish population of Sofia was about 25,000, 9 percent of the capital's total population.) Police brutally suppressed popular protests staged by both Jews and non-Jews. Within about two weeks, Bulgarian authorities expelled almost 20,000 Jews, relocated them to the Bulgarian countryside, and deployed males at forced labor in forced-labor camps. Bulgarian authorities also confiscated most of the property left behind by those deported. The people refereed to are all the Jews of Sofia. Expulsion and internal deportation are the same thing, or rather, two sides of the same thing. GPinkerton (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I perfectly understand what deportation within the context of the The Holocaust means. In the source the term expulsion/expelled is used exclusively for the relocation of the population within the state, while deported is used for deporting out of the state in the concentration camps. Most of the property of the Jews that were deported was confiscated and that's the fact which is described in the source. The ones expelled/relocated still had their property, excluding the "uncovered property", like fields, forests, etc. which they were obligated to sell according to the Law for Protection of the Nation . How was this "uncovered property" for example confiscated, when it was already sold. They had 3 months period from 23 January 1941 to do that. --StanProg (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

You said: "In the source the term expulsion/expelled is used exclusively for the relocation of the population within the state, while deported is used for deporting out of the state in the concentration camps." This is false! Expulsion is used for the Jews being forced to leave (expelled from) their homes, "deportation" is used for their transport elsewhere (whether within or without Bulgaria). Do not distort the source just because your English isn't good enough to parse it. Since you haven't understood the source quoted above, perhaps this one is clearer: "But when Belev presented plans for deporting Jews from Sofia either to Poland or to the provinces, the Bulgarian authorities chose the latter alternative. Consequently, 25,743 Jews from Sofia were sent to the countryside, along with another few hundred Jews from Stara Zagora and Kazanlak" - Ioanid, 2010. It's becoming increasingly clear you want to deny this well-attested fact. You said: "The ones expelled/relocated still had their property". This is false and conflicts with the sources. Why can't you find any source which supports your POV? I wonder .... GPinkerton (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bulgaria during World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ivan Marinov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Little Hagia Sophia, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Little Hagia Sophia, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Royal Voluntary Service, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Queen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ogivale

This is the term used to describe Gothic architecture in the French language. It is also used, in the French language to described the pointed arch. It is not in general use in English, to descrobe the pointed arch, or a vault with pointed ribs. The two references given are both books written in the French language. Most of the French terms do not apply in English. One of the reasons why it is particularly confusing is that the term "ogee" or "ogive" is used in English specifically to describe an arch with an S curve, a "Flamboyant" arch. Amandajm (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Amandajm: You would do well to consult the Oxford Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (3 ed., 2010), wherein Ogive is defined thus: "Diagonal rib of a Gothic vault, or any arch made up of two arcs meeting at a point. Ogival architecture is therefore Pointed or Gothic architecture." or the Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed., 2004) where, under the head ogival, adj. and n., the words "in current use" appear, together with the definitions: Having the form or outline of an ogive or pointed arch. and Characterized by ogives or pointed arches. There is no potential for confusion. The references I have added are all in English. GPinkerton (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you operating under two identities, by any chance? Amandajm (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

No I am not, since that would be both pointless and against Wikipedia rules. GPinkerton (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"execrable double spaces"

What are these, that you keep going on about? One can't see from the diff. If you mean surplus lines, after a section header say, that might be ok, or not, depending on exactly where they are. If you mean double spaces after a full stop (period), this is a perfectly acceptable and standard style you should not be messing about. You are obviously a person with violently-held opinions, but you should not go round imposing them everywhere. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

These are the pointless double spaces that sometimes irregularly appear after full stops, after the manner of typewriter-users. There is, as I say, no point to these since they usually do not appear in the rendered page. See: MOS:DOUBLE SPACE. I have yet to come across any page where they are used consistently and what possible justification is there for keeping them where they pop up sporadically? As your claim that my "opinions" are "violently held", I'm still yet you hear from you as to why survival of British Gothic buildings should somehow govern the content of Gothic architecture - a world-wide style - as you appeared to pronounce. GPinkerton (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to bother producing a long explanation for someone who never seems to take in opposing arguments, in the context of a proposal that is clearly not attracting support. The same goes for the crucifixion one btw - to reply to that properly would involve reading three long & very boring articles, & the proposal is not going anywhere. If the spaces aren't rendered, why bother removing them? I find them useful when editing. MOS does not say they should not be inserted, & I'd be interested to see the level of support for removing them. At the least it looks, ahem, eccentric, to make such a fuss about them. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm making a fuss? Did I create this section on my talk page? GPinkerton (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Belated, but in general, don't mess with double spaces if they're already in the article. It's solely a matter of editor preference. They are utterly harmless and don't render differently, so there is no advantage to changing single spaces to double spaces or double spaces to single spaces - you've misread MOS:DOUBLESPACE if you think it gives you a license to change the style everywhere you see it. If you're already rewriting or editing a passage for other reasons, it's fine to use your own style of course. SnowFire (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@SnowFire: Usually, the double spaces get removed when there're triple spaces, which I think do render and which I'm sure are not intentional. I use find and replace double with single in that instance. I have never just removed double spaces; I'm always doing something more worthwhile. As I say, I've never come across an article where double or triple spacing is used consistently. GPinkerton (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can test it out: One space. Two spaces. Three spaces. No difference. Anyway, if you're doing something worthwhile as well, it's no big deal, just figured I'd throw in my two cents. While we're here - I actually checked your talk page because of your recent edit on Parable of the Ten Virgins. I rolled that back if you don't mind too much - double check that I'm not crazy here? I did look at old versions and it doesn't appear to be in British English to me, but maybe I'm missing something. SnowFire (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@SnowFire: The first divergence in styles of English seems to be this [2] one on 27 February 2006, where "honour" is introduced - I may be wrong. GPinkerton (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hrmm. Unfortunately it seems the user who did that edit was blocked just a year ago. That said - you might be right after all, then, the article was in pretty sorry shape before those changes. I'll revert myself, although I think "medieval" with no ae is valid British English too so dunno if that particular change made sense. SnowFire (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@SnowFire: "Medieval" is an Americanization of mediaeval. Still, policy is against the proper number of letters being British in this case, because the Americanization outside Wikipedia is complete in popular usage in the past decade or two and "medieval" is common to both sides of the ocean. GPinkerton (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Ob. xkcd Elizium23 (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@SnowFire: I'll revert the "gray" as well. It doesn't mean a special grey, it's just grey, as in the colour of a grey area. GPinkerton (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I mildly disagree but it doesn't matter so sure, go for it. SnowFire (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bulgarian Holocaust: personal attacks and canvassing where actions of other editors towards you are dicussed.--Eostrix (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Eostrix: Many thanks for discovering this and bringing it to my attention! GPinkerton (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that my report may be far from complete. I was looking at the voting patterns at Talk:Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews and the interwiki connection. I did not examine every edit and talk page comment on that article and I hardly looked at any of the other articles involved.--Eostrix (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi GPinkerton! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Merge consensus, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

For continuously making accusations of POV at Esther instead of addressing the arguments:

Hello, I'm Debresser. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You did it again. I removed the one offending line. Please be advised that if you continue making accusations of such a nature, I will report you at one of the appropriate admin forums. Please comment on content, and not on the editor. Behaving otherwise, is belligerent and non-collegial behavior, which, in the end, might lead to restriction of your editing privileges. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your work at The Holocaust in Bulgaria (formerly Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews). Bob not snob (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Basilicas in Roman Catholicism

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Basilicas in Roman Catholicism. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Basilica. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Basilica. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Elizium23 (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Basilica; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. Elizium23 (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Basilica shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Elizium23 (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

3rd opinion requested

Hi GPinkerton there is currently a 3rd opinion request open at Talk:Basilica#Third_opinion that requires your comments. I’m noticing you are making a lot of changes to the article which seems to have been going on all day. Please at this time go to the link and fill in what is being requested. It is very much appreciated.

Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 09:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please, as the directions state, provide a short sentence of the issue in which you two are having. I don’t need the entire chat posted back down in that section. Just your view in 1 maybe 2 sentences please.

Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 10:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Basilica. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about another user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors will result in being blocked from editing. MrClog (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This refers to the incident above, but please note: there will be no further warnings. This is an immediate banning matter, so please do not do it again. Guy (help!) 17:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: @MrClog: Please see also the comment immediately above where Johnbod addressed me in exactly the same way - is that purposeful and blatant harassment?

He addressed you by your username. --MrClog (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrClog: And so I should have used his first name? And no, I mean the baseless attacks he has made against me, as several times before (which are often based on very weak but conceited understanding of the subject at hand). GPinkerton (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: @MrClog: I'm still unclear about what these notices are for. GPinkerton (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, you used a person's real first name, while he did not list his first name on his user name or the like, in which case you are not allowed to use it (WP:OUTING). Also, no need to ping me twice in 2 hours. --MrClog (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrClog: Well I must have seen it somewhere so it must be listed somewhere so I'm not sure this applies. GPinkerton (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

"It is generally more acceptable to reference information if it is clear the user does not mind wider dissemination (e.g. posted on a user's public userpage) and less acceptable if it requires much "research" to find (particularly information later removed by the user in question)." and "Editors are urged to take care to err on the side of privacy, and to ask users before posting their personal information if there is any doubt. Posting information which might not constitute outing per se can still be unwise and reflect poorly on the poster's judgment.". --MrClog (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Basilica. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. A neutral notice offers the fact of an RfC, not opinion thereupon. Be mindful. serial ^# 19:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I am not breaching policy. Policy states: "any editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. ..." Please explain if and why you believe otherwise; if not, please remove your comment. GPinkerton (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I'm also confused, because I see GPinkerton's notice at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#RfC_on_Basilica, which simply reads: Publicizing a Request for Comment on Basilica. Seems perfectly sensible. What "opinion" are you refering to? El_C 19:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@El C: It's been edited. Before it said what the RfC was about. GPinkerton (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, El_C, in the history: the notification should be of the RfC itself, not of whether one choice is avaliable over another. All the best, serial ^# 19:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A bizarre stricture. GPinkerton (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, if it was a non-neutral summary that would obviously be a problem. And it does seem like it editorializes a bit. As a general rule of thumb it's best to just link to the RfC, per se., that way, the RfC question could stand on its own. El_C 20:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Do you know if it's possible to get the RfC listed on the History and geography RfCs? The starting user (disappointed that Third Opinion did not go their way and pursuing a pro-Catholicism COI) did not list the RfC there (but did list with the Religion RfC) which is surely itself selective? GPinkerton (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it would have been better to list those other categories, too. But I don't think a Catholicism COI is a thing, even for members of the priesthood. Doctors are allowed to write about medicine on Wikipedia. That's not a conflict of interest. El_C 20:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@El C: It definitely is a thing, it just doesn't appear to be against the rules. Doctors, in any case, are not allowed to write about their own practices. And I should not be sanctioned for trying to rectify the lies-by-omission inhering in Elizium's behaviour, who, doubtless upset their attempt to turn Basilica into a disambiguation page failed, is now militating to have yet another article devote yet more space to this (apparently very meaningful for them) one denomination's title, when we have already Major basilica, Minor basilica, and Basilicas in the Catholic Church. This is not how Bathtub and Roman bath are handled ...! GPinkerton (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Your comments are very argumentative and at times lack any sense of WP:AGF. Please do not turn Wikipedia into a battleground. --MrClog (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrClog: It isn't me that's doing that. It's very difficult to assume good faith in cases of demonstrable bad faith. GPinkerton (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No, GPinkerton, having a POV does not equate to having a COI. And you are skirting the line between what is or isn't acceptable — lies-by-omission is not, btw. As an uninvolved admin, that is my preliminary evaluation. Please try to do better. El_C 23:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Catholicity

Hi GPinkerton. Regarding this edit], I read the cited pages in the McBrien text and did not see any basis for the change you made. Perhaps I missed something. Could you clarify by indicating which part(s) of the McBrien source support those changes? Thanks! Sundayclose (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Do you really need a citation to know that the Catholic Church is led by the Pope? Is the WP:SKYBLUE? [Is the pope a Catholic?] The whole article exists because the church called Catholic Church on Wikipedia is not the only catholic Church and never has been. GPinkerton (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm quite aware that the pope leads the RC Church, but I'm asking for clarification for your edit and why it was changed from the previous version. I'm asking for the specifics in the source for the change you made. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the source as redundant. The present wording is clearer. GPinkerton (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Redundant with what? I disagree with your edit. Removing the source doesn't clarify anything. Sundayclose (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Sundayclose. "Faith and practices" are not a church. People make up the church. And I am not so sure that either version is a great specimen of writing, but the diff makes it worse. Elizium23 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Read again and tell me what you think is actually wrong with it or how it should be improved. GPinkerton (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It should read "Though the faith and practices of the Catholic Church are led by the pope in Rome, the traits of catholicity ...", the way it was originally. As Elizium23 said, "faith and practices" are not the church. Sundayclose (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. GPinkerton (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Your recent editing history at Catholicity shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You have already exceeded three reverts in 24 hours. Please revert your last edit. Sundayclose (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If you read properly, you'll see it's only you reverting. GPinkerton (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR. A revert is any change from previous version. I'm serious. Revert your last edit. This issue is under discussion and repeated reverting during the discussion is edit warring, especially since you have no support for your changes. Sundayclose (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is ended. We all agree the wording was poor. I have changed it. The source said nothing about the pope or Rome or other churches, and doesn't belong there. Why don;t you explain what you think can be improved? GPinkerton (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't make a unilateral decision that the "discussion is ended" or that the McBrien reference should be removed. Final request: revert your last edit until there is a consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Instead of issuing ultimatums why don't you point to what on those pages of McBrien you believe has anything to do with the sentence in which it appears? GPinkerton (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no support for your restoration of "Though the faith and practices led by the pope in Rome are known as the Catholic Church ...", and two editors so far disagree with you. I'm not discussing further on your talk page as it is pointless. Sundayclose (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't me that wrote those words; it's you that keeps reverting them back .... GPinkerton (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You made this edit, and it is forever in the article's history. You are skating on thin ice making unilateral decision with no consensus and opposition from at least two editors. End of discussion here. Sundayclose (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Read that edit again, and slower. You are the one reverting things, and you allegations that I added material that you object to are refuted by the article's history, which shows the poor wording was already there. GPinkerton (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Book of Esther

Hi, I added more of the story in the Book of Esther from the Bible. As it is the regular Wikipedia, not the Simple English Wikipedia, I felt it was necessary.

Thanks --Sorinam (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sorinam: Please don't add lots of text based on the Bible. It's not a suitable source for Wikipedia, see WP:PRIMARY. GPinkerton (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: The wikipedia entry is about a book from the Bible. While the Bible may not be used for accurate historical information, it is regular practice to share the plot of a storybook; this, to me is the same thing. I am more than willing to bring in a third party such as @Jingiby: or any other editor for a suggestion. Thanks, --Sorinam (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sorinam: In the meantime I will revert your changes again because there is no consensus to apply these swathes of unsourced exegesis. GPinkerton (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Seeing that you have had trouble with other editors such as @Sundayclose: and @Serial Number 54129:, I am asking you to please wait for a third party before making these changes. These changes are based on the translation of the Book of Esther found at The Chabad Website. Thanks, --Sorinam (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: I will edit the article next week with sources. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gothic architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bath (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Request on comments

Please send comments on the Gothic Architecture article to the talk page of that article, not to my personal mailbox. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Esther and English

Please explain why you tagged the Esther article with the {{Use British English Oxford spelling}} template. That template is usually used when the subject of an article has a inherent connection to Great Britain. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Because the article has used this spelling system since the 2000s and there is no reason to change it. And no, the template is used when the article is written in this spelling system. There is no requirement for it to be inherently connected with anywhere. GPinkerton (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I see. Not disagreeing with you, but please see MOS:TIES to understand what I said. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. As for your comment about reliable sources, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE where the Bible is deemed not appropriate for anything but direct attributed quotes. GPinkerton (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I find WP:RSPSCRIPTURE to be a bit strict. I obviously agree regarding analysis, but a simple retelling of the story, without additional elements, should be fine without additional sources, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition, I hold it makes no sense to revert from one unsourced text to another unsourced text. If we could have the text we had till now, and it definitely has consensus, then we can have another text as well, even if it is a bit more elaborate. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, I think in narrative sections and similar, it's reasonable to use the primary text for a "recap" per MOS:PLOT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång My point as well. Thanks for mentioning the guideline to anchor my opinion on. Debresser (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Debresser If I remember correctly, "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work." came up in some minor scifi-related discussion ;-) And you managed to ping me with a redlink, I don't think I've seen that before. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Per MOS:PLOTSOURCE there is a big difference between "summarizing", which basically does not call for any source apart from the primary source, and "interpreting" or "analyzing", which should be based only on sources, to avoid original research. Debresser (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, it strikes me that you may be interested in this discussion too: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Gothic Tracery

Hi GPinkerton. I reversed the above redirect. That is a good article. Gothic Tracery is enormous in Europe, its a solid article, well sourced and the subject is not well covered in the destination articles. That article will expand considerably in the coming years. scope_creep^Talk 20:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Please look now at the Tracery article now. I have expanded it significantly. Most of the Gothic tracery article was written in bizarre English and was not helpful, and the subject is no different from tracery generally. I will revert your revert for now. GPinkerton (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you should have probably kept it, as you will need to split the article out at the some point the future any. It a very big subject, the history isn't there e.g. It'll expand like mad, when somebody get around to writing it, and the reasons for it. It deserves its own article.scope_creep^Talk 21:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I doubt it, and until the first article is too big, it can all fit in one article. GPinkerton (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for review

Dear GPinkerton,

I have requested that the Administrator's Notre Board to take a look at the talk page for this article, and your manner of speaking about me and other editors.SiefkinDR (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: And where is the link you supposed to notify me with?! (See your comment above for more instances of your careless spelling.) GPinkerton (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: It appears you have done no such thing ... GPinkerton (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I notified you directly by e-mail at the time when it was posted, but, since you ask, here is more formal notification.

Notice of noticeboard discussion "There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you."

And here's the link, if anyone's interested. Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aqueduct of Valens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aqueduct (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

We know this

“ No horses in America before Columbus.” Yes, we know this. Please note discussion before charging in. Please also keep footnotes consistent when you are editing. Montanabw^(talk) 06:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry that you accidentally stumbled into a years-long battleground on Mustang where there is much bad feeling involved. Your edits on the etymology section helped, and after my earlier revert, I put them back in. The problem was the mass restructuring of the organization of the article absent consensus of the other people (me, Ealdgyth, and others}} who have been WP:STEWARDS of this article for years. Montanabw^(talk) 00:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Take a peek at the talkpage at what might be a consensus version of that prehistory section. Some new eyes popped by and the drama has ratcheted down since the article was locked. Your views are welcome (to,avoid the walls of text, I’m referring to the most recent stuff at the bottom section on the page. ) Montanabw^(talk) 04:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Final review

May I kindly ask you to take a look at Talk:Mustang#Final_draft? I suspect you are tired of the debate, but as the article was locked, we now need consensus to unlock the article and fix it, so your input as a neutral party will help. Many thanks, and sorry you were dragged (by wild horses) into this mess. Montanabw^(talk) 16:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I opened a discussion

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Vashti_again. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Vashti, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Stop this edit war now and behave like an editor. Ogress 19:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ogress: See my comments on your Talk page, which gives further detail to my edit summaries denouncing Debresser's POV interpolations and your assistance to him in edit-warring this into the article, which editor, frankly, WP:OWN applies to far more than it could me. GPinkerton (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You accuse me? I am freezing this page because you are edit-warring and I am not taking a side. Accusing me with personal attacks is not a good choice. Ogress 19:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ogress: You have reverted to a version including Debresser's contentious, unsourced, and mispelt material. Freeze it, and you declare Debresser the edit-wars victor (as well as the aggressor and first belligerent). This cannot be right. GPinkerton (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not your personal page and you need to work this out with editors. The world will not end because of this minor edit freeze. This is an ongoing discussion. Revert again and I will report you: the entire reason I stepped is was to stop this stupid edit war and get you talking. Stop talking to me and work with Wikiproject Judaism and others where this situation was raised by the other editor and stop yelling at me. Ogress 19:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not your personal page and you need to work this out with editors Tell that to Debresser, whose ownership you tacitly, probably unwittingly, support! GPinkerton (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You are a very aggressive and unpleasant editor, as I have had chance to notice earlier. Just do everybody a favor, yourself not in the last place, and cool down. Debresser (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Vashti. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Number 57 16:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

First of all I understand why I have been blocked and what I did was not correct; I should not have continued the edit war begun by the other editor (who should know better) and sought resolution by other means. I was not wrong that I have been sanctioned for this. However, I think I do not deserve to be blocked for as long as this, not least because there is still much to do in pages I am editing and which are under discussion at present, and also because the length of block handed down to the other involved editor is no longer than mine, despite this being the first time I have ever been sanctioned for anything and the other editor has been blocked from editing numerous times over a ten-year period, for edit-warring, and the most recent of which was only last month. So I would argue that justice demands a more severe punishment for one than for the other; to introduce this fair asymmetry, I ask that my block is rescinded or shortened to allow me to resume editing sooner. It can be seen from the page histories of the First plague pandemic, Second plague pandemic, Black Death, Basilica, Roman-Persian Wars, The Holocaust in Bulgaria, and WP:CGR that I am a helpful editor and definitely WP:HERE. Any and all violations of mine relate to interactions with just one editor (also blocked) and his contentious text and this will not recur on my part. GPinkerton (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There were two other editors, not one. Sorry, but even if you were right, it's not an excuse. Guy (help!) 18:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocks are not a punishment, they are solely to end disruption. I would like to know how you will handle a similar dispute in the future. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: Thanks for pointing that out. If unblocked, I'm not going to be editing the relevant articles so I'm not a potential cause of disruption. (The issue(s) of Esther, Vashti, Haman, Mordechai, and Ahasuerus are related and need a lot of discussion to reach consistent consensus the on date and historicity of the Book of Esther.) In future (as usually in the past) I will avoid edit warring by endeavouring to hold longer discussions on wording and weight with other editors with conflicting views, and by using the various dispute resolution organs and RfCs, as I did at The Holocaust in Bulgaria (formerly titled "Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews") which seemed to resolve the (quite heated) discussion over that subject and its ramifications to most editors' satisfaction. I'd welcome suggestions of anything I've missed. GPinkerton (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I'm not sure that's right. Only Debresser and I were contesting the content substantially, the other editor just reverted to one of Debresser's re-reverts mid-way through the dispute. And I haven't said that excuses the breach of the rules, just that situation is peculiar to, well, that situation, which is unlikely to recur. GPinkerton (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

There is no risk of further disruption on my part. I'd be glad if I could resume editing as soon as possible. I'm not excusing what happened, and I'm ready to begin editing anew. GPinkerton (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I think that there is sufficient reason to grant your request, as it doesn't sound like you will edit war again. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated! GPinkerton (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St. Paul's Cathedral, Kolkata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diocese of Calcutta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Perpendicular Gothic

I know you love just ripping material out, but did you consider whether the passages you removed deserved rehoming elsewhere? For example where Perpendicular Gothic takes you? Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Yes. GPinkerton (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Dome

I apologize for the delay in responding, but please be patient. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I've seen your responses and will respond myself after work tomorrow. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I've responded. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

GAR notice

Sistine Chapel ceiling, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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!

Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Claudius Drusus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ilium.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit-war

You have now made three reverts in the span of a few minutes:[3],[4],[5]. I noticed you've been warned against edit-warring. VR _talk 03:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hagia Sophia; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Toddy1 report has been filed here.VR _talk 04:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Hagia Sophia. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Elizium23 (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 I mentioned the personal attacks [here here].VR _talk 04:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. VR _talk 04:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring once again

You are once again edit-warring[6][7] (this time at Mehmed the Conqueror) without even discussing on the talk page. You have been warned by Ivanvector amongst others. You're adding the same contentious material that you did in at Hagia Sophia, where you violated 3rr to restore that material. But this time you're not even bothering to take this to the talk page.VR _talk 03:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)