User talk:GPinkerton

Welcome GPinkerton!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 47,402,945 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)

Regnal names

Hello. Regarding Roman regnal names, I think it's a good idea to just follow the example of list of Roman consuls, whereby emperors until Galerius and Constantius are displayed simply as 'Imperator Caesar [name] Augustus', and from then on just dispense with regnal name altogether. It's not a good idea to just take everything Cooley says at face value, and sources aren't 100% consistent on the issue; her own imperial names in appendix 2 differ somewhat from those in appendix 1. I see no reason to put 'dominus noster' any more than 'pius felix', 'pontifex maximus' or 'tribunicia potestas' in the regnal name parameter. Kienast, Romische Kaisertabelle, to give an example, doesn't show 'dominus noster' at all. Avis11 (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Avis11: Hi, I'm not sure what you mean by Kienast, Romische Kaisertabelle, to give an example, doesn't show 'dominus noster' at all. My copy says that Licinius, (p. 282) Licinius II (as caesar) (p. 284), Constantius Gallus (as caesar) (p. 303), Magnentius (p. 305), Decentius, Nepotianus (p. 306), Vetranio (p. 307), Julian (including as caesar) (p. 309), Jovian (p. 312), Valens (p. 316), Procopius (p. 318), Valentinian II (p. 321), Theodosius I (p. 323), Magnus Maximus and his son (pp. 327-328), and Eugenius (p. 329) all had the title Dominus Noster and puts it in the same formatting as Augustus. It's surely better to follow one source rather than cherry picking random elements from various ones. Cooley gives a shorter "full form" than does Kienast, who also lists a number of variants for each. Following Kienast would not be a problem, but it would be even more wordy. The reason to put this or that title in is because it is suggestive of practice. Some had these titles and used them, others did not. GPinkerton (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

If we were to cite Kienast, Magnus Maximus's infobox could look like this:

Magnus Maximus
Augustus
Roman emperor
Reign	384 – 28 August 388, in the West (4 years)
Coronation	383 (as usurper)
Predecessor	Gratian
Successor	Theodosius I
Co-emperors	Theodosius I (384–388) Valentinian II (384–388) Victor (384–388)
Born	c.335 Hispania Gallaecia
Died	28 August 388 Aquileia, Venetia et Histria
Spouse	Elen (traditional)
Issue Detail	Flavius Victor "Sevira" "Maxima"
Regnal name d.n. Magnus Maximus p.f. Aug.
Dynasty	Theodosian
Religion	Nicene Christianity

(I'm removing the image, if you don't mind, to save space) Well, in Kienast (pp. 310–314), none of Constantine I's sons are given any prefixed styles whatsoever, so he himself isn't very consistent on this. Given that his entries are different from Cooley's, I think the safest thing to do is, rather than arbitrarily selecting a source, to simply use no source at all. There's no objective reason to display, say, "Julianus nobilissimus Caesar" over "Julianus Caesar" or "D.N. Julianus nobilissimus Caesar". None are incorrect, and all appear in inscriptions and coins, but, at this point in time, D.N., nobilissimus and Caesar are mere honorific titles, distinct from an emperor's actual name, and an infinite amount of combinations are possible. Regnal names worked well for, say, Trajan (M. Ulpius Traianus -> Imp. Caesar Nerva Traianus Aug.) and Hadrian (P. Aelius Hadrianus -> Imp. Caes. Traianus Hadrianus Aug.), less so for Licinius (D.N. Val. Licinianus Licinius Aug. – essentially a repetition of his full name w/ an arbitrary number of honorifics surrounding it). For this reason, I think it's best to discard regnal names altogether for later emperors. Ichthyovenator probably agrees with me here, if his opinion interests you. Avis11 (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

Floor The stone floor of Hagia Sophia dates from the 6th century. After the first collapse of the vault, the broken dome was left in situ on the original Justinianic floor and a new floor laid above the rubble when the dome was rebuilt in 558. From the installation of this second Justinianic floor, the floor became part of the liturgy, with significant locations and spaces demarcated in various ways with different coloured stones and marbles. The floor is predominantly of Proconnesian marble, quarried on Proconnesus (Marmara Island) in the Propontis (Sea of Marmara). This was the main white marble used in Constantinople's monuments. Other parts of the floor were quarried in Thessaly in Roman Greece: the Thessalian verd antique. The Thessalian verd antique bands across the nave floor were usually likened to rivers. The floor was praised by numerous authors and repeatedly compared to a sea. The Justinianic poet Paul the Silentiary compared the ambo and the solea connecting it with the sanctuary to an island in a sea, with the sanctuary itself a harbour. The 9th-century Narratio as "like the sea or the flowing waters of a river". Michael the Deacon in the 12th century also described the floor as a sea in which the ambo and other liturgical furniture stood as islands. In the 15th century conquest of Constantinople, the Ottoman caliph Mehmed is said to have ascended to the dome and the galleries in order to admire the floor, which according to Tursun Beg resembled "a sea in a storm" or a "petrified sea". Other Ottoman-era authors also praised the floor; Tâcîzâde Cafer Çelebi compared it to waves of marble. The floor was hidden beneath a carpet on 22 July 2020. References

Edit warring

Hi GP - I come here from ANI, via Hagia Sophia. Serious question: do you you realise that what you were doing there today was edit warring? Have you read the guidance at WP:EW? You just came off a block for it a few weeks back. A lot of people seem to think that it is only a problem if you go over three reverts in a day - that isn't the case. 3RR is the hard-and-fast 'you will immediately be blocked' rule, but if someone reverts you, and you reinstate your preferred version without discussion, you're already edit warring.

Sometimes, some leeway is given. If a new IP comes along and puts a load of unsourced crap on the page, you might be justified in reverting a couple of times in the hope they'll go away. But if an experienced editor removes content, with an explanatory edit summary, and you revert them, and then another editor removes it again, and you revert them too - that is not on.

I don't want to come down on you like a thousand kg of baked mud, but this has to stop, permanently, and immediately. I know you're not afraid of talk pages - you need to start seeing them as the starting point, not the place you go once you've run out of reverts. I don't like slapping experienced people like yourself with templated messages, but you need to understand this. Please confirm that you understand what edit warring is, and that you're not allowed to do it. Ask me any questions you like if you're not sure. If you fall foul of this again, I'm guessing that you know what the likely result will be. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 22:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: In this instance the discussion on the talkpage was and is ongoing and yes, since the the page's protection expired IPs have been adding unsourced crap to the article - namely the unsourced nonsense that Mehmed II bought the building (!) from someone (it's never stated who). That's what caused me to ask that the protection be renewed. Other editors reverted the IPs' changes. Next, another IP comes and removes chunks of the existing article. I revert this, but immediately afterwards, a recently created account that was once one of those IPs trying to insert the purchase myth without adequate sourcing reverted the section blanking back in, a move they've made a few times already, so I reverted it. That's all. I confirm I know what edit warring is. GPinkerton (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, am I reading the history incorrectly? It looks like you reverted Drmies after he removed content with an explanatory edit summary, and then another editor after they also reverted you. Do you not understand that that is unacceptable, or am I missing a piece of the puzzle? GirthSummit _(blether) 23:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You've gone dark - fair enough, we've all got lives. Bottom-line - yes, discussion was taking place on talk, but that doesn't give you free rein to revert as a first resort. It doesn't matter whether a particular bit of information is missing from an article for a few hours (or days), finish the conversation and agree on a way forward before hitting the revert button. It's one thing with random new editors (but even with them 3RR applies), but if there are experienced editors disagreeing with you (and with Drmies, experienced editor is something of an understatement), talk it through thoroughly first. You're on thin ice having just come off an edit warring block on a promise not to do it again - don't stamp your feet. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 23:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I reverted what I thought was vandalism which was happening while I was preparing an expansion and after seeing the page vandalized and reverted earlier and immediately after finishing reporting an IP for vandalizing/edit warring on the very same page. Vandals have left eloquent edit summaries before; I did not realize. Thanks for your intervention and for taking an interest! GPinkerton (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to keep banging on about this GP, but that description of what you thought you were doing does not fit with the timeline.

• 18:13 - Drmies removed the content
• 18:14 - Drmies told you that he'd done that at ANI, at the same time as telling you that he's revoked talk page access from the IP editor
• 18:16 - You reply to Drmies at ANI questioning his removal
• 18:18 - You revert Drmies's removal, before he'd responded to you
• 18:29 - Another editor reinstates Drmies's removal of the content
• 18:37 - You revert them too (your third revert on the page in a 24 hour period)

You surely aren't telling me that you thought Drmies (an administrator, who you spoke with ANI) was vandalising the page? That's not something that admins tend to do, as a general rule. You're not required to agree with admins, but it's probably safe to assume they're not vandals whom you should revert willy-nilly.

Which leads me on to my next point. I think you're also mixing up POV disruptive editing with vandalism, because there was no vandalism happening at that article. There was disruptive edit warring, but the IP was removing content they thought was inappropriate without harming the rest of the article - that's not vandalism. I'm not telling you this to be pedantic, or to score points, it's important: reverting vandalism is exempt from the edit warring policy per 3RRNO, but reverting POV removals is not. If that page hadn't been protected, and you had reverted again, you would have been blocked again for edit warring, and you would have found it difficult to convince anyone to unblock you having only just a few weeks ago promised not to do that sort of thing any more.

I don't want to see you blocked, you create good content in areas that I'm interested in, but you need to get out of the habit of reverting edits that you disagree with before discussing them with other good-faith editors. Please try to up your game in this regard. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and efforts but that description of what you thought you were doing does not fit with the timeline isn't right. Yes, I thought Drmies edit was vandalism and no, I didn't detect that Drmies was an administrator from their comment at ANI. My previous revert was certainly against vandalism, and numerous IP vandals were active on the page in the hours beforehand. GPinkerton (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, you have successfully ghasted my flabber. I say to you again, with cast-iron certainty having just reviewed the history of that page again: there has been zero vandalism of that article in the past few days. If you think what has been happening there is vandalism, and that it's alright to revert it as if it was vandalism, you seriously need to actually read those links I gave you.

The fact that you didn't realise that Drmies was an admin, after he told you that he had revoked the talk page access for an IP, suggests that you either didn't read what he'd said to you, or that you have a hole in your understanding of how things work. If someone at ANI says something like 'I blocked that account', 'I protected the article', or 'I revoked talk page access', that person is an admin, and exceedingly unlikely to be vandalising anything.

Please, for the love of whatever floats your boat, accept what I'm telling you here - people disagreeing with you, whether that's by adding crappy unsourced content, or removing well-written sourced content, is not vandalism. You can't edit war over stuff like that, there is no exemption, you need to discuss it with them before reverting. Take that or leave it alone - but next time you will be blocked, which is not what I want to see. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Ten times the article had material removed, often with personal attacks embedded in the edit summaries. It seemed very much vandalism from where I was. Drmies's edit was the ninth identical edit in the day. Certainly a number of other editors reverted that content back before I took up the baton. It's not anonymous editors disagreeing with me, it's them disagreeing with the material also defended by the other reverting editors. At any time the disgruntled users could have used the talk page, where mine was the most recent edit. Instead they chose to continue to hack at the article unilaterally without discussion, as indeed Drmies did. GPinkerton (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I'm sorry to be blunt, but I don't understand why you're finding this difficult to accept. If it seemed like vandalism from your perspective, that can only be because you don't understand what we mean by the word vandalism. Have you actually read that link? What you have described is a common or garden edit war. Personal attacks are, sadly, common in edit wars - using them is a good way to lose the war (since it will probably get you blocked slightly more quickly than the actual warring will), but it doesn't make the edits themselves vandalism.

Drmies made a single removal of content, which he explained. In contrast, you reverted three times that day, only once giving any kind of rationale in your edit summaries. That is classic, standard, vanilla-flavour edit warring; strongly believing that you are on the right side of the war doesn't make it OK.

I don't know what else to say - I know you can read and that are not an idiot, so I can only conclude that you either haven't read the links I've given you, or that you've read them and think that they're wrong, or somehow don't apply to you. You play it your way, I just wanted to let you know that what you were doing would likely end up with your account being blocked if you keep it up, which I would be sad about. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Could you explain why you're saying that not one of the edits was vandalism? On the vandalism policy page it says that "Edit summary vandalism" and "Blanking, illegitimate" is considered vandalism, so I'm a little lost as to why edits that appear to me to meet both these criteria could be considered not vandalism. GPinkerton (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, no problem. A non-frivolous reason was given for the edit the first time it was removed, and repeated a couple of times later on - so, it's not illegitimate blanking. (You might think their reason was incorrect, but it's coherent - examples of frivolous reasons would be 'this is shite' or 'Jeff says no').

A personal attack was levelled by the IP (for which, in part, it was blocked), but that's a bit of a stretch to get that to edit summary vandalism. I deal with a lot of genuine edit summary vandalism (a necessary, but singularly unpleasant task) - it's usually a new throwaway account, making lots of inconsequential edits very rapidly to lots of random articles, inserting racist, antisemitic, sexist or whatever kind of abuse. Sometimes they like to target specific editors, which is always pleasant. They do it because they know that admins will be forced to deal with it quickly, and it's a pain in the arse to deal with (revdeletion takes longer than rollback, especially when it's spread out across numerous articles).

Just to make sure you know (since you didn't know about Drmies), I'm an admin too, and I spend a lot of my time mopping up vandalism. I'm also a trainer at Wikipedia's counter vandalism academy, and teach new editors what vandalism is, and how to deal with it. I've been involved in a number of discussions at AN and ANI concerning patrollers and regular editors who try to use the 3RRNO vandalism exemption when they're accused of edit warring, and I reckon I have a pretty good handle on the community's threshold for its use. Please believe me when I tell you that this isn't even borderline. The IP was rude, and they were edit warring, and they were rightly blocked for it - but it wasn't vandalism. The protection log, too, is instructive - the page is fully protected, which is pretty much the biggest stick we have. We don't do for IP vandalism, we semi protection for that; we use full protection, which only admins can edit through, when experienced editors, who ought to know better, are edit warring. Which is kind of what I've being trying to tell you. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

OK thanks, I conflated "disruptive editing" with "vandalism" while the article was unprotected. GPinkerton (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with you that it was disruptive editing. The distinction seems trivial, but it's important - obvious vandalism you can revert all day long and it's not classed as edit warring, but disruptive editing doesn't have that get-out, you have to report it at an appropriate notice board to get someone uninvolved to take a look. I just don't want you to fall foul of that. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

What is your opinion?

Do you consider Nonie Darwish to be a reliable source on Islam related topics? VR _talk 16:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I've expressed my opinion - a better source can be found for the claim about the Grand Ayatollah. It's not proper to label his article an "Islam-related" topic - he's as extremist and fringe as bin Laden or al-Baghdadi. Criticims should not be hard to find. GPinkerton (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

So does that mean you don't consider Darwish to be a reliable source on this topic and Islam-related topics in general? Also, regardless of your views of the Khomeini, his jurisprudential opinion would be considered significant in modern Islamic jurisprudence, due to his status as the former Supreme Leader of Iran (a major Islamic nation), as well as his influence among many Twelver Shiites. By contrast, Bin Laden and Baghdadi have been strongly disavowed by every Sunni Muslim country and most (if not all) major Sunni authorities.VR _talk 18:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

No it absolutely means no such thing. GPinkerton (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so does it mean you consider Darwish to be a reliable source on Islam-related topics? Or you don't wish to have an opinion either way at this point? VR _talk 19:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

No it absolutely means no such thing. Reliable for what? GPinkerton (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you consider Darwish reliable for Islamic jurisprudence (which includes works of prominent Islamic jurists)? I'm asking because you previously set a pretty high standard for what constitutes a good source on Byzantine history.VR _talk 16:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd consider her reliable for attributed criticism of fanaticism. Jurisprudence, Islamic, Islamist, or otherwise is irrelevant. The article's subject is a historical personage. GPinkerton (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not how she is used. She is currently used to make a statement of historical fact. Secondly, on what grounds is Darwish a reliable source for criticism of historical figures?VR _talk 19:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

A notable critic. GPinkerton (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Would you also regard her as a notable critic of Barack Obama?

And do you at least agree that Darwish is not a reliable source for historical fact (which is how she's currently used)? VR _talk 13:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As I've said, a better source can probably be found. She might be worthy of mention at Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. GPinkerton (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Flamboyant

Hi GPinkerton, regarding your edit here (diff), the article currently uses mixed styles ("16th century" and "sixteenth century"); I must say I found your reversion a little odd. Either style is acceptable but Per WP:MOSNUM, the article should consistently use one style or the other, not both. I had converted ordinals to words but I don't have any preference. This is also consistent with MOS:CENTURY, which you mentioned in your edit summary. So which style should be used there; words or ordinals? Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: Oh I see; I thought you were changing everything at once because you thought the MOS required it to be words. I assumed the prevailing style is numerical but I'm happy with either, though numerical is marginally easier to type. GPinkerton (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem; thanks for your reply. I should have explained in the edit summary! Numeric style it is then; I'll sort that out tomorrow when I resume my c/e. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

ANI-notice

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

This report was declined. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

"Vakıflar" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Vakıflar. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 12#Vakıflar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Article assessments

Are you a member of all these Wikiprojects? If not you should NOT be changing these ratings. Please revert you edits to these pages. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@FlightTime: I have not changed ratings for most of these edits, and in most cases I am, yes. Do you have a specific issue with any page? GPinkerton (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No, my concern was only non-Wikiproject editors changing the ratings. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@FlightTime: I did change a couple of importance ratings, but only where adding a new project for self-evident reasons or where an article was clearly misrated in importance. I believe I changed one article from start-class to B because it was a long page and clearly well beyond a start. I think that was the only quality adjustment I've made. GPinkerton (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

There is actually no ban at all on non-members changing assessments, and projects are not in a position to try to assert one. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Beware WP:POINT

This comment implies you're doing things on wikipedia that you don't agree with to make a point. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point prohibits that and people can get blocked for it.VR _talk 20:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous; if you're going to insist so strongly on using the sub-par source and other editors don't have a problem with with, then you have no business making a fuss over a similar source whose viewpoint is opposed and whose credentials are more significant. GPinkerton (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking for some support

Hi, Greetings,I was looking for some support in following areas.

• Please do have a look at upcoming articles Draft:Ex-Muslims along with Draft talk:Ex-Muslims and also Superstitions in Muslim societies.

If any of above topics interest you, then pl. do contribute towards expansion of the same. Specially looking for Nonie Darwish point of views with refs available, if any.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: Hi, thanks for asking for help. I'm afraid I don't have much to offer at the moment, but it's possible I'll be contributing in future. Good luck! GPinkerton (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: I've made some cosmetic improvements to the Superstitions in Muslim societies, for which, by the way, a better title might be Superstition in the Muslim world or Superstition in the Islamic world, since the subject is more general than "Muslim societies", since doubtless what applies to Pakistan applies to (Muslims in) India as well and so on. GPinkerton (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment

I've noticed that we are engaged in multiple content disputes, which are typically a time drain and our disputes are no exception. As both our contribution histories show, we have other productive things to do in wikipedia than argue with each other. I certainly don't enjoy the arguments, I assume you don't either. Here're diffs that show resolution is possible ([8],[9]). I'm happy to take steps to steer the content disputes towards a speedy resolution.VR _talk 01:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

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

Crispus

added a link pointing to Solidus

Licinius II

added a link pointing to Beroea

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Gratian article

Just so you know, changing a referenced sentence to something not supported by the reference can be considered disruptive editing. Also, the lead of the article should reflect a summary of the body of the article. Adding information to the lead not present in the body of the article can be considered POV pushing. I would suggest using the article talk page to discuss changes/additions. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry about this but that source is basically trash: more than a hundred years old and only tangentially related to the subject. Information drawn from it is not fit for the lead. In any case, "actual reign" and "real reign" are meaningless, Gratian's "actual reign" began when he became augustus in 367. Valens was the senior augustus from the death of Valentinian I until he died and Gratian became senior augustus only then. I changed it without looking at the source because I couldn't believe a serious source would make such a blunder. Now I have looked, and I think I will excise it and replace it with wording more fitting the mainstream view of Gratian 375-78 : that he was the middle augustus of three: junior to Valens and senior to his younger half-brother, citing Noel Lenski's recent (this century) biography of Valens and his times. GPinkerton (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do not "fix" redirects

Please read WP:NOTBROKEN and stop "fixing" redirects. It is especially poor to unlink redirects and then nominate them for deletion on the basis that they are not linked to! DuncanHill (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: I have read it and I don't see that this is in conflict with the policy. None, or nearly none, of these are redirects that appear in the article space; rather, they are pipe-links to redirects, which is completely unnecessary where a pipe-link to the target can be used. The redirects themselves contain errors, and should be deleted to avoid them being used in the mainspace. GPinkerton (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The redirects seem to exist because you have taken it upon yourself to make a series of undiscussed page moves. Your deletion nominations are then misleading, as the only reason the redirects, which you created, are unlinked is because you unlinked them. Your behaviour is disruptive and needs to stop. You should undo all your moves and then use the WP:RM procedure properly, as the moves are objected to. DuncanHill (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not true at all. Most of the redirects have existed for a long time and have been inserted into various articles at various times for reasons unbeknownst to me. I did not create these redirects. Which moves are objected to where and by whom? GPinkerton (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

ALL if your moves to ...British..., see here, and they are objected to by me, as are all resulting nominations for deletion of redirects. 15:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)DuncanHill (talk)

@DuncanHill: If you object to the categorization of these British politicians as British, please find a reliable source that states otherwise. It is highly misleading to have articles on individuals whose notability is in British politics that describes obscures their based on OR alone. GPinkerton (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

RMs, instead of bold moves

Howdy. In future, the RM route is best. On Wikipedia, among British bio articles, the terms British & United Kingdom (oddly enough) tend to be treated by many as unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

That sounds bizarre. There doesn't seem to be any sources for anything more specific but the objections seem to be based on the principle that older article versions are better than new, rather than judging the merits of each case as is done with more well known politicians, which is itself strange GPinkerton (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is bizarre. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Terminology of the British Isles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anglo-Norman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Getting pings?

Hi. Good knowledge of topic comments on RSN for ICT, UNESCO, et al. Pinged you there with a question, but wasn't sure you're receiving since the text is red. Also, there's an earlier related request for views on citing RS from Central Tibetan Administration [10] you might not have seen. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pasdecomplot: I got the pinbut I didn't see a question. GPinkerton (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Cool. It is a question of CON, if it was achieved. Under MarkH21's comments which differ slightly from yours. Still learning about RSN, sorry the bother. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Gratian

Can you and user:Avis work out your differences on the article talk page and not edit war. I had initially nominated Gratian for GA, but judging from the current edit war that will probably be negated. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

A couple of things

Hi GPinkterton, there are a couple of things I wanted to talk about. First things first - edit warring. I think you and I have discussed it before - basically, it's not on. Yes, BRD is a thing, but if you find yourself reverting someone twice without having gone to the talk page yet, something's gone wrong. I came to this because of Hagia Sophia, but then noticed what you were doing at Constantine the Great and Christianity too, edit warring with another editor about ENGVAR stuff. I haven't been through your contribs beyond that, but if this is a habit it would be a good one to get out of. As a patroller, I do a lot of reverting, but it's mostly vandalism and test edits - if someone disagrees with you, it's better to engage in discussion before your second revert. I'm not saying you're uniquely responsible for this of course - it always takes more than one person to edit war - but I'm suggesting that you might want to try to rein it in if it's something you find yourself doing often.

The second thing, I came across when trying to get to your userpage. Maybe you already know about this, but is User:Gpinkerton you? An old alternative account or something perhaps? If it's nothing to do with you pay it no heed, but if it's your account I'd (a) suggest removing the e-mail address, and (b) suggest putting a note on it to connect the two accounts. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: No it's not me, and that's not my name. GPinkerton (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, cool - I won't start calling you Gary then. Just thought I'd better check. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

General sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

GBD

Hi GP, actually Toby Young claimed "...they aren't outliers or cranks". Obviously the text needs rewording in the article, but I'll leave it to you. Arcturus (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Arcturus: Thanks for catching that, I've remedied the wording. GPinkerton (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Valentinianic dynasty

Thanks for all your work on the Valentinianic dynasty page. One thing I noted, you say image size disrupts inscription, which is obviously relevant. However this must be device dependent, because it does not on my laptop, or obviously I would not have changed it. I have a vague idea this may have something to do with preferences. I am also a bit puzzled about the relationship between Valentinian and Valens. I wrote that Valens was the younger brother, based on respective birth dates of 321 and 328. Do you have different information? --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 21:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Michael Goodyear: sorry yes, that was a blunder, Valentinian was the elder. As for the inscription, the quote from the inscription is supposed to run on four lines, no more. GPinkerton (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The passage you reverted, I took from the Magnus Maximus page, but I could not access the cited source there to verify. I will check other sources to confirm or refute. Incidentally you have a big advantage over me, I was quite shocked to find our library does not have access to many of the Oxford online resources - I'm sure we used to, maybe budget cuts. I do also try to provide accessible sources, such as websites for the non-specialist reader.
    • @Michael Goodyear: Yes I wouldn't trust anything on Wikipedia. My plan is when this article is more complete to go over and fix the errors and omissions elsewhere. I recently did something similar with Theodosius's article, and that was full of unforced errors. The Valens one was rubbish too, and still contains swathes of material source to Edward Gibbon or no-one at all, and the Valentinian one (I haven't done much) is also rife with inaccuracies. The bit about Magnus Maximus was part duplication, part misplaced chronologically, and part telescoping of years into a sentence, so I think I've fixed it up. He never ruled the whole "western empire" for instance, and the thaw of relations between him and Theodosius was connected with religious affairs and the dispute between the Arian court of Justina and Valentinian II and its edicts of toleration on the one hand and the Nicene courts of Theodosius and of Magnus Maximus, who was, with his wife, himself a confidant of Saint Martin of Tours. But then Theodosius married into the dynasty and had a son, Justina died, and Theodosius was able to use Valentinian as a pretext for taking control of the west through the teenage emperor, his theoretical senior in the imperial college. There is a whole paper, which I have not read, which examines the rehabilitation of Magnus Maximus's image and the brief period of apparently joint propaganda - i.e. the display of Maximus' portrait in Alexandria (presumably as co-emperor beside Theodosius's and Valentinian's portraits, a thing not done in Valentinian's territory). GPinkerton (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I agree completely - I tell my students, I never want to see you citing WP, but you may use its sources. I got onto WP in the first place by looking up something and going, uh oh - I need to fix that! I got into this area in the first place wanting to have an easily ready source of material while on an archaeological expedition, and realised I was going to have to write it myself. The passage I used was sourced, but of course - verify, verify, verify, was my next step. I am revisiting it because I was informed that someone wanted to delete all my sidebars. Looking at the material through the prisms of a non-specialist user, I couldn't see how they could navigate the page without a sidebar. Some of my recent edits were because I wanted to avoid having the page look too much like a Prosopography! McEvoy writes a fairly readable prose account of the era, so added. yes that is a fairly good summary you give above. Curiously, I just tracked down that paper you mention this morning so will add it. Cheers --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 00:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
        • @Michael Goodyear: The issue I have is that I think it should be a largely prosopographical, or a rather biographical article about the family, rather than a general account of the 3rd and 4th century empire. So the focus should be on the dynasty itself rather than on others like Magnus Maximus and Eugenius. GPinkerton (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
          • You beat me too it - was just about to add this link, I think it is the one we have in mind. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/404242 As for the style, I am not sure that is quite what WP should be doing, as opposed to timeline or list pages. But it explains a lot. I was trying to look at it dynastically rather than the detail on the individual biographies so that there was a continuous umbrella series of articles with daughter pages as spin offs, as in many other histories. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 01:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
            • @Michael Goodyear: I think we might be working with different definitions of dynasty: I'm using it as a name for the family, like Bush dynasty, rather than as a synonym for a period in which the family's members were in high office, as one might do with the distant history of Egypt or China, assigning chronological divisions to the emperors' names.

We have a series of articles titled "Byzantine Empire under x dynasty", which oddly begins with Byzantine Empire under the Constantinian and Valentinianic dynasties and Byzantine Empire under the Theodosian dynasty which is a weird way of doing it if you ask me. These two articles should be expanded and retitled to cover the narrative history of the whole empire, as should Byzantine Empire under the Leonid dynasty (maybe), and the Constantinans and Valentinians split from one another; it doesn't make any sense to do it by halves. Maybe also the "under the Valentinianic dynasty" could be merged with the "under the Theodosian dynasty" since the periods of rule overlap. GPinkerton (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we have slightly different visions as to style, ie narrative as opposed to Prosopography, but I don't think it is fatal! The former is the preferred style in WP, but there is a category of pages that fit the latter better, such as timelines and lists. Again I agree completely that in this field, like so many there is considerable overlap of topics, because there is no proper editor in the conventional sense. However I originally set out to provide a series of consecutive pages dealing with the history of the period, by dynastic period. WP defines dynasty as a sequence of rulers from the same family, and indeed we link to that definition. However, speaking historiographically, any historian writing a paper or a book on a dynasty attempts to place that dynasty in the context of the history that precedes and succeeds and seeks to throw light on the period and its place in history through the lens of the dynasty that shapes it and is shaped by it. As for whether there are two or one dynasties, each is complicated enough without extending it, and of course both attempted to link themselves to the Constantinians for purposes of legitimacy. Interesting discussion, thanks. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 22:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Theodosian dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Areobindus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Basilica

You're invited to the discussion on the Basilica talk page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Caracalla

Caracalla is of Libyen origin by his father. Libyans are Amazigh. Syrians are Phoenicians not arab. Arabs come from the arabian peninsula, before the arab conquest there were only couple arab traders in the region. But Syrians are not arab, get informed before commenting please. Alex.nezz (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alex.nezz: I have more than one university degree in this exact subject. You have been misinformed. There were Arabs throughout Arabia (the Arabian peninsula, Greater Syria and Mesopotamia) in Antiquity, and the Phoenicians lived on the Mediterranean coast. Julia Domna was of Arab ancestry, it is well known. It is not true that Arabs "come from the Arabian peninsula", rather, they come from Arabia, which is a rather larger and looser area. These Arabs, mind you, were not Arabic-speaking, which is perhaps why you're confused; the Muslim migrations of the 7th century introduced Arabic language to many already Arab-populated areas, including Syria. Zenobia and the Odaenathus were also Arabs from Syria. GPinkerton (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Mind you, you are not the only person who have studied this era. Arabs are from the arabian peninsula. They are not indigenous to anywhere else. Alex.nezz (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alex.nezz: What do you imagine indigenous means and why do you imagine it of relevance to a Roman emperor born in France? Do you imagine the Ghassanids were somehow not Arabs? How about the Lakhmids? Or the Tanukhids? All outside or part-outside the Arabian peninsula, all inhabited by Arabs. Your claims are mistaken suppositions. GPinkerton (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

His origins is Amazigh, meaning he is indiginous to the Maghreb. He does not become indiginous to France. Arabs originated from the arab peninsula making them indiginous to only that area. Very few arabs were found outside of that region. Alex.nezz (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alex.nezz: Well even if, as you have wrongly claimed, Arabs were rare outside the Arabian peninsula, that is irrelevant. Julia Domna, Caracalla's mother, was one of them, and she, an Arab, gave birth to him in what is now France. As I have said your claim "Arabs originated from the arab peninsula making them indiginous to only that area" is as false as it is misspelled. Find a reliable source that supports your claims, and if it is of better quality than all the corpus of historical research that says she was an Arab then we can discuss adding you point of view. Until then, stop adding your opinions to the encyclopaedia. GPinkerton (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is he is of Amazigh descend by his father. Why do you keep denying it? Alex.nezz (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Until then, instead of twisting peoples origins stop it. Alex.nezz (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

And I did not wrongly claimed. Arabs are a semetic group of people indiginous to only tje arab peninsula. Stop trying to twist history. Alex.nezz (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Because you have repeatedly failed to produce any evidence whatever for your irrelevant claims. You don't know what you're talking about, and it shows. Enjoy being blocked. GPinkerton (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Arabs are indigenous to the Levant, and Arabized the peninsula which was mislabeled as Arabia by Alexander's naval expeditions, thanks to Yemeni products being known as 'Arabian' to the Greeks, because of the Arab merchants selling them in Gaza.Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Your message on User talk:Alex.nezz

The message you left here on that user's talk page wasn't necessary or appropriate. All it's doing is giving them what they want and, if anything, is encouraging the user to keep up their shenanigans because you're basically telling them that it's working and/or that it's getting you upset (in their minds, at least). As you can see in their response here, it's just adding fuel to the fire, and not resolving anything. Just leave the appropriate warnings, and remember not to feed the trolls. ;-) Anyways, I hope you have a good weekend, and I'll see you around the battlefield! ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Visigoths

The 2007 version was basically a copy and paste from a 1911 Encyclopedia and parts from J.B Bury's work. It has since had a major rewrite using academically supported content from modern sources, performed using American English. I understand your point, but it serves no purpose in this context, considering the terrible condition the article was in at that time. --Obenritter (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Obenritter: no it was not, it was original work. In any case, I have redone my edits which you keep reverting even though they have nothing to do with Americanisms. Please don't revert everything again. GPinkerton (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of the Roman Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alaric.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Requesting information

Hi Greetings,

While working on Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları female slavery markets in Ottomans, I came across partial information on an escaped slave account of "Georgius of Hungary’s Tractatus". Do you have any more idea about him, does Wikipedia has any article about him ? Pl let me know if, by any chance, you might have come across.

Thanks and Regards

Bookku (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Booku: See: [11] and [12]. GPinkerton (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Primarily seems to be notable enough. His account of escape from slavery interests me. I am not sure I can spare enough time alone but let me attempt making a Draft:Georgius of Hungary’s Tractatus and invite some Hungerian Wikipedians to expand and update it.

Regards Bookku (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi GPinkerton! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Charlie Hebdo cartoons, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . 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) 19:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

3RR

GPinkerton: you have violated 3RR at Murder of Samuel Paty and having been WP:GAMING 3rr before that. I could report you, but I'd rather not go down that road again (as I said here). WhinyTheYounger (talk · contribs) accurately points out that you are aggressively pushing a POV. I'd suggest you take a break, calm down and return with a cooler head.VR _talk 06:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Nonsense. This is wilfully ignoring the facts and defending the use of Islamist propaganda in Wikipedia which has no business in an encyclopaedia. Reinserting such rubbish is spamming and reverting vandalism by spam is not in breach of 3RR. GPinkerton (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? Girth Summit (talk · contribs) explained to you that only obvious vandalism is exempt from 3RR. 331dot (talk · contribs) only unblocked you cause you promised to never edit war again. You have crossed a red line, and you really need to step back.VR _talk 06:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• For reference here are the 4 reverts you made in less than 2 hours.06:46, November 19, 2020, 06:13, November 19, 2020, 05:51, November 19, 2020, 04:54, November 19, 2020.VR _talk 06:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It is obvious vandalism, your desire to conclude otherwise notwithstanding. Your mental gymnastics do not impress me; an occupied town is not a subject fit for reliance on the occupier's state media. It speaks volume that you are trying to argue otherwise. GPinkerton (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.  GirthSummit _(blether) 07:07, 19 November 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:

I believe I have been blocked in error. Detailed examination of the page history will show significant differences in the content changed with the various edits, and some of the edits by others have been admitted to have been made in error, including some removal of cited content which I subsequently reverted as vandalism. The changes were also under discussion on the talk page, and I repeatedly reverted radical shifts in POV attempted by other users which ignored the need for consensus and which included spamming with misleading and unreliable sources and deletions of swathes of sourced content with misleading edit summaries. GPinkerton (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

From the discussion below, it is clear that you don't understand what "vandalism" means in the context of Wikipedia, nor do you understand that believing you are correct is also not an exemption to the rules against edit warring. Jayron32 19:38, 19 November 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.

GPinkteron, this is not obvious vandalism, I have been through this with you before. Please review WP:EW - there is no exemption for removing material you believe to be poorly sourced and/or biased. You need to discuss that sort of content and gain consensus - if you are correct in your view, that shouldn't be too difficult to achieve. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: It's obvious spam. It would be as well to cite German propaganda about WW2, I can't see a difference in quality of source. It's unreasonable to suggest otherwise, and I don't think you should have blocked me (of all people in this ridiculous POV push). Now your actions will be used to reinforce the campaign to enforce blasphemy law on Wikipedia, which is regrettable and not conducive to the project. The argument that the material being removed required the onus to be established by those who wanted it to appear, and their their attempts to shoehorn it it in with a canvassed campaign of multiple reverts could be consider more disruptive than my attempts to remove the spam, but obviously you don't agree, having of course read all the long litigious POV pushing on the talk page hitherto. GPinkerton (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, what you need to do in situations like the one you describe is to get more eyes on the issue. There are various locations where you can raise your concerns, depending on the subject matter - NPOVN, FRINGEN, even ANI if it's urgent. What you must not do is take it upon yourself to revert all the material that you disagree with, even if you are sure you are right. From WP:EW: An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. I have tried to explain this to you before, but it doesn't appear to have made an impression, hence the block. If you feel I acted incorrectly, read WP:GAB and appeal the block and I'll allow another admin to review. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Here's the sequence of events as I see it:

• Assem Khidhr decides to insert their POV here, changing existing text without discussion to an uncited and unsupported version, along with some unfounded and feeble aspersions in the edit summary.
• I revert this here, since it is not an improvement and is already under intense (sealioning) discussion already.
• Vice regent arrives to delete the existing text altogether and insert Turkish propaganda into the article in Wikivioice while leaving a BBC citation there as though it supported the outrageous claims of the Turkish state, here, wrongly claiming "I read the source, nowhere does it say that Syrian were protesting against free speech, there are other sources [viz.the propaganda of the military occupation] which clarify the motivations behind Syrian protestors", whereas in the fact the source says in the lead of its own that protest at President Emmanuel Macron's defence of the right to show cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad..
• I removed this spam here.
• Hardyplants, having previously sought to push the fringe Islamist perspective joins the spamming here by restoring Vice regent's spam with the cryptic and conterfactual edit summary "clearly it is not so much about free speech but about some very specific speech which his text obscures"
• I remove this obvious and disruptive vandalism here.
• Hardyplants tries a new text with a WP:RS here
• I expand on the wording of the same source here.
• Hardyplants vandalizes the sourced content, here, erroneously claiming the material quoted from the reference is not in the reference.
• I revert this obvious vandalism here.

You can also see that the preferred version described in policy is not what is at issue here, since the text underwent numerous changes over the course of the day, and An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version doesn't seem to apply. As for WP:ANI, the idea that needs for administrator action can be urgently addressed by seeking help there is also regrettably optimistic given my experience here, where not one contributor to the discussion was either uninvolved or an administrator and the page will probably be archived without action and with the same relentless soapboxing continues without rebate. I also posted here, so far to no avail. The article needs more eyes, yet you have decided to blind me instead of to inspecting the arguments being forced into the encyclopaedia. GPinkerton (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I never vandalized the page, it is clear that you do not understand Wikipedia policies and maybe are to wrapped up in a crusade to edit this topic fruitfully. I do admit I was mistaken on my last revert based on being tired and misremembering some details of the wording of the source (and your history of adding content that is not in sources), I also sent you a thank you for pointing out what the source says. Anyway, saying some one vandalized a page when in fact their edits are good faith would seem to constitute a personal attack. Hardyplants (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC) @Hardyplants: You reinserted spam sourced to spam. To me, that's vandalism. Please do not comment here again, I am tired of your personal attacks and wild claims. "Crusade" indeed! GPinkerton (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, without commenting on the specifics of this case, I agree with you in a general sense that dealing with POV pushers can be difficult and frustrating. I have experienced it myself, and know how exasperating it can be. The answer is not to edit war.

To address the specifics, I chose to block you because you went over 3RR; no other editor did that, as far as I can see, although I did give one other editor a warning because they reverted twice. I see no obvious vandalism in the diffs you present of a kind that would justify a 3RR exemption. You must stop editing in this manner.  GirthSummit _(blether) 09:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Having been canvassed to the page, it's hardly surprising the lobby was able to struggle in relay. GPinkerton (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your point - who was canvassed, and what does 'struggle in relay' mean? GirthSummit _(blether) 10:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: See the talk page. I feared you had not looked there in the minutes between my reversions and you blocking me. The editor that tagged you on this page (the one vandalizing the article with specious Turkish disinformation in an article about the politics of Erdogan and his relations with France and who has sealions more effusively than the SeaWorld specimens) has been canvassed to the discussion by the anti-blasphemy ringleader, who sees no irony in accusing me of bludgeoning the discussion when, ... well just look at the talk page! A cosy groupthink and no mistake! There's also perverse RfC for the purpose of cementing the POV. The suggestions for the political ramifications to be split off into a POV fork is a glorious illustration of the motivated whitewash being pushed with this chorus of vandals. GPinkerton (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC) As you can see the article is a magnet for the vandal mindset, and these people will try anything to victim blame and shame away the crimes of others if they think it makes their in-group look bad. GPinkerton (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Just look at the latest weaselling, trying to build consensus for another run at whitewashing and editorializing the crime out of existence! GPinkerton (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I understand that you are angry and frustrated, but please can I draw your attention to something? WP:NOTV sets out things which are explicitly excluded from our definition of vandalism. One of them is NPOV violations. That you strongly disagree with these editors' point of view does not make them vandals. This stuff is not vandalism, and neither you nor I can deal with it as if it were. I will try to find time to read through the lengthy talk page discussions in full, but the long and short of it is that if you can't ignore WP:EW and 3RR just because you really, really disagree with the other editors. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: No, I am neither of those things, just saddened that you chosen to act in this way, which I think is not appropriate. This is not a matter of really disagreeing. This is about vandalism, and I take the view that vandalism should be be removed from the article and that deliberate and wilful disruption of this kind should not be allowed. This is not about disagreeing with a point of view, its about removing spam from the encyclopaedia and reverting what I took to be vandalism and which has been described as an error by the editor in question. I undid disruptive edits and you blocked me after being pinged by an involved editor (vandal, spammer) without looking into the issue at hand. Yet now you have described the page as one touching BLP issues, and WP:NOTV certainly says Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So I don't think I was wrong to remove material that is both poorly sourced and questionable. Of course, some of the principals in the case are recently deceased. GPinkerton (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not see anything in the diffs above that could reasonably be described as a BLP violation. Something that might be worth reading is WP:CRYBLP - it's just an essay, but I think it's quite widely regarded. If you thought that there were BLP issues in the article, BLPN is another way you could have got more attention to the article, rather than edit warring. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Yes, I'm not suggesting that, as I said before: what I reverted I took to be vandalism. I only reference the BLP issue because it's far from clear that such an obviously provocative insertion in the article which was bound to be reverted and could not reasonably be believed to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia is not covered under more than one of the WP:NOTV. I mean, just look at what they added: a source that claimed, in effect, that the president of France had ordered a massacre of civilians in Syria, because said civilians were oh so righteously protesting against the very same president. How that can be considered a valid edit worthy of anything but instant reversion is very far from obvious. GPinkerton (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, look at the verbiage of the relevant part of WP:3RRNO: Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language (emphasis in original). The examples given are page blanking and adding offensive language. If someone blanks the entire article, or adds 'I'm gonna fuck your mom', or 'This bitch is a fucking idiot' to an article (all kind of stuff one comes across many times per day if one does counter-vandalism work), that is obvious vandalism and you can revert it as many times as you need to until the account/IP is blocked or the page protected. That kind of stuff is why we have 3RRNO.

What I see when I look at the diffs presented above, which were what caused me to block your account, are either about specific verbiage (whether Macron was defending free speech, or defending a cartoon specifically), and two where you are removing a bit about some protests that apparently took place in Syria. POV-pushing? Poor sourcing? Possibly, I don't have a view on that. Obvious vandalism of the kind that warrants a 3RR exemption? In my view, definitely not.

In the interests of admin accountability, I'm going to request a review of this block at AN. Central to the question will be whether the community feels that your edits were indeed covered by the 3RRNO exemption. If I am wrong, then I will have learned something from the process and will have to adjust my internal thresholds accordingly; if the community tells you that you are wrong, I hope you will be able to hear from them what you are refusing to hear from me. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 18:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I hear you, I'm just saying the context is important: I reverted the addition of the source and the change of language accompanying it, because there is so obviously no justification for such material and I urge you to look at the luridness of the source added. Adding links to such external media alone in this context is disruptive. As I say, the allegation that Macron (who, for his faults, is a living person) is responsible for killings in Turkish-occupied Syria, sourced to the Turkish government, which is itself in dispute with Macron and France in general over the subject of this very article and has every reason to libel him in its official organs, has no place in the project. I hope you can see that. GPinkerton (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

In those particular diffs, I did not see any assertion that Macron was responsible for the killing. What we have is an editorial decision about whether or not it is relevant or DUE to mention the protests, and whether or not the source used to support the content was reliable. I'm not going to express a view on those matters, since I am acting in an administrative rather than editorial capacity here, but for me this is not vandalism. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I've started the thread at WP:AN#Block_review_request_(3RRNO_question). If there is a statement you'd like me to add to the thread, I'll do so on your behalf, but I have included a link to this discussion so people will be able to see what you've said here for themselves. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Well what I see is something that says Backed by the US and France, YPG terror groups unleashed violence upon Syrian people who were protesting against French President Emmanual [sic!] Macron's hostility toward Islam. Several protesters in Syria's Deir Ezzor region came under the fire of the YPG, the Syrian offshoot of the PKK terror organisation, as they were protesting on Sunday against the publication of caricatures that insulted the Prophet Muhammed and anti-Islam sentiments in France. Adding and re-adding without discussion material like this is surely beyond the pale. I cannot believe this is anything but vandalism intended to provoke a reversion. GPinkerton (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, would you mind reviewing the four diffs presented by VR in the 3RR section further up? Those were the diffs I reviewed, and none of them contain the addition or removal of any verbiage like that - I believe my description of the stuff I looked at is accurate. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I guess you could add that I think that on the one hand repeated insertion of fake news into an article is disruptive vandalism, and on the other that mass deletions of sourced content to favour a POV is also vandalism, and an error which the user has themselves admitted. Then perhaps add the detail about what the "source" I removed was and which the one editor inserted and the other sought to reinsert, and I guess what motivated you to determine that adding this piece of propaganda in particular was was not vandalism and how you can to that determination.

As I say, and as I have said in the edit summaries, the addition of the source is vandalism. Thanks for your time! GPinkerton (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't generally treat the addition of content based on a biased or unreliable source as vandalism. Doing so repeatedly in the face of consensus against the source would be seen as disruptive and eventually lead to a block, but it is not vandalism, and you can't deal with it as if it is.

When you say above that I could add some stuff, I'm not sure whether you're suggesting that I add it to the AN thread? I don't want to put words in your mouth some I'm not going to draft anything myself, so if you want to add anything to the thread please type it up yourself for me to copy/paste, or wait until the morning when the block expires. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The source was added repeatedly, and as I said on the edit summary, there is standing consensus that the source is not to be used in matters in which Turkish state might have conflict of interest. The Turkey's relationship with Syrian Civil War is about as interested in a conflict as a country can be, so adding and then re-adding such a source, and then very pointedly deleting a better source and the text accompanying with the entirely false claim that the quoted statements were not in the source is, to me, antithetical to the aims of the project. GPinkerton (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

If what you say is true, you could make a case for a WP:DE report which might ultimately result in sanctions against the editors involved. There is still nothing which can be treated as vandalism. At this point I think I'm going to bow out - please look at the AN thread, and take what people are telling you to heart - I have no wish to see you indefinitely blocked, but that is what will happen if you persist in your view that you are exempt from edit warring restrictions when dealing with situations like this. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 20:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• GPinkerton, going to echo what others have said here. There are ways of fixing this without you ending up as the bad guy. I suggest an RfC in this case, because the content question is, as you say, pretty bloody obvious. Take a deep breath and remember there is no deadline. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, JzG thanks both for the advice and thanks for your contributions. GPinkerton (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome GPinkterton. If there's ever a situation that you would like a second pair of eyes on, or if you want an opinion on whether something is vandalism or not, feel free to ping me. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 14:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Well there is the tangentially and coincidentally related this (now archived) ANI report which was never examined (or replied to) by anyone outside the engaged talk page circle. Issues on Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) continue, and I realize my report was too narrow, the problems there go well beyond the POV-pushing ownership of just عمر: it's systematic. If you are volunteering to wade in, do ... GPinkerton (talk) 21:29, 20 November 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:GPinkerton reported by User:Assem Khidhr (Result: ). Thank you. Assem Khidhr (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of incidents noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Superstitions in Muslim societies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superstitions in Muslim societies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstitions in Muslim societies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bookku (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Preferred mode of address

Hi GPinkerton - since I've seen a number of people refer to you in different ways, I thought I'd better ask you what your preferred pronouns are. I try to use singular they until I know someone's preference, but since you don't declare a preference on your userpage, and we are engaged in what looks like it might be a lengthy talk page discussion, I thought I should do you the courtesy of trying to find out. I am not asking you to declare your gender, which is of course absolutely none of my business, simply how you would prefer to be addressed. If you think that this question is an impertinence, please by all means revert this edit. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 20:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC) @Girth Summit: Singular they is OK (and centuries older than people sometimes assume) but so are conventional male pronouns. GPinkerton (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	I admire your astounding resilience with which you approach criticism directed at you. You don't edit war, but expand articles significantly, and as to me really well sourced to make a point. Just brilliant. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Maps of Kurdistan according to various authors through time.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Polite reminder

Regarding your last comment on the talk page. I offered to mediate the discussion, but I only have two tools to help me do that: the polite request, and the block button. I don't want to use the latter, but if the former doesn't work I have no other options. You are the only one who can ensure that your comments are only about the content and the sourcing, not about other editors, their ignorance, their inability to read, etc. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I do not see anywhere I have been an less civil that anyone else. There have been plenty of personal attacks on me, which no-one is doing anything about, and my ripostes cannot possibly be as disruptive as this whole issue has become as a result of lack of intervention and wilful tendentiousness, which I have already reported and which, again, no-one is doing anything to resolve. Why? GPinkerton (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Amr Ibn is the hero of the Admins at the noticeboards. I and Konli had a long discussion through multiple noticeboards over several quotes at the Tell Abyad article. One was of Liz Sly of the Washington Post from 2015, which says the Kurds have "formally" renamed proclaimed the Kurdish name with Latin script "not known" to the Arabs instead of the Arab script, and "unilaterally" detached Tell Abyad from an "existing" Syrian Province, after it was captured from ISIS by the Kurds. ISIS proclaimed its own Raqqa Wilaya, and therefore the Kurds sure did not detach the city unilaterally from an "existing" Syrian Province in which Assad had anyway no say at all in 2015 and which until way into 2016 was majorly under control of the Islamic State. Amr Ibn edit warred the quote back in at least 20 times and managed to get us both blocked while calling us Kurdish nationalists and vandals. He was by far the one who edit warred the most, ignored the talk page, and ignored multiple also Kurdish sources mentioning the Arab Tell Abyad instead of the Kurdish Serekanye, I^gnored the Welcome in Tell Abyad plate in Arab script and Latin script at the entrance of the city on images from before during and after the Governance of Tell Abyad by the "Kurds". He managed to get us both blocked for edit warring and his main argument was SOURCED from May 2020 until October 2020. I was blocked for removing a quote by Kurdwatch, also in discussion since a long time, which later was shown in the discussion, is of a fully Turkish nationalist SETA allied outlet. Also here, why? I am just laughing now but it is really deplorable for Wikipedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I haven't seen anyone else being uncivil since I started watching the discussion. I have already said that I saw incivility on both sides, and I've asked all involved to cut it out. If anyone has directed anything similar towards you in the last few days, please point me towards it and I'll warn them too, but my impression is that everyone has stopped except yourself. I'm quite serious when I say that your words will carry more wait, not less, without this stuff. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually came in to issue a short block for continued incivility, but I'll bow to GS's kindlier stance. GP, you are on extremely thin ice here. —valereee (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Girth Summit: When did you start watching? Were you watching when عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote:

• "This is scandalous attempt to convert Wikipedia into a Kurdish propaganda blog and completely adopting the Kurdish nationalist rhetoric. This text is cherry-picking and completely ignores ..."
• "Furthermore, this problematic, POV-screaming edit suggested by Pinkerton is designed to draw our attention away from the most important thing we are discussing right now, which is the name of the page/territory, and whether that is universal or not."
• "Since you seem to not read what you are adding ..."
• "This is another one of your comments that confirm that you don't read before jumping to conclusions."
• GPinkerton, if all the evidence we presented did not convinced you, nothing will, and that's your problem. Before you showed up here with your editing behavior editors here had a consensus that this term is used by some and disputed by others. Again, as usual, you make arguments and jump to conclusions before doing your homework.

Or when Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) said:

• "What GPinkerton has done throughout this entire article is to cherry pick sources that use kurdish nationalist names and narrative and she tries to disregard other sources. And in some cases she is not even following her sources in regards to history as seen above."

Apart from the reliable sources I have added and the wilfully tendentious misinterpretations and Ba'athist ideology regurgitated back in return, there is actually nothing but incivility interspersed with a catalogue of unanswered pleas for administrator intervention, which has been going on for months (years?) before I ever clapped eyes on it, and would certainly continue unabated, just as it has been allowed to do for over a decade, if I were blocked. Blocking me would make absolutely no difference. I am troubled that, still, no-one has deigned to even comment on the multiple ANI threads I have raised specifically about the behaviour of other editors, and I am just going to have to do the whole thing again. My trust in the oversight of this encyclopaedia is shattered and my desire to continue contributing to the project is severely shaken. This is very distressing and alarming – I don't know what more I can do. GPinkerton (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I'll be honest with you, the talk page discussion is growing so rapidly in so many different threads that it is difficult to keep track of. I agree with you that the history of the talk page is full of incivility - I have said as much, more than once, and I do not say that you are responsible for that history. What I am saying is that in recent days, the stuff from you (strictly in terms of incivility) has been worse than the stuff from others. For example, let's compare the first of your diffs above to this one from you. In the other editor's post, I see scandalous attempt to convert Wikipedia into a Kurdish propaganda blog, which is indeed impugning your motives, and could just about be interpreted as a personal attack. That's not very nice, and it's not language I would encourage anyone to use. On the other hand, you say You're showing your ignorance again - that's saying that they are ignorant, a direct insult. You say Why aren't you capable of reading sources? - that's not saying that they don't read, it's saying that they can't read, another direct insult.

I understand that this is frustrating, and I do sympathise. Bear in mind though that, as I have already said, I have next to zero knowledge about this subject matter; I am a volunteer, with a demanding job and a personal life, and I simply do not have the time to invest in reading through the sources and coming to an informed opinion about who is in the right here - all I can do is attempt to mediate a discussion by enforcing civility policies (which have been ignored on that talk page for far too long), and hope that some other people who are familiar with the subject will chime in in due course.

Please let me reiterate my main point here: the insults detract from, rather than enhance, the strength of your argument. It makes the statement longer, less pleasant to read, and I expect that they will actually make people less inclined to agree with you.

If you'll allow me a moment to comment on the ANI thread (which I haven't returned to for a a while), the first time I skimmed it, my thoughts were something along the lines of: "Bugger me, that's a hell of a wall of text, with maps to boot - I don't have the time!" The amount of time it would take for someone to read through the entire set of threads and sub-threads and come to an opinion would be significant. That's not to say that it shouldn't be done - it should - but we're a volunteer project, people choose what they do - and don't - want to do. I have been - and still am - hoping that some other editors and admins will weigh in on that, as I'm not comfortable trying simultaneously to mediate a discussion, and take positions on an ANI thread. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong - I can't deny that possibility, I didn't get any training in how to do this.

I'm sorry that you're feeling distressed and alarmed about the whole thing - I don't want anyone to feel like that. When I said that I don't want to block you, I meant it - I also meant the bit about having very few tools at my disposal. If I'm mediating an uncivil discussion, I have to stop people insulting each other; all I can do is ask them to stop, and then block them if they don't stop. You can help with that, by stopping - it will make your arguments stronger, and it will mean there is no reason to block you.

Best GirthSummit _(blether) 19:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Thanks for trying but I don't think anything further is going to come of discussion, mediated or otherwise, before the various behavioural issues of all the involved editors are examined. Multiple editors in this thread are now the subjects of ANI reports on other subjects relating to this page, and the mutual exclusivity of the Ba'athist propaganda and the reliable sources is going to need deciding with some kind of finality; Wikipedia needs to pick one or the other before the content of the Syrian Kurdistan article can be discussed. Wikipedia acknowledges the Holocaust really happened, and needs to take a similarly decisive position in the case of the 1960s Arab nationalist propaganda about the Kurdish populations of what was the not-yet-renamed Syrian Arab Republic. Either Wikipedia acknowledges the reliable sources that historical Kurdistan is split between four modern states, or it turns aside the reliable sources in favour of more numerous editors clamouring for the opposite view. You have acknowledged that the talk page is full of incivility that has nothing to do with me. Have you taken any action (like blocking) in these instances? You were quick to block me and quick to criticize my rebarbative pointing out of bad behaviour (which I stand by as accurate even if uncivil) but despite my having adduced much evidence of malpractice has any editor been blocked for the disruptive editing and numerous slow edit wars of this months-long dispute? Warnings? What would that help? The top tier of sanctions has already been applied to some of the "anti-Syrian Kurdistan" editors for exactly this kind of behaviour, yet they are free to continue the campaign while I am blocked. There is something badly rotten in this collective neglect. GPinkerton (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I am not an expert on the history of the middle east - I have already told you that. I am in no position to advocate for, and far less impose, any kind of official position on 1960s Arab nationalism. That is not the role of a single administrator (unless they are weighing the consensus of a well-attended RfC on the matter) - that would be a matter for the community. So, to answer your questions: no, I have not blocked any other editors, in my view nobody else has been as uncivil as you since I started watching the page. No, I am not going to go back and block people for past incivilities. I have never blocked you for incivility - I blocked you, once, for edit warring, which was supported by the community - I thought you had heard that already. I don't know whether anyone else has been blocked for this particular slow edit war, I have only been looking at it for a few days and have blocked nobody. You are not blocked, and you are entirely free to proceed with this discussion provided that you do it without insulting anyone. I hope that helps. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kurdistan on the 1945 San Francisco Conference map, the 1946 Rizgari United Nations memorandum map, and the 1947 Cairo map.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kurdistan on the 1945 San Francisco Conference map, the 1946 Rizgari United Nations memorandum map, and the 1947 Cairo map.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)