User talk:GalantFan

Use of Press Release photos

The Press Release Photo was not copyrighted. The image that was incorrectly deleted was a Press Release Photo which had no copyright and was released to be free to use.

This information has been confirmed by an email to me from the current General Manager - Press & Public Relations, Andy Wertheim.GalantFan (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Cars introduced in 1976

is a subcategory of 1970s cars. It is overcategorization to put a article in both its parent and subcategory....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 04:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

May 2019, Hannibal Brooks VANDALISM

Hello @Dusti: I have already contacted Wiki admins. This is NOT an edit war on my part. And there is absolutely no consensus to be reached. The multiple anonymous IP edits are part of a concentrated attack on Wikipedia itself, to cause disrepute to Wikipedia, which have been organized and encouraged by some fool of a tutor at Robert Gordon University in the UK, who has been telling his students for several years that Wiki is an unreliable source and encouraging them to vandalize Wiki to prove it.

If you will follow the "contribs" links of these anonymous IPs, you will see that they all come from the same little area of the UK, and none of them have ever contributed anything but to vandalize this article by reposting the exact same fake information, over and over again for since 2012.

This Hannibal_Brooks page needs to be semi-protected against anonymous IP edits PERMANENTLY because this has been going on since 2012.

In summary, you have asked me to reach a consensus with people who are vandalizing Wikipedia with fictional info for sport. Lucy the Elephant was never anything but a fictional story and movie, and Olga the elephant never existed, and the Tom Wright who wrote the story and movie was never a POW. "Had a reply back from Wright's friend. He says that Wright was never a POW!"

As if vandalizing Wiki isn't bad enough, the vandals are even taking the extra step to claim that they are in the right, when they are publishing the same repeated unsourced fictional information over and over, which has been shown to be a deliberate act of vandalism. GalantFan (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dusti:Quora contributor admits that Olga the Elephant is a hoax to troll Wikipedia "Just to be clear the story of Olga the Elephant is fictional, the Tutor has this story in his opening lecture every year when going over how to reference research papers, with glee. Needless to say none of his students reference Wikipedia anymore, and everytime we see someone do so, we start giggling."

GalantFan (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Polk

Hi, would you mind discussing the matter on the article talk page? That is, without reverting. It is your responsibility to build consensus for what you want. Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure, have you noticed that there is extensive white washing on articles related to what Texas calls "revolution" and Mexico called "invasion"?

Those brave and noble federalists (law-breaking illegal immigrants) fought for freedom (to own slaves) and defense of property (slaves and stolen land) against that evil centralist dictator (lawfully elected president of the republic) Santa Anna (who freed the slaves and enforced immigration bans). LOL.GalantFan (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Weasel words

Common examples of weasel words

2+2 is considered 4

According to John, 2+2=4

John alleges that 2+2=4

2+2 is claimed to be 4

Some people say 2+2 is 4

GalantFan (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Whitewashing_(censorship)

Whitewashing (censorship)

Whitewashing is the act of glossing over or covering up vices, crimes or scandals or exonerating by means of a perfunctory investigation or biased presentation of data. GalantFan (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Please wait for RfC to complete

I have just reverted your addition of the hatnote as the RfC is still under consideration. The change should not be added until the RfC is complete.

I would also suggest not adding the section headers (or other major changes) until that time when you could start a new RfC with something like "Should the Controversies be split into the sections A, B and C?" See WP:RFC.

If you try to rush things or preempt the discussion then you will have problems getting consensus for your edits.

Gusfriend (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@GusfriendWhat's the reason why you need an RfC to add a hat note????????? GalantFan (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

And GC already wrote that he liked the sub-headings so there was no objection to those. GalantFan (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This is confusing because everyone who is editing it already agrees there should be a main link and he already said he likes my subheadings. I thought we already had consensus on those two things ??? GalantFan (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk page edits

At Talk:Second Battle of Fallujah you removed and edited your talk posts after they had been there for an extended period. Could you please read WP:REDACT about how to use <s>, </s>, <ins> and </ins> to modify existing comments then restore the content that you removed and use those tags to indicate what you would like to change. Gusfriend (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gusfriend You are saying you want my quote restored? GC just threatened me with another ANI action over it. GalantFan (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion would have been to strikethrough the text that you wanted to remove indicating that you wished to change it and then to use the collapse template (Template:Collapse) so that it is not immediately visible when the page is visited which would have the desired effect of indicating that the text is no longer current whilst being totally transparent about the history.

In terms of what to do now, I would probably leave a note with the current timestamp at the same place as the text that was removed saying something like "Text removed in response to XXXXXXXXXXX. Please see page history for further information about what was removed." That way you avoid the whole bring text back hassles and complexity whilst making it clear to those who visit the page that there is text that has been removed.

Gusfriend (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gusfriend GC just went over to Tamzin's personal talk page and opened a new thread about me quoting that.

He revert wars material he claims he already doesn't object to including. He objects to including reliable sources, then accuses me of not finding reliable sources, then he has a problem with me restoring reliable information that a biased editor deleted when they should not have deleted it. Last time he opened up an ANI notice about me being critical, he went and started bashing me on BeyondMyKen's personal talk page. Now he's complaining about me editing things that had nothing to do with the RfC And then he accuses me of being the disruptive one who is spoiling his mood. GalantFan (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

On navigating difficult discussions (an encouragement in part, and final warning in part)

Hi, GalantFan. As you saw, GreenCows has asked me to look at developments since the second ANI thread closed. Before I address the specifics, though, I'd like to zoom out a bit, if you'll humor me.

Wikipedia's coverage of recent history (read: anything that happened recently enough for us to write about it in real time) often sucks. People write the reported facts as they happen, and then never update them for years of subsequent reporting or academic commentary. I've noticed this firsthand about our Iraq War articles; my father died in the war, and our article on the relevant battle still mentions his death, 19 years later, in "has been reported" phrasing. So above all else I want to say here, Wikipedia needs editors who care about 2003 as much as 2022 or 1903, and I'm glad to see someone taking interest.

That's my general, bird's-eye view. Now, the problem with articles on recent history is the same with articles on current events, which is that people tend to have strong feelings on them. It's clear you have strong feelings here. That's not a bad thing in itself! Some of my proudest contributions to Wikipedia are on topics I have very strong feelings on, and strong feelings can motivate us to improve articles in ways that more detached editors may overlook. But strong feelings do of course create a challenge in content disputes.

Now, when I moderate content disputes, I make a point of not looking too hard at what exactly everyone's arguing, as long as none of it's grossly inappropriate. Because, inasmuch as I may take any administrative action, it doesn't matter whether I agree with you; my role is to judge user conduct, not decide who's right.

The first thing I see here is that everyone seems genuinely interested in improving the encyclopedia. That's... Well it's a lot better than can be said for a lot of content disputes, that's for sure. The second thing I see is that the others in this dispute are listening to you. I don't see partisan stonewalling. I don't see anyone personally attacking you. I do see people quite on their guard about you by now, but I think that's a natural reaction to how you've behaved so far. Your comments—intensely worded, sometimes SHOUTING, on at least two occasions containing embedded graphic images—have served to raise the temperature in the discussion, and now you're seeing what happens in a high-temperature discussion. It's not pleasant.

I don't think it needs to be like that. I think if you can rein your tone in, this could be a pretty collegial exchange. Maybe I'm wrong, but we won't know if you don't try. And if you can't rein your tone in, then you should probably find something else to edit about, because if you continue to engage in a confrontational manner here, I or someone else will have to take adminstrative action.

And so this has to end with a warning—part a general warning that you need to seriously check your tone and focus on constructive dialogue, and part a more specific final warning that you need to stop talking about ancient history. We counsel editors in any content dispute to focus on the content, not the contributor. That's usually said in the context of comments about current contributors; it should go without saying that one should not spend time in a content dispute (or really anywhere) criticizing editors who have not edited in years. If you continue to argue over old diffs and inactive users, I will have to block you indefinitely for disruptive editing.

Which I don't want to do. I don't think anyone really wants to, since quite a few admins have had the chance to so far, and we've all held back even when it would have been within our discretion. You clearly care about making Wikipedia better, and it would be a shame to lose an editor's efforts because of issues on one article, especially one where constructive collaboration seems very possible. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

GreenCows banned indefinitely, long history of sock puppets, POV

Tamzin Bonadea Remember GreenCows?

GreenCows has been banned indefinitely, long history of sock puppets, POV, going on for over a decade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stumink/Archive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GreenCows

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LutonDi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LunaR%C3%A1pida

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WieBek%C3%A4mpfstDuAngst%3F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:VojvodinaabovetheDanube

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aquienleinterese

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D9%85%D8%B1_%D9%8A%D8%B6%D9%8A%D8%A1_%D9%81%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karsdorp85

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nettless

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AliDamouk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmuDahud

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LionelMuniain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:88.104.60.143

All the way back in 2014

Deletion of text that puts the US in a negative light/ deletion of text that puts US enemies in good light

claiming that existing version is POV

Despite that warning, Stumink has edited logged out on 16, 17, and 20 December, despite editing with his main account on all of those days. All of the edits in question were shifting the POV of an article, making the avoidance of scrutiny much more of a problem. How much more slack are we going cut this user? asked Vanamonde way back in 2017.

I am 99% sure Green547 was another of his MANY sock puppets. Same patterns, same accusations of POV and "undue" against others while making POV edits and gutting articles of content that he finds unflattering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Green547

He came on here revert warring with me, accusing me of POV while he made pro-America POV edits across hundreds of articles, mostly military and war related.

Being provocative and making frivolous ANI complaints. Accusing me of being disruptive while he edit wars and revert wars against me. Accusing me of battleground behavior while he is a one-man army!

I added details and references and he revert warred me claiming "undue" and harassing with all sorts of accusations. He even accused me of being a sock puppet, while he has at least a dozen confirmed accounts and probably a lot more. GalantFan (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why I've been pinged here. GalantFan, I do not have the time to investigate your behavior and see if Stumink's behavior was exculpatory; but I will note for any passing admin that I would personally be inclined to give an editor in a dispute leeway if that dispute was entirely with socks of Stumink, who is a prolific sockmaster and inveterate POV-pusher. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your service! Much appreciated! GalantFan (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reversion on Men Going Their Own Way

Hi, GalantFan, just a note that I've reverted your modification of the Men Going Their Own Way article. The material you removed was well-sourced, and the content you replaced it with had no sources. It would be much better if, before trying to make such a dramatic change, you a) found ample reliable sourcing to support your changes, and b) present it on the talk page for other users to consider. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The material I removed was one-sided. Men "going their own way" is literally not a group, and literally not focused on women or feminism. MGTOW may have gained popularity with misogynists, but as an practitioner since the early 2000s, it was never about that. It's in the name. GalantFan (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS, WP:SECONDARY and WP:MANDY. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Read the article. Everything I wrote is already supported by the existing sources. GalantFan (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on your to show it, not me. Also do not edit war (see section below). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

READ THE ARTICLE. It is ALREADY SHOWN. GalantFan (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

GalantFan, as [a] practitioner since the early 2000s, you evidently have a personal investment in the topic, which suggests closer scrutiny of your edits is warranted. We do not allow WP:ADVOCACY or promotion, and editors are advised to refrain from editing topics where they cannot be neutral. You have already violated WP:3RR, so now is the time to stop and WP:LISTEN is you don't want an account block. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Men Going Their Own Way. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

READ THE ARTICLE. I didn't write anything new. I put material that is ALREADY in the article to the lede. GalantFan (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It is very clear that the current article DOES NOT HAVE CONCENSUS. MANY MANY other wiki editors have pointed out that it is biased and offensive in its current form. GalantFan (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)