User talk:WMSR: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
new section "Please remove content that violates user conduct policies and guidelines"
new section "Problematic editing on article and its talk page"
Line 128: Line 128:


{{ping|WMSR}}, I noticed that you made comments that didn't seem very [[WP:CIVIL|civil]]. Please remove content that violates user conduct policies and guidelines. [[WP:FOC|Focus on article content]] during discussions, not on editor conduct. At this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tulsi_Gabbard_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=939455811&oldid=939453917 ] please strike through the part "{{tq|''Please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] on the part of other editors''}}" and the part "{{tq|''[[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]] here (or anywhere) will not help to improve the project in any meaningful way.''}}" And at that edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tulsi_Gabbard_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=939500672&oldid=939479195 ] please strike everything '''except''' the part "{{tq|''But as others have said here, the content you seek to include here is tenuously-sourced and is undue, even as an attributed POV. If you want to make a case for that content's inclusion, you are free to do so''}}". [[User:Xenagoras|Xenagoras]] ([[User talk:Xenagoras|talk]]) 18:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
{{ping|WMSR}}, I noticed that you made comments that didn't seem very [[WP:CIVIL|civil]]. Please remove content that violates user conduct policies and guidelines. [[WP:FOC|Focus on article content]] during discussions, not on editor conduct. At this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tulsi_Gabbard_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=939455811&oldid=939453917 ] please strike through the part "{{tq|''Please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] on the part of other editors''}}" and the part "{{tq|''[[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]] here (or anywhere) will not help to improve the project in any meaningful way.''}}" And at that edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tulsi_Gabbard_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=939500672&oldid=939479195 ] please strike everything '''except''' the part "{{tq|''But as others have said here, the content you seek to include here is tenuously-sourced and is undue, even as an attributed POV. If you want to make a case for that content's inclusion, you are free to do so''}}". [[User:Xenagoras|Xenagoras]] ([[User talk:Xenagoras|talk]]) 18:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

== Problematic editing on article and its talk page ==
[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of [[Special:Contributions/WMSR|your recent contributions]], such as the edit you made to [[:Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign]], did not appear constructive and has been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]]. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]]. You can find information about these at our [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|welcome page]] which also provides further information about [[Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia|contributing constructively to this encyclopedia]]. If you only meant to make test edits, please use [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|the sandbox]] for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-disruptive1 -->

{{ping|WMSR}}, deleting content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=931065463&oldid=931062470 ] from reliable sources because you view their political alignment as {{tq|''conservative'' commentators}} is not allowed per [[WP:NOTCENSORED|policy]].

Regarding your reverts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=938571339&oldid=938528259 ] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=938866159&oldid=938571339 ] of edits by {{u|C.J. Griffin}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=938489466&oldid=938482880 ] and by me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=938528259&oldid=938489466 ]: None of your arguments in the [[Talk:Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign#Unwarranted_deletions_of_content_by_MrX_and_WMSR|talk page discussion]] have been supported by any policy or guideline. While I have been discussing every objection in detail [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tulsi_Gabbard_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=939383971&oldid=937866078 ] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tulsi_Gabbard_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=939455966&oldid=939455811 ] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tulsi_Gabbard_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=939518040&oldid=939500672 ] and continuously improve my contributions from preceding versions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=938528259&oldid=938489466 ] and adapt them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=939383999&oldid=938886091 ] to objections of other editors, you have not tried to [[WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM|fix the problem]] via repairing the article content you find problematic and you did not propose an alternative text version to the content you object against. Therefore your article edits and talk page comments seem to be creating a [[WP:STONEWALL]] against my [[WP:BOLD|bold]] editing in the article. Please don't do that. (''the last part of this explanation is also at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tulsi_Gabbard_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=939782086&oldid=939644664 talk page]'') [[User:Xenagoras|Xenagoras]] ([[User talk:Xenagoras|talk]]) 20:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:24, 8 February 2020

noticeboard/Edit warring situation HEJ004A

Hello, I received a message from you where you accused me of Blanking an Administrators' noticeboard report about me, I think there is an error because I was making a report to a user who is eliminating my contributions just for bothering me, but what happened is that I sent the report 2 times accidentally and badly edited because I have not understood very well how to use the platform to report an edit warring, so what I did was erase everything I wrote in one of the duplicate reports thinking that I could delete it but apparently it was not So and I only won a warning that they can block me for no reason, apart from that there is no logic where you say Blanking an Administrators' noticeboard report about you (me), because what I tried to eliminate was a copy of a report I was making to another user, I was not self-report, I put this because you called me brazen and it is disrespectful without having seen how the situation is.

In the end I could not solve the main problem of the edit warring with the user who reported because in the end the report disappeared.

--Hejo004A (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template editor granted (permanent)

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

Happy template editing! RexxS (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cease POV-pushing

(Personal attack removed) Opinion articles have never been banished from its entries, and their use is allowed as long as it is made clear that it represents an individual perspective and not the facts themselves. (Personal attack removed) Rafe87 (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafe87: I'm quite confused by your message, and suggest that you may want to review WP:NPOV. We do not cite opinion as fact. We do describe the opinions of notable people, and properly cite those opinions. But what you proposed, an op-ed in a liberal magazine by a non-notable author which purports to predict how media will react to Sanders's poll standing, does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. My objections to some of the sources regarding Schultz are very clear: the only sources reporting a link between his views and his firing are not WP:RS, and correlating those two incidents without referencing RS is WP:SYNTH. If a reliable source stated that Schultz was dismissed from MSNBC because of his pro-Sanders views, I would unequivocally support such a statement's inclusion. That said, such a discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not here. I also strongly suggest striking your personal attacks against me. I am not here to push any kind of agenda or POV; I am here to help build an encyclopedia. --WMSR (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
National Review might not be a RS for facts, but it's a RS for National Reviews's own interviews. It's a notable media outlet, even if partisan, and unless you're arguing that it changed the transcript and doctored the audio of Schultz's interview with them, you have no excuses to keep the subject banned from the Bernie-media entry. You keep insisting on removing any references to this subject because you are (Personal attack removed) Rafe87 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a personal attack. You have been blocked before for making personal attacks, and you risk being blocked again by persisting.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Rafe87: You called my understanding of policy corrupted, perhapes intentionally mendacious and accused me of pushing a pro-corporate media POV, both of which are personal attacks. And given that Schultz worked at a media outlet owned by the Russian government at the time, I have trouble with any statements he made during his time there. I explained this all in the talk page: this case presents right-wing, non-RS publication interviewing somebody employed a Russian-owned non-RS publication and should be treated with skepticism. To take it at its word, given what we know, would be naïve at best. WMSR (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American politics discretionary 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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions 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 discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Template:Z33--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

I seriously need to learn to simplify and summarize my comments like you can. Because of your inspiration, have a kitten!

SageSolomon (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ani

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Multiple Issues. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: You have never reached out to me on my (or any) talk page before. If there is an issue with my editing, I am glad to discuss it here. --WMSR (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that I never reached out to you here. You sound a bit possessive over the AfD, just got me a bit worked up, and I was a bit frustrated. Plumber came 7 hours after they were called to fix the backflow in my tub, had to wait to take shower. Removed mentions of you, however kept the article related issues regarding users that dont understand wikipedia policy. I think you would agree with that statement considering that you once stated "WP:RELIST does not apply to this situation. Relisting and renominating are entirely different processes. WP:SNOWBALL does not apply either, as the last AfD was closed with no consensus. --WMSR (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC) ". Sorry about the ANI, can we still be good with each other?  :)

A news article stating that many pundits are feeling bernie is being covered a lot less, is stating the truth when the pundits say that. The main reason why I never stated keep was because I feel that Shashi does not have a standard ground of whether he supports or Opposes. As I stated above, I was not in the mood at that time to face a battle with him as well. I actually feel Sushi might have a WP:COI (I dont know why but I feel he works for DNC), but Idid not have the time too look for the proof. I feel that instead of AfD the article should go thru a renaming discussion, to be renaimed to "Media's view on Bernies Sanders coverage". At that point Pundits are part of the media, thus in reality there is nothing wrong with the article at that point.

Have to eat dinner now , its 10:34. I am no longer frustrated. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC) I had an edit conflict. Was stricking out.[reply]

@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: Thanks for striking your comments at ANI (though you have not yet done so on the thread I started). Also, just FYI, it's generally not a good idea to strike others' comments. Anyway, I hope your plumbing situation is under control!
ANI is not really the place for your other complaints, as they aren't related to editor behavior. There are several other noticeboards you can use, in addition to the article talk page and the AfD. ANI is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, which is not the case on the AfD.
There was a discussion on the talk page about the issue of attributed POV, and the issue I raised is that, while WP:BIASED states that Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject, this is only true when multiple points of view are expressed in an article. That is not the case on Media coverage of Bernie Sanders; every partisan source cited in this article is advocating the same POV.
I should also point out that I don't think there is any reason to believe that Sashi works for the DNC. But I am disappointed that you realized you did not have proof to go after them, but still went after me despite the same lack of evidence. Always assume good faith on the part of other editors. --WMSR (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro)" listed at Requested moves

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the requested move of A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) and other Metro pages. Since you had some involvement with pages related to A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) and others, you might want to participate in the discussion if you wish to do so. Lexlex (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio accusation

Hi. After the ANI you opened the day you opened the AFD for Media coverage of Bernie Sanders was closed I took ANI back off my watchlist. When you try to re-open an ANI you should really ping the person you're pursuing. On 28 January 2019 you accused me of copyright violations without evidence. Never have I seen you fix a copyvio on that page: could you tell me what you are referring to? -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 02:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls, sorry for not re-pinging you. I was referring to the illustration debacle. Using a copyrighted image outside of fair use criteria is a copyright violation. --WMSR (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, so you are claiming that the fair use license I filled out... for an image that I did not upload... and had already been seen on wikipedia 3.5 million times was... (in your opinion) insufficient... based on a list of wikipedia volunteer written rules that are far more restrictive than actual fair use law... I'm not convinced the image still could not be used based on the policies as written, but chose not to argue with you about it. I would appreciate if you could dial the rhetoric back a bit. You can see the image it's about in the infobox here again if you want. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 04:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SashiRolls, I understand that you filled out the rationale, but rules are still rules, whether or not you agree with them. The number of views of an image are also irrelevant, and filling out a rationale does not mean you can use a non-free image wherever or however you want. The image has a clear purpose in the Washington Post infobox. It does not in an article about Sanders. --WMSR (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. Nowhere does it say in the page you cited that an image of WaPo coverage of X can not be used to illustrate a section about WaPo coverage of X. But all of that is immaterial. The problem is that you called it a copyright violation, which has nothing to do with en.wp rules (which I respected even if you think I didn't). In other words, you need to calm down and stop falsely accusing people of committing intellectual property crimes. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 13:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SashiRolls, fair use rules are copyright rules, and while clearly there is no specific rule for that specific situation, there is applicable policy. Per WP:NFCCP, Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. You can read more about this specific criterion at WP:NFC#CS. Nothing that I have said has been false or malicious. --WMSR (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as you know, the 3rd line of the page you link (WP:NFCC) says: Rationale: To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law.. Enough said on this subject. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 16:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SashiRolls: Is there something you are hoping to gain from this conversation? I am not sure what you want here. Regardless of whether the use of that image was a violation of copyright law, it was a clear violation of WP's fair use policy. --WMSR (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure, there's always something to gain. If you want to be nice you could go back and mark out the false accusationS at ANI, then. I think it's still sitting there in that complaint you made about "aspersions". If not, well then, I guess I'll have gained a better understanding of how you roll. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 17:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SashiRolls: Like I said before, nothing I have said is false. I have cited and relevant policy in my response which clearly shows that WP considers the addition of the image to be a copyvio, regardless of whether or not the U.S. government shares that view. Obviously, you are free to make your case on the appropriate page, but I will not retract a claim because you disagree with the merits of WP's copyright policy. --WMSR (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove content that violates user conduct policies and guidelines

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

@WMSR:, I noticed that you made comments that didn't seem very civil. Please remove content that violates user conduct policies and guidelines. Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct. At this edit [1] please strike through the part "Please assume good faith on the part of other editors" and the part "casting aspersions here (or anywhere) will not help to improve the project in any meaningful way." And at that edit [2] please strike everything except the part "But as others have said here, the content you seek to include here is tenuously-sourced and is undue, even as an attributed POV. If you want to make a case for that content's inclusion, you are free to do so". Xenagoras (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic editing on article and its talk page

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

@WMSR:, deleting content [3] from reliable sources because you view their political alignment as conservative commentators is not allowed per policy.

Regarding your reverts [4] [5] of edits by C.J. Griffin [6] and by me [7]: None of your arguments in the talk page discussion have been supported by any policy or guideline. While I have been discussing every objection in detail [8] [9] [10] and continuously improve my contributions from preceding versions [11] and adapt them [12] to objections of other editors, you have not tried to fix the problem via repairing the article content you find problematic and you did not propose an alternative text version to the content you object against. Therefore your article edits and talk page comments seem to be creating a WP:STONEWALL against my bold editing in the article. Please don't do that. (the last part of this explanation is also at the talk page) Xenagoras (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]