User talk:David Tornheim/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

You did indeed...

...have an answer to your accusation, at the Hayley McLaughlin article, that I had a POV or other conflict in pushing to retain the article about that young actor—I opened the discussion identifying myself, and making clear I had no such conflicts. Moreover, you simply need have had the usual look at the user contributions from this non-logging editor to find support for the claim (made in that opening), that I am a former academic, and a former logging editor—who after many disappointments with the integrity and rule-following of fellow WP editors, now edits wherever I see need, as the questions of my young charges lead me to poor articles. Do your due diligence, before accusing. The founder of this august organisation, Mr Wales, specifically made allowances for and defended editing without logging. You are in no position to disallow it. You were guilty in that discussion of ignoring the AGF principle, and of deriding this non-logging editor. I have asked that the closing of that discussion be reviewed, for it being closed in less than a week, in the week before a major holiday. If when the discussion begins again, if you again cast aspersions as to my editing (and character), I will address that matter to its fullest. Meanwhile, after you take the time to exam my recent edits to see if it supports your guilty-because-I-imagine-so (and until-proven-innocent) preconception—if then you care for more information, lead me here to an email address for yourself, and I will send you my formal credentials, on condition. Meanwhile, please—return to the principles of this place, in your interactions, and respect non-logging editors, and more generally, AGF. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry you are still upset about that one article. It doesn't appear that your appeal is getting anywhere: I think part of the reason you are so upset is that you are still not really familiar with the sourcing rules. Try spending some time working on articles that you are not so attached to, or just watch to see what happens at controversial articles. Try clicking on the many links to things that are happening on Wikipedia rather than focusing on the injustice you feel about this one article. You might try joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and may helping out with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#On-going_projects/to_do_lists. You can see the fate of other actors and actresses who went to WP:AfD here: [[1]]. Maybe from studying these things it will make sense why the AfD went the way that it did and it will be easier to help with articles where the subject meet our sourcing requirements for notability. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It will go nowhere, in this place, because there is no requirement whatsoever to stop an individual who has done no work to understand the issues, history, or other evidence on a matter to join the fray, spouting whatever prejudicial, accusatory nonsense that they suppose might be true. I speak now most plainly about the persons falsely accusing me of paid or other prohibited forms of editing. I am beyond words at this point, that those who are unjust, and, frankly, dishonest in their purported scholarship, can carry the day. I have responded to this as much as I will, at the Talk page of the most offensive individual—where I was not the only Wikipedian taking issue with (at least the prose used in) the false accusations. But for the sake of your thoughtful engagement, let me clarify and say this—

all the editing I did was WP:VERIFY and WP:OR compliant; I was the one at the article in question that deleted the IMDB citations, and placed third-party, independent citations, then edited the content to reflect these WP:RELIABLE SOURCES.

The matter was muddled a bit when a well-meaning but less careful editor came on after me, and put IMDB citations back in, and before I could remove them, prompted a thorough but pointless analysis of the added garbage by a third editor. Regardless, any careful look at diffs from the View History would have made clear that the article was moved in the direction of proper sourcing, and that proper (and not just IMDB) sources were indeed available.

Otherwise, I would note at time of my retirement as a logging editor here—with departure motivated by too low of standards with regard to plagiarism, and the pointless and at times witless and unprincipled discussions I had to engage in to make no progress on that front—that I had been editing for more than a decade, had posted >10,000 registered edits, including >50 created pages, and edits on >1700 unique pages. Of those, >95% were edits with summaries, and in that entire time, I had <60 total hours of being blocked. Am I a bit rusty at the Wikilawyering? Perhaps yes. Do I care? Not in the least. And as for the absolute honesty of my work, and the nonsensical challenges to it, I would refer you to the Talk page linked above.

This is all from me. This has wasted too much of my time. 2020 will make clear that you lot were wrong about this actor and their article. But I cannot say whether it will be 2020, or ever at all that editors like those involved here will become self-aware enough to understand when their egos and other worse impulses are driving their particiaption in decisions that no true sense of justice would demand (or tolerate).

By the way, while my doctoral work was not in engineering (rather, in the pure sciences), my career has led to my managing large projects that included a fair sampling of CEs and EEs—from which I too carry a prejudice. With just a few minutes of due diligence, a solidly-based favourable one about your field and training. Cheers now, from a holiday destination in the U.S., near the Windy City, where my last academic campus lies under the quiet peace of a holiday break. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent Reversion - January 2020

Just wanted to let you know that this message isn't to say that your reversion was wrong, but the reason given for the reversion is misleading. By stating "please find a reliable source WP:RS for this claim" you are justifying something that could be seen as unacceptable by other editors. The IP was mistaken in putting in a name associated to the actor that they used for another career - such a detail is best left for their biographical article or to highlight them clearly within the article about their career/the activity they were involved in. Please be careful to ensure that when giving a reason for an edit, to make certain not to put in a reason that can be misleading and cause editors to believe something that is in reality not accurate/correct per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. GUtt01 (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@GUtt01: You lost me. What article are you talking about? Do you have a diff? I do a lot of vandal reversion and editors--especially short-lived IPs--put in information without using a reliable source all the time. Although I don't think I used Huggle for the one in question, it is a standard response for Huggle:

-- not providing a reliable source (WP:CITE, WP:RS)

Can you tell me what the edit is and why it does not need a reliable source, please? --David Tornheim (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The article in question is Jumanji: The Next Level. You reverted an edit in which an IP added to the actor Dwayne Johnson his nickname of "The Rock" from his wrestling career. The reason that a reliable source is not needed is because the reason they give - "By adding rock next to the name of Dwayne Johnson cause it will be easy for people to understand" - has no real substance to this claim. It is highly unlikely that anyone will not know who the actor is; an reference to his wrestling career is not needed within his work as an actor, only within his personal article, and articles regarding the sport he was involved in. GUtt01 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@GUtt01: Okay. That sort of makes sense. I did not know about the actor (who I have never heard of) went by another name in another career. I thought the editor had just made it up, or somewhere (maybe in high school by his/her friends) s/he had heard the adjective used and wanted us to use it too, so I asked editor to provide a source that shows that the actor actually goes by that name rather than the one that is currently in the article.

I hope you didn't expect me to know the actor's name, did you? Without extensive knowledge of the actor, his career and his knicknames, it would have been very hard for me to come up with the more specific advice you gave to the editor, rather than the more generic--Please find WP:RS. How much research do you think I should have done before reverting it the way I did? --David Tornheim (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

A simple check of the actor's article would have shown you that the name of "The Rock" is generally accepted as being linked to him, but for his past career. Although generic advice is fine by me, there should also be a bit of common sense involved, such as checking to see if the information is accurate, and then determining if it is really suitable to be included into an article. Your reversion, in my opinion, was spot on. The IP's reasoning was unfounded, because even if someone doesn't know the actor's previous nicknames, they shouldn't really be used beside an actor's name - that's what a biographical article about them is for. GUtt01 (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. I do often check the article, and you are right that it would have been helpful if I had. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42 + Venezuela

Jamez42's reply to User_talk:Jamez42/Archive_5#Non-neutral_edits_re:_Venezuela:

• There are a lot of things to break down here, so I'll do my best to reply each point and dividing my reply in two sections:

(1) There are sometimes when I do respond to a revert with another revert, or sometimes add or change my edit when appropriate. When I do, I always try to explain my reasons or concerns in the edit summary, based on policies or guidelines. When that happens, and if I am reverted for a second time, specially I try to develop these reasons, arguments or concerns further in the article's talk page. What is important for me is not being disruptive, doing well-founded contributions, so the question amounts to if there is edit warring. As far as I know, I have not violated restrictions such as WP:1RR and have shown a willingness to discuss.

BRD is an optional method of reaching consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks, and In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach. Care and diplomacy should be exercised.. This does not mean that I'm ignoring the principle, as since I have learned about it I recognize its importance, but I think it's important to note that BRD does not encourage reverting and that the D of discuss should also be respected.

I am concerned that after citing BRD, you don't show interest in participating in the discussions that develop [2][3], or responding after I answered a question where you pinged me, at least to confirm that read it.[4][5] It takes two to tango.

(2) When I have removed referenced content, it is not when it is not "well-sourced". You can see that in each one of the edit summaries I provide an explanation, like I stated before, including WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, but the most important one to bear in mind is WP:ONUS, Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. A particular example that should be remembered is one of your last reverts to replace "back" with "orchestrated", a loaded and non neutral term, contrary to WP:LABEL.

I find it worrisome that you use diffs in the span of ten months to try to demonstrate a pattern. The first diff is not a removal, but hiding the text. The second diff consists in a section of four paragraphs that rely on a single source; not exactly "well-sourced" content, without mentioning issues with original research. In the third diff you make mention of "U.S. efforts for regime change in Venezuela intensified in January 2019", without mentioning which these have been; you use the adjective "crippling", violating WP:NPOV, and use an opinion article to support the content. Lastly, the last diff consists in content that I added myself (which I should mention, I regret that you don't recognize as an attempt to find an agreement), the only reason why I removed it were the complaints in the talk page that there should not be an "Accusations" title.

You forget to mention, consider, or in best scenario notice, that I commented on my participation in the opened RfC, provided an extensive explanation about the removal that Oska referred to in the respective section, namely that the section was based in a SPA edit that was completely unreferenced, I apologized if "my edit was seen as too radical" and showed my willingness to help with the section. I should add that Oska's comment was not a "warning"; they didn't template me with a predetermined message in my talk page and were quite civil when talking about the issue. Tone matters.

While we are at it, since you are accusing me of STONEWALLING, can you explain to me how "substantive argument based in policy, guidelines and conventions have been inadequate to legitimately oppose the change"?

• All this being said, I couldn't help but notice that you left me this comment just hours after I started a RfC to assess the reliability of The New Republic. This makes me to worry about that this comment was not motivated by disruptive editing allegations, or a repeated failure to engage in discussion, but rather my questions to the community overall. You proceed to make baseless accusations pointing out to broad assumptions and offering nearly no diffs at all, effectively engaging in a straw man fallacy. I will proceed to address them:

(4) It is ludicrous that you accuse me of having an agenda by quoting an incident that happened a year ago, not to mention in the Spanish and not the English Wikipedia, and you appear to show worrying ignorance about the situation. If you really want to go into depth: Efecto Cocuyo's article mentions 37 times changes (not reverts) in two hours, of which only five were mine: adding a date and an acronym, adding the category "Presidents of Venezuela", adding the predecessor parameter in the infobox, and adding a numeral; Only the last one was a revert of a user reverted three times three different users and removed referenced content.

Did you get to read the article's version before the edit war? It's interesting that you accuse me of not following WP:RS when at the time the article had a section with five reliable sources supporting the claim, and my revert was precisely to restore the referenced content, not to add unreferenced content or to push for a POV. Did you read the talk page of the article and my afterwards proposals? I wasn't the only editor to believe sources supported the inclusion, after administrators intervened there was a thread afterwards that helped to shape the article.

What would you say if I were to point out at the several canvassing warnings you have received and draw conjectures on them?[6][7][8][9] Or that you were once blocked to enforce a topic ban? I could add that in the last week you have usually appeared in controversial discussions just to comment your agreement with a previous comment (WP:ILIKEIT) [10][11][12], without contributing with further input or seeming to have read previous threads, and it seems that this is not the first time you do this ([13][14][15][16]). It may also be good for you to look at WP:KETTLE.

(5) If you are familiarized with WP:SPA, you should know that editing in a single broad topic does not amount to a being single purpose account.

When identifying single-purpose accounts, it is important to consider what counts as a diverse group of edits. For example, subjects like spiders, nutrition, baseball, and geometry are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not mean the user is an SPA.

Wikipedia:EDITCOUNTITIS has already been cited to you as an example of the problem of naming the number of edits predominant factor in edit behavior. In the articles with my largest edit count, most of the time I barely amount to 10% of the content added (Venezuelan presidential crisis, 2019 Bolivian political crisis, Venezuelan protests (2014–present), Juan Guaidó). The exceptions are the Timeline of the 2017 Venezuelan protests and the 2018 Venezuelan presidential election articles, with 19.7% and 35.2% respectively, whose events took place way before Guaidó was in the spotlight.

I invite you to take a look at my list of created articles, look at my edit history before 2018, or evaluate my editions based on content added and not number of edits. Hopefully you'll get a different picture. I have been editing for almost six years now, and my activity spans to other projects, including Commons, Wikisource and the Spanish Wikipedia.

(6) You are not offering any example or diff to show how I am violating WP:NPOV or going against reliable sources. In the English Wikipedia there is plenty of "negative" content or reception about Guaidó that is well referenced, have stayed in the articles and which I have not attempted to remove because of the same reason, they're compliant to WP:NPOV. I have also included "negative" when needed; for example, when the embezzlement scandal came to light, I was the first editor to add it to the article.

(7) You should know that WP:RS/N is based on arguments and not on "votes", a misconception that you seem to have. If sources have been determined to be unreliable it is not because they have a specific editorial line, but rather because they have been demonstrated to not report accurately. If you disagree with this and can offer a rebuttal, you can always start another RfC explaining your case and why you believe the reference should not be considered unreliable. On the other hand, I am not the only editor being accused of starting this discussions in bad faith, so if you ever get to go to a noticeboard make sure to notify them as well.

• I believe that being WP:BOLD in controversial topics usually results in disagreements, and I'm open to learn about any wrongdoing I may engage in. This has happened many times, but it is much easier when the editor pointing this out is civil when they do.

• I have told you in the past that I found your tone growingly hostile, and I have asked you to refrain from this, since it makes any discussion harder to progress and it may amount to personal attacks. When I cited WP:TENDENTIOUS it was in a specific edit summary and I referred to the specific section where the issues went further.

• You have gone a step further and went from complaining to me of not following WP:BRD and WP:RS to accusing me of having a WP:AGENDA, of having a WP:SPA, violating WP:NPOV and deliberately attempting to remove references from being used in Wikipedia. Like I said, I accept criticism if done in the proper manner. However, doing it in a broad manner, without proving specific diffs, along with the tone of the comments, leads me to interpret the message as nothing more as personal attacks to threaten me or discourage from editing, which is particularly more concerning knowing that in these topics native Spanish speakers that can help with translations and offering local and Spanish sources are needed.

• If you are interested in improving the articles at hand, please share your thoughts in the talk page and the open discussions. If you are convinced that your accusations consists in a pattern that has continued, document them and explain better how to refrain from it. On the contrary, and as I have said before, I will report the attacks in a noticeboard. We may have differences how editors and may look for changing our behaviors, but there's always a correct way to ask. Happy New Year. --Jamez42 (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutral notice

As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

US interventions articles

I thought I'd leave a message to say a bit of thanks for opening that AN/I on Jamez42 - I'm not sure it was quite appropriate, but que será - because it raised my concerns on the particular articles in question. I was just going to keep a closer eye on the edits, but if you have any serious concerns on the Venezuela content, maybe we could take it to the WikiProject to get more input for a discussion/consensus building that will hopefully go somewhere. Kingsif (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif Thanks for the note. I replied on your talk page here:

• User_talk:Kingsif#Venezuela_articles (permalink)

--David Tornheim (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published, and was copied directly from Google Translate. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article is properly formatted, referenced, and ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi David Tornheim! You created a thread called Image copyright violation at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it 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 create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi David Tornheim! You created a thread called RfC notification -- how to get them at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it 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 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) 19:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, David

I am writing to you because you are an experienced Wikipedian, and because I didn't get a chance to explicitly thank you for your comment to me in Braeden Wright's AfD discussion last week before it had closed. Since that time, I have found myself the subject of what I feel and can prove with diffs are personal attacks, harassment, wikihounding, and just outright rudeness and contempt. One of the users in the AfD did not agree with keeping the page, and since has been relentless in his his/her attack on me. Despite being a user for three years-- I really only tried to rejoin the community this summer. I was so excited to contribute. But now, to be quite honest, I don't know if I can continue. I don't have a single friend in the community. I am too new. And despite trying my best to follow guidelines to the letter-- I feel I have been caught up in some tribalism whirlwind where every time I look at my computer, there will be a new message to feel intimidated by. I just am so unsure of what to do. I asked this user to talk on his talkpage, amicably and asked for a truce, and for his/her friendship. That only made things so much worse. So I am not even entirely sure why I am writing here except because I haven't even been able to sleep this week over this. I am unsure if I should just leave the project or not, but before I consider it... I just wanted to thank you for you kind comment "thank you for your hard work" at the end of that AfD. You have no idea how many hours and sleepless nights I have had over this, and that comment just meant so much to me. So at the very least, I wanted to tell you how much it meant, and to thank you for being someone who conducted himself I believe this community is meant to-- collaborative, respectful, collegial, and if we dare even say it-- friendly. So thank you, David. Sending you all my best. Much love x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulman1125 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Soulman1225: So sorry about your experiences. You are not alone in this feeling. I'll take a look at your recent edits, and maybe I can give you some advice, or help you from getting all those warning messages. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It's okay. I guess I don't stand a chance. Seems to me on here certain users like to state the rules but then not follow them or ignore them at their own will-- as long as they have friends to back them up. The page Braeden Wright just got absolutely scrubbed by a few users in an instant. One deletes the main reference. Another deletes the sentences due to "no reference". And poof. Now it's totally blank, and up for speedy deletion due to copyright claim? That's okay. I'm fine with losing the battle. I'm not here to battle in the first place haha. But wow. Sure not at all what I expected Wikipedia to be all about. Seems in fact like a pretty dark part of the internet to me haha. Anyways, Again, thanks for being one of the good ones. Keep up the good fight. Maybe I will just have to stick around once in a while :) Much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I took at look. My first advice is this:

(1) Don't spend any more time trying to defend: Braeden Wright or Lola Lennox. They may both be a lost cause. The other editors will decide what happens to those articles, but what you have said so far will be considered. Saying more doesn't help you. Let the process play out.

(2) Work on other articles. Try working on articles that you feel less attachment to. Other editors feel you are too attached to those two articles and your voluminous responses defending them is probably the reason. If you work on too few articles with too much investment, you will be accused of being a WP:SPA.

(3) Don't accuse other editors of double-standards, don't call them names, don't get nasty, etc. I know it appears others are using double-standards, but trust me, comments like those will be used against you to get you blocked, topic banned, or even ejected from Wikipedia--even if you are 100% confident you are right. Look at this to see what happens when you make accusations against other users.

(4) Keep your cool. Try not to get flustered when nasty untrue allegations are made against you. Your nasty responses will be noted and used against you. It's okay to say, "That's not true." and provide evidence. But don't start calling your accuser names or they will take you to WP:AN/I and use the name-calling to have you blocked, etc.

(5) If you feel you are harassed, you can take the issue to WP:AN/I. I would be very cautious before doing that. Look at what others do. To win a case at AN/I, you must provide diffs. Until you learn how to create diffs like other editors do at AN/I, I think you will have a hard time winning any case there. Some editors are "teflon", and they can get away with things no one else can. Taking them to AN/I will make your jaw drop, cause immense frustration, and be unfortunately, as complete waste of your time. If you think the AfD was a time sink, an AN/I case can take far more time. So do your research before taking a case to AN/I. Maybe spend some time looking at cases at AN/I to see how that works.

(6) Go to some super controversial articles and just watch. Try not to speak, just watch at the article and the talk page. Watch for edit warring. See what happens when someone adds something that others disagree with, and especially watch what happens when they don't get their way. You might notice that you are not treated any differently. They will have warnings all over their talk page too. I recently got an editor blocked for trying to edit war in material on Brett Kavanaugh.

Please also note that one of the editors who has accused you took me to WP:AN/I twice. Take a look at the cases here, and you will see that you are not alone in dealing with things that you believe are double-standards. Please don't ask me about those cases. Just read and try to figure out for yourself. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

All I will say is just wow. Wow... Ha. I think you can guess my feelings on such a coincidence, I won't talk about it either. But as for a 'good' wow... This reply made me feel so at ease, David. Thank you so much for taking the time to do that for me. Those are all great pieces of advice, especially for someone who was perhaps a bit naive at how dark this place might actually get at times and in the darker corners. I won't lose sleep over it anymore. And I had a good laugh once I realized how incredibly correct you are. Edit warring is absolutely crazy in my opinion. That is so not at all what I am here for haha. How wild. But, Sir... all I will say is I wish I could give you a giant, giant hug. What a great message. You are a wise warrior here for the rest of us, and I sincerely appreciate such noble direction. Feel free to keep in touch. Maybe I have at least one friend here after all. I think I might need a couple weeks to defrag my brain from all of this first haha-- but I look forward to spending time in the community amongst the good company of well-natured, insightful, and wise people like you. I see the Socrates star on your page. The Apology is my all-time favourite text. You Sir, deserve that award. Much love and cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome. I'll check in on you every once in a while, or you can send me a note to tell me how it is going. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey David-- well, my two weeks turned into a year and a half! And what a wild year and a half it was! Yeesh. I hope you are staying safe and well during this Coronavirus epidemic, and once again wanted to thank you for being so nice to me those months ago... If it wasn't for you, I don't think I would be back. No better time than now to pick up old hobbies! So-- just wanted to say hello and send all my best. Much love to you x Soulman1125 (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for your time, your kindness, and your guidance, David. Saw this on someone else's page and realized you definitely deserved it! My first barnstar. Sending my best, my friend! :) Cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Kieslowski

Thanks for the sugestions. BBird27 (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Dan Brown-related talk pages

Apologies for removing your message at Talk:Origin (Brown novel), but I removed that whole section per WP:DENY and WP:NOTTHERAPY. The individual is trying to use our talk pages as an additional extension of his crusade, which we should nip in the bud. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: No problem. Thanks for letting me know. I'm just glad the IP is currently blocked, but only for 3 days. If you didn't see, I submitted sockpuppet investigation of that IP and another account. Did you see that? Do you think it is a sockpuppet too? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Definitely that same user. I still don't really understand what they're trying to say, but it reminds me of another user who is convinced that they are the real author of a bunch of Sting songs; also banned. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie From what little I read at one of the places referred to, the user is saying that Dan Brown stole the ideas. It's entirely possible--ideas have been stolen before. But we are not here to adjudicate that. The IP is advised to consult an attorney and possibly file the claim at a court of appropriate jurisdiction. If it gets into WP:RS, then we could add it to the article... I'm guessing you know that... --David Tornheim (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup, but they have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever (we have plenty of other copyright cases here where they are properly sourced, e.g. My Sweet Lord). In this case, howerver, per WP:NLT and WP:NOTTHERAPY, best course of action it to WP:DENY. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

China national football team

Dear David Tornheim

User:Pestick and User talk:14.231.64.162 who I believe are the same, is vandalising this page under the disguise of Recentism. I undid one of their edits and clearly stated the reasons why,

    "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer Wikipedia:Link rot/new. Content removal has lead to systemic bias Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and lack of Neutral point of view Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" (15:59, 25 April 2020‎) 

I was confronted with this on the China national football team: Revision history page

    "There is a discuss in the talk page, made by another editor. You are up against two editors including me. I'm trying to condense the article per TP:Overly detailed. Please don't disrupt the article's renovation process. This is not mainly about dead links, it's about condensing the article and getting rid of excessive intricate details." (16:09, 25 April 2020‎) 

I looked this up at the Talk:China national football team and all I could find was that you wrote, "I hope editors can review the sourcing and fix broken links." (10:04, 21 April 2020) Further research lead me to User talk:14.231.64.162 where Materialscientist suggested this person use Sandbox. You came in and were encouraging to the new editor, suggested a more neutral tone, replace sources that were lacking and read up carefully on any rules that editors say you have broken. Unfortunately when you wrote,

     "If you start getting more warnings and anyone gets testy with you, please let me know, and can see what is going on." (10:03, 21 April 2020)

this person has selectively read that they have carte blanche to do whatever they want. This has lead to numerous instances of vandalism deleted numerous referenced material under what they believe is condensing, poor English, only English cited sources and dead links to name a few. When I confronted this person I was met with Ownership of content and bullying language, as this person believes you are one of the two editors I am up against, giving him/her the perception of power. So I ask you to stop this person vandalising this page, they are not improving this page at all because if they were they wouldn't be deleting the same passages and references used in the Nederlands Featured article of the same name. Kai Lau talk 19:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I will take a look. You might find an appropriate project to get more eyes on the page. No need to describe the dispute: Just say there are disagreements about content and sourcing and could new eyes look at it. You can also ask for third opinion. There are also a bunch of page for dispute resolution --David Tornheim (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest both (all?) of you go to the talk page of the article and discuss specific edits using WP:DIFFs. Discussing via edit-summaries is not a good idea. this person has selectively read that they have carte blanche to do whatever they want. I agree that is a problem. I am not taking a side. I will leave a similar message on that editors page. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the material that was more recently deleted and requested this be discussed on talk page per WP:BRD. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear David Tornheim I am using the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports#China_national_football_team page to discuss User:Pestick talk or User talk:14.231.64.162 edits on this article. If you believe this should be discussed somewhere else please inform me. Kai Lau (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to inform you User:Pestick has deleted your restored the material edit, shown here: edit 10:45, 29 April 2020. Has this been discussed or agreed upon in a talk page that I am unaware of? Kai Lau (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I replied here. Discuss about article should start at the article talk page, which is here: Talk:China_national_football_team --David Tornheim (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

David Tornheim, hello, it's quiet long, I have made talk to Kai Lau person, and discuss about the topic at the China football team's article, but it seems hardly going well. Do you what sort of respond it is that he last send to me? Just read the talk page, irritating and rude to the core. I did not mean bad and i didn't even do anything to him. But, this person decided to just throw a tantrum at me. He tell me to have to read a article in another language, and put up a lot of problems and accused me of misbehaviors that I have no idea what they are. I have no idea what he has undercome previously with the related topic. In the last respond, he seems to be using very agressive tone in a supposed civil discussion. A person like this can't be reasoned or discuss with at large! Pestick (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pestick and Kai Lau: I responded on the talk page. What you are seeing often happens on contentious pages when two (or more) editors who think they are right (and have good reason for their positions) disagree. Try to keep your cool. If I didn't recommend it before, please see my advice to new editors at the top of my user page, User:David_Tornheim. I prefer you both talk about the article there rather than here, please. If there is new activity and I have not noticed, you can ping me there, or put a short note here saying there is new activity. I prefer you discontinue accusing each other of breaking rules and focus on seeking agreement on content from each other and from other editors who are watching the article and talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Venezuela's redirect

Hi David. I have noticed that you have recently added a category to a redirect whose article is undergoing a move discussion. WP:RCAT states that the category that should be used in a hard redirect is one of several maintenance categories. This category is currently not being used in the main article and as such we should wait for the discussion closure. Because of these reasons I kindly ask the category to be removed. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm waiting for your response when you may. Regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Answered here: User_talk:El_C#Macuto (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies on panic edits

Hi really quick for an apology, I am very on very on panic edits and you thought it was disruptive edits. I want to apologize to you and it would never happen again. Please do not send me warning and I want to apologize to you I did restore my edits back. I hope you will accept my apology on your reply. Thanks for your time. 2001:569:74D2:A800:BC88:7436:3D0D:FC57 (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Please read WP:BRD. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Lutheran Church–Canada

Hello, David Tornheim. You have new messages at Talk:Lutheran Church–Canada.
Message added 05:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Robbinsdale Armstrong High School

I don't understand why you removed the entry for Douglas McCain, His attendance is sourced, and he does not have to have graduated to be listed. see WP:ALUMNI. Meters (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Meters: Sorry. You were right. An IP editor had pointed out the problem about confusion between the two high schools and having looked at the WP:RS, I saw that indeed he had gone to Robbinsdale Cooper High School. I should have searched the article for Armstrong also rather than just Cooper, since obviously a person can attend both high schools. McCain did indeed. Thanks for the catch. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

No biggie. I thought I was missing something, but the ref seemed OK. Meters (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion proposed

Dear David Tornheim, a motion which relates to you has been proposed in response to your request at ARCA. If you have further comments, they may be made in your section of the request. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:13, 13 June 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!

--Jamez42 (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Interviews and notability

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashmusy includes Although a before search shows subject mentioned in a few reliable sources but having had a close observation of those sources show they are not independent of the subject as half are interviews and the other half seem to be echoing what she self published whilst others seem like paid for promo sources. and All of the article's sources are interview sources, nothing independent of the subject both seeming to imply that interviews are not independent and don't contribute to notability.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mukose Umar includes Sources are either interviews or announcements of his music release from unreliable news websites.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cranes Software incloudes: References do not meet the criteria for establishing notability, they are based on interviews and company announcements/PR.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul R. Gregory includes Some of these sources are passing mention, some are interviews, however collectively they show that the subject passes WP:N

Too late to check for more, these are all from AfDs started yesterday (Sunday). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Thanks for all that work. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 07:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 07:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)