User talk:عُثمان/Archive 2022-05-05
Middle river exports, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Middle river exports! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC) |
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
Poppleton
[edit]Hey, first thanks for your work expanding the article pool for Baltimore - there aren't nearly enough of us actively working on it. I wanted to contact you because I saw a page reviewer reverted your stub creation for Poppleton, Baltimore, restoring the redirect that had been there before. They said the given citations were not enough to support WP:GNG. Poppleton is very much in the news though, and I have already rounded up plenty of citations to recreate the article with some more meat on its bones. I hope (if you even noticed) this wasn't discouraging for you. I think that most any neighborhood that has the "official" recognition of the city will ultimately pass notability, but if you get the chance in subsequent new articles, maybe it would be a good idea to try to find an extra source or two besides the city list. That said, thank you again for your recent work. There's plenty to be done and I really hope you stick with it. Sauzer (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you for reaching out - I am glad to see someone else is working on Baltimore-related articles. I had not noticed that the Poppleton page was restored, but yes, I agree nearly all of the neighborhood articles could pass notability given more references. I suspect there may be a handful of exceptions I haven't identified yet just because of how granular the city neighborhood designations are, where the colloquial name for an area might have far more significance than the "official" one. I do intend to stick with it and fill out neighborhood, landmark, history, etc articles with references and images gradually as I find time to chip away at it. Poppleton being in the news was on my mind when I selected an image showing the Sarah Ann Street rowhouse block for the Infobox; it should be relatively straightforward to flesh that out since it is a notable and unique city neighborhood and I appreciate any help. --Middle river exports (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 9
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alley house, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
"Vandalism"
[edit]If you keep using that word in response to good-faith edits, there may be consequences. Also, it's best not to lecture other editors concerning move discussions when you're not discussing your own move initiatives. Acroterion (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Also, it's best not to lecture other editors concerning move discussions when you're not discussing your own move initiatives."
- If it's not clear, this describes what the other editors in question did, not myself. Can you point to a good faith edit I called vandalism? --Middle river exports (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- You accused another editor of "borderline vandalism." Don't. Vandalism often involves the word "poop," it does not include edits that displease you. Acroterion (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- "On Wikipedia, vandalism is editing the project in an intentionally disruptive or malicious manner. Vandalism includes any addition, removal, or modification that is intentionally humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, or degrading in any way."
- "Throughout its history, Wikipedia has struggled to maintain a balance between allowing the freedom of open editing and protecting the accuracy of its information when false information can be potentially damaging to its subjects." (Vandalism on Wikipedia, emphasis mine)
- I have only used vandalism to describe knowingly adding false information to Wikipedia pages, and provided examples of how I discussed and provided sources related to the topics at hand prior, only to have those sources disregarded in favor of making false edits. It is possible you were not aware that this originates from a discussion had in March of this year, not today, which is understandable.
- At risk of being seen as pedantic, vandalism on Wikipedia is often political in nature or involves incorporating false information under the pretense of plausible deniability. Per Wikipedia:Vandalism:
- "Plausible, subtle changes not supported by sources or by text elsewhere in the article, particularly without an edit summary, may suggest vandalism. Changing numbers, sometimes by 1, is a common stealth tactic."
- I was not accusing anybody of writing "poop" anywhere; I think you are reading the term vandalism to mean something more harsh than it is. As far as I am aware, the description is accurate, so I am not really swayed by this point. --Middle river exports (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps the converse of your statement may help to clarify the matter - just because you are partial to a particular editor, or have appreciated their other contributions, it does not make their disruptive edits any less disruptive. --Middle river exports (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- You are accusing other editors of purposely malicious edits with a complete absence of evidence other than your own apparent disagreement. Don't do that. Wordy, misapplied quotes from policy do not make a case for you - I've read the policies many times in the past 17 years, and I've seen many editors try to win disputes by accusing their perceived opponent of vandalism. It never works, and just attracts administrator attention. Acroterion (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I did provide evidence. Provided several sources on the original article's talk page in March and recently uploaded a diagram to Wikimedia Commons to make it perfectly clear. These sources were ignored to make inaccurate edits, i.e. vandalism. The quotes are also not particularly wordy or misapplied. Maybe reading my remarks as descriptive rather than accusatory would help. I have been using Wikipedia for quite a long time as well and from what I remember the policy pages have changed quite a bit in 17 years. If the point your trying to make here is that you're aware of the policies and choose to ignore them - you're barking up the wrong tree if you've been here this long and Wikipedia is too wordy for you. (\* Made a grammatical edit, not a semantic one) --Middle river exports (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- If I see the word "vandalism" deployed here again, or any further disparagement of your fellow editors, I will block you for personal attacks and treatment of Wikipedia as a battleground. This is your final warning. Acroterion (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I did provide evidence. Provided several sources on the original article's talk page in March and recently uploaded a diagram to Wikimedia Commons to make it perfectly clear. These sources were ignored to make inaccurate edits, i.e. vandalism. The quotes are also not particularly wordy or misapplied. Maybe reading my remarks as descriptive rather than accusatory would help. I have been using Wikipedia for quite a long time as well and from what I remember the policy pages have changed quite a bit in 17 years. If the point your trying to make here is that you're aware of the policies and choose to ignore them - you're barking up the wrong tree if you've been here this long and Wikipedia is too wordy for you. (\* Made a grammatical edit, not a semantic one) --Middle river exports (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- You are accusing other editors of purposely malicious edits with a complete absence of evidence other than your own apparent disagreement. Don't do that. Wordy, misapplied quotes from policy do not make a case for you - I've read the policies many times in the past 17 years, and I've seen many editors try to win disputes by accusing their perceived opponent of vandalism. It never works, and just attracts administrator attention. Acroterion (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- You accused another editor of "borderline vandalism." Don't. Vandalism often involves the word "poop," it does not include edits that displease you. Acroterion (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)