User talk:Wikieditor19920/Archive 2

Paula Stern

Hello. Does being the chair of the United States International Trade Commission automatically make a subject notable? I was searching for sources, but most of the articles I am finding are primary like interviews or a Goucher spotlight. They can help fill in non-controversial life details but don't contribute to notability. Do you have any additional sources? [1] [2] [3] Thsmi002 (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I'd say she meets WP:GNG, since she received pretty significant coverage during and after her tenure. Here are some additional articles I found: and here's an interview she gave a few years ago . With subjects like her, who are notable but not so notable that there's a ton of biographical information about her in one place, filling in certain gaps as far as her early life/family may be difficult without at least some primary sources. As long as they're used sparingly and carefully, WP:PRIMARY are fine. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I actually was considering creating this page for a while, so I'm glad you reminded me. I got a start here. Feel free to have at it! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Great! Also, if we can't find a higher resolution CC image, a screenshot of Stern can be used from any C-Span video [4] because it is the work of the federal government. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll leave that to you. Also, the page is now Paula Stern, since I think we have sufficient content to move it from the draft stage. I'm going to nominate the old draft page for deletion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

File:Photo of Elsie Shutt.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your contributions on the Keith Ellison talk page. SunCrow (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Photo of Elsie Shutt.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

What talkpage consensus?

Could you please point me to the talkpage consensus you cited as your rationale for this revert? ~Awilley (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It was the discussion under the first subheader on the talk page. [5] Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

You're saying there is a consensus in that section to have the subsection in the "personal" section instead of putting it chronologically? ~Awilley (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears I may have made a mistake there in my edit summary, thanks for bringing that to my attention and sorry for the confusion. Initially I thought the editor reintegrated the content into the article, but now I see that he just moved it. I still think it would have been better if he sought consensus first, but I see that there’s now an additional ongoing discussion about placement. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren

Did you intend to re-close the discussion and remove others comments with this edit? PackMecEng (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an error. I don’t know how that happened. I think there must have been an edit conflict as I was entering another reply. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the comments were restored but the discussion not reopened. I would guess strange edit conflict as well. PackMecEng (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Keith Ellison

Take it to the talk page, don't edit war. There's even a section already started you can use. VQuakr (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't make false accusations of edit warring. This revert of your WP:IDONTLIKEIT [6] removal of content is not edit warring. And you yourself just violated the 1RR on the page, which if I recall you advocated for, with this second revert. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

And I’d be happy to further engage with you on talk page. Thanks for the “part vii,” that gave me a good laugh. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Glad you appreciated it. Were that it wasn't accurate. I had hoped we'd reached a compromise given the lack of concerns raised on the talk page over the last week and a half. VQuakr (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't cite WP:IDONTLIKEIT, nor was my reasoning in line with that section (which, unlike the requirement to seek consensus) is in any case an essay, nor is citation of that essay sufficient reason to restore contested content to a BLP.

Fair point about 1RR, I had forgotten about that restriction and I apologize. I would have self-reverted, but subsequent edits make that impossible. I think are mistaken about my advocacy for the restriction though, which predates both of our involvements on the article as far as I can tell. VQuakr (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@VQuakr: No worries about the 1RR, though I think it would make sense to at least do a partial restore of this edit. When every minor change is characterized as in dispute, and your specific, policy-based objections are not made clear in the edit summary, it can come across as WP:STONEWALLING, even if that's not your intention, which actually makes consensus much more difficult to build on anything and discourages other editors from offering input. I take some blame in this, too, and I'm going to refrain from the main and talk pages, for now, to let other editors have a say. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Georgeanna Seegar Jones Portrait.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't revert, discuss

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rather than revert, please discuss. Additionally, you have been given alerted regarding edits to post-1932 politics of the United States. Jonathunder (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realized that I'd approached the revert limit, as they were non-consecutive and related to different parts of the article. I'll refrain from making any further edits for now on that page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Hi Wikieditor19920. I'm not looking to cause trouble, I just want to note that when someone writes on their user talk, "Stop talkin’ to me," you must stop editing on their user talk immediately or you're at risk of receiving sanctions for harassment. Admins take that shit very seriously. Ok, back to work. R2 (bleep) 22:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems like that's the auto-response for the user in question; Nonetheless, you raise a fair point, and rest assured I don't intend to interact with Soibangla on his talk page any further. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Wikieditor19920. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice: biographies of living persons

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 recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 any 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.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Linda Sarsour

Your continued complaints about WP:1RR on the article talk page (which is the wrong forum) are becoming disruptive. A revert, for purposes of the rule, is defined as an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions. The edits you're complaining about were consecutive.

The second of my two edits was explicitly proposed on the article talk page more than four days ago, and you didn't raise an objection until after it was implemented, with your spurious 1RR claims. So who's really disrupting the Wikpedia process here? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: In any case, even if we consider your first revert and second revert consecutive, your subsequent series of edits starting with this one constitute an additional revert because they followed intervening edits by another user. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict with another user editing a completely different section of the article. The edits I made were within minutes of each other and had nothing to do with the other user's edits. If you think that's an egregious example of edit warring, take it to WP:AN3. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: But they were in fact reverts of a previous user's edits and last I checked that still counts as edit-warring, yet you still refuse to apologize, acknowledge your mistake, or self-revert. Someone with your experience should know and act far better. If your only additional response will be to tell me to take it to WP:AN3, kindly refrain from further posting on my talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No, simply reverting, even in multiple edits, is not the same as edit-warring. See What edit warring is and Bold, revert, discuss. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: BRD does not condone violating 1RR, which is indeed edit-warring. What may not be “egregious” to you may be an issue with other editors, and I question whether you would be willing to extend the same lenient standards you apply to your own behavior to that of editors who revert your edits. And don’t accuse me of disruptive behavior when it is you who’s committed a clear rule violation, including WP:NPA on the article’s talk page. Any further replies will be posted to your talk page. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

* Given your apparent conviction that Sarsour is guilty of something whatever actual sources may say (e.g. your remark about the "whole notion that Sarsour is just an innocent bystander"), you may wish to consider whether your personal opinion is compromising your ability to edit neutrally in this area, per WP:BLPCOI. When you need to engage in WP:SYNTHESIS and other original research to make your points, that's probably a sign that your contributions are no longer constructive. Think about it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Please don't presume to know what my personal opinions or "convictions" are (nor will I yours). The arguments I have made on the talk page, including that diff, are based on sources and are not WP:SYNTH, so maybe you ought to WP:AGF. The fact that you may hold a different position doesn't make my contributions "unconstructive." If you disagree with my content proposals and arguments, then you are free to make those points on Talk:Linda Sarsour, rather than making it personal with me. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

You clearly stated that you think the material "directly implicates Sarsour" in something, although it's not clear what. That is most definitely your own interpretation of the facts, and is not stated anywhere by reliable sources. Apologies if I'm misunderstanding your intent, but you should know that term has a distinct accusatory flavor, so you may want to consider your choice of words more carefully if you want to avoid looking biased. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: I certainly don't want to offend the word police, but I don't appreciate you taking my comments out of context and accusing me of bias. You omitted the portion of my comment where I referenced sources that do in fact implicate the subject in the controversy under discussion. At this point, I've made substantial contributions to two discussions on Women's March related articles that resulted in WP:CONSENSUS for, in my opinion, necessary improvements to those pages, and I intend to continue that work. I hope you, on the other hand, will consider compromising more often and engaging in less WP:TAGBOMBING and removing of sourced material. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that Wiktionary link. Its first definition for implicate is "To connect or involve in an unfavorable or criminal way with something." Such judgements are best left to reliable, published sources to make. As to consensus, if you're referring to the 2019 march criticism of Sarsour, then no, there has been no definite consensus yet. Anyway, Wikipedia is not about keeping score. Happy editing! —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

That's why I stated the sources implicate. Please don't attribute something to me that I didn't say, thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Except they don't "implicate" Sarsour in the sense of guilt, which is what it looks like you're saying. I think you're dancing around the usual meaning of the word in order to imply something that you know you can't state outright. It's not exactly a BLP violation, but it's right on the edge. Just be more careful, is all. That's all I have to say about it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

My saying that a source implicates the subject in a controversy (generally a controversy is negative) is a wholly appropriate use of the term. I never said anything about criminality. That's not a BLP violation, so kindly stop pestering me. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, well, guilt is not just a criminal issue. I wasn't clear enough about that, I guess. Have a nice day. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

December 2018

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Tamika Mallory. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The sourcing problems and the POV are obvious. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

You have also failed to address the clearly-stated issues with this material - I have opened a discussion on the talk page and clearly explained my objections - rather than engage in discussion, you merely reverted poorly-sourced and poorly-written material back into the biography without the slightest nod toward addressing them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Sangdeboeuf, I see now that you have alerted this editor to these problems before. Please advise, here. User:VQuakr, you have some experience on Wikipedia, I'm interested in your opinion too--this person edits a BLP using Instagram and Facebook in what appears to be an attempt at blackballing, and I'm wondering if I should apply a BLP topic ban per discretionary sanctions. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the alert, Drmies. Full disclosure: Wikieditor19920 and I disagree vehemently on nearly all issues related to article contents. That said, their very first talk page interaction with me consisted of a highly loaded question about me personally, [7] and they continue to cast vague aspersions [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] while specific references to Wiki policies (and info pages like PRIMARYNEWS) continue to fall on deaf ears. [16][17] [18][19] Despite lecturing me about having a "collaborative approach", [20] they themselves seem to have quite a battleground mentality about any challenge to their edits.

    They are a relatively new user, so they may just need time to learn Wikpedia's accepted standards of behavior. Still, the fact that they have jumped right in to a page (Linda Sarsour) with three sets of DS, while using such an argumentive style, does not bode well. For the sake of the project and everyone's sanity, I think at least a temporary ban from all pages relating to the Women's March would be advisable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

    • Hmm OK. I'm not that impressed with that "highly loaded" question--that's almost par for the course in this area, though it's clear that the editor needs to play the ball more, and the man less. My DS question, however, was strictly about the BLP. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Not much more I can add, then. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
        • However, their comment here, Just as we should be cautious when editing a WP:BLP, we should exercise discretion in citing that policy when removing relevant information sourced by and published in WP:RS, is fairly worrying, in that it more or less reverses the meaning of "discretion" when it comes to contentious BLP material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: also thanks for the ping, and similar to Sangdeboeuf, Wikieditor19920 and I locked horns a fair bit discussing the Ellison article. The editing that resulted in this most recent warning is reminiscent of their behavior in the Ellison article I suppose: ignoring concerns on the talk page and ignoring the WP:BLP requirement for "greatest care" while trying to force contentious material into a BLP. Their edits at the Mallory article also put the characterization of Farrakhan as antisemitic in WP's voice rather than the source's, a violation that the actual Farrakhan article avoids. On the other hand, they appear to have only edited the Mallory article for the first time ever today, so as far as last straws go this is a pretty light one. Looking over their contributions, nearly all of their edits appear to be on biographies so a topic ban wouldn't be all the much different than a block. Maybe a final warning or a 0RR restriction would be more suitable? VQuakr (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Drmies you are correct about the Tamika Mallory page—I, of course, know that Facebook and Instagram should never source a comment and in reinserting the content (I had simply pulled the Wikitext from a previous version of the page) I had assumed the source was, in fact, a secondary source. That was careless (this was also a late-night edit) and I apologize. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, thank you for your note. You're editing in high-visibility articles, and given a. the political climate and b. the fact that these are BLPs I think you know now that you can expect higher scrutiny. (That's one of the reasons I never got much into those articles, not even when I started here.) Please tread carefully, keep it neutral and well-sourced, and thanks for your dedication to the project. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019

A reminder that Tendentious editing is generally frowned upon, as are baseless accusations of personal attacks. I'm concerned that your recent edits to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as well as your behavior at that talk page might be taken by some as undesirable behavior. Please take some time to re-read those Wikipedia policies, and thank you! Ewen Douglas (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, Ewen Douglas, I think you're a little confused here. I've made a total of three minor edits to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the past 3 days [21][22][23] (I'm happy to provide diffs as you failed to, as required when making such a charged accusation), none of which in any way qualify as "tendentious." Neither does the fact that you may disagree with my arguments on a talk page make them so. However, calling someone a "liar" is a violation of no personal attacks, a policy page that you may want to read up on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually glad that you linked to a diff where I lay out, quite clearly, how you lied and when you did it. Showing people where you lied is quite different from just calling someone a "liar", of course. So it seems I'm not the one who is confused. Also, you've made 11 edits to AOC page in the past 6 days, most of them not minor. You stated above that you've "made a total of three minor edits to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the past 3 days." You might want to correct that, lest anyone think you were trying to mislead (I don't think you were, in this case, seems likely that it just slipped your mind). Ewen Douglas (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ewen Douglas: Why you insist on beating a dead horse is baffling to me. I will just state the following points:

• I have no "correction" to make. What I said above was accurate at the time of my post, I have edited the page since then, and I will continue to try and improve the article and collaborate on the talk page.
• Calling someone a "liar" is a personal attack when it's clear or likely that they interpreted something differently than you did. So is accusing someone of tendentious editing without evidence, as you've already done.

I have nothing further to add to this conversation, and I'm going to politely ask that it end here. If you'd like to civilly discuss content and changes to AOC, then I look forward to working with you on the relevant talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions related to WP:BLP

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 recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: This is an unnecessary notice. Instead, I'd prefer if you addressed my points on the talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, and I already responded on talk page. Let's see what others think. Also, I think this your comment was on a borderline of WP:NPA. I know very little about anti-Semitic canards, sorry. I just looked at the page dual loyalty. According to this page and to sources cited on the page, this is not an antisemitic canard, but a lot more general subject/accusation that can in fact be true with respect to a lot of people, and it is not at all about ethnicity or religion. My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I agree, I'm happy to wait for more opinions. However, it would've been preferable if you had made a slight revision as opposed to wholesale removing portions covering a controversy that is well-supported by WP:RS. And no, what I said is not a personal attack. The issue covered by the sources was whether her "dual loyalty" accusation was drawing on an anti-semitic canard. Rather than addressing that directly, you said I understand that Dual loyalty means a conflict of interest, not an anti-semitic canard. which of course, misses the point entirely (what was the conflict of interest she was suggesting, then?). My recommending you exercise a bit more sensitivity before adding your own conjecture is not a WP:NPA. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar and Bari Weiss

On the Ilhan Omar page, you are defending the inclusion of opinion editorials which liken someone's rhetoric to anti-semitism. However, on the Bari Weiss page, you are removing WP:RS content describing someone as "conservative" (with attribution), citing WP:LABEL as your justification. Would you mind explaining why it's OK to tarnish someone as an anti-semite (widely understood to be a pejorative) with op-eds, but it's not OK to describe someone as "conservative" (not a pejorative) with RS? This seems strange and inconsistent to me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Let me explain some important distinctions, then, as well as some things you missed about the sources that were used:

• The Bari Weiss article, and Omar's response to it, received WP:SECONDARY coverage from Haaretz, and that article that was cited covering the exchange in addition to the original opinion piece (which is relevant because it was referenced and responded to by the subject and the other source).
• To say So and so is a conservative/democrat/fascist, particularly when the subject disputes it, is inappropriate under WP:LABEL. That's what it looked like was done at Bari Weiss when the line was According to X source, Bari Weiss is a conservative. As I said in my edit summary, that's a poor paraphrase, and the line should be "she has been described as a conservative" or "it has been alleged that she's a conservative," but not "she is a conservative."
• When an allegation has been made against a prominent figure and it has been covered by reliable sources[24][25], as is the case with Ilhan Omar, it may be addressed per WP:PUBLICFIGURE so long as they are described as allegations. I never wrote such a line in any article nor linked such an accusation to a WP:PRIMARY, and I would encourage you not to make such an accusation without a diff (in this case, there isn't one).

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Women's Marches

I understand your desire to structure the Linda Sarsour article in the best way possible. However, I'm not sure if putting the two Women's March sections together is a good idea - it confuses the primarily chronological nature of the article.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

It's not completely chronological, anyway, and the timeline of many of the sections overlap. Anyway, why don't we discuss this on Talk:Linda Sarsour. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

ARBPIA

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

Also, please review WP:HOUNDING. nableezy - 21:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Linda Sarsour

You just violated the 1RR restriction that applies to the article. Please self-revert or you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't believe I have. My latest edit was preceded by one that I immediately self-reverted[26][27] earlier today. What are you referring to exactly? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Wikieditor19920. I self-reverted (just because you asked), but keep in mind that none of my edits on this page was revert to any previously existing version. Not every removal of text is a revert. My very best wishes (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @My very best wishes:. I was referring to these two[28][29] non-consecutive edits, which are indeed reverts. For posterity, I hope you don't return in another couple of hours to restore the other photo; I generally find photos of people smirking to be unappealing for infoboxes, and IMHO, the other one is much better. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Speaking about the image, yes, you could say that I reverted this edit. However, you need to explain whose actions/edits I "reversed" in the first edit (only your edit was revert). Best image is a matter of opinion, and we disagree about it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The content was inserted by another editor at some point; it didn't magically appear on its own. The image change was a full revert, the other edit could be construed as a partial revert. That in addition to your attempt to delete an entire paragraph from the lead made two reverts within 24 hours (diffs already provided above). I figured you understood that since you self-reverted, so I kind of see this as a moot issue now. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)