Archives

November 2008 – January 2010 March 2010 – March 2012 March 2012 – May 2013 June 2013 – June 2017 July 2017 – March 2020

Hi Arms & Hearts,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 12:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected this talk page for 3d to limit future disruption. Please let me know on my talk page if you would like this semi-protection removed, or if you have recurring issues afterward (and I need to protect it for longer). Best, Spencer^T•C 12:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I hope all is well with you. I am writing as I received a message from you about the edits made to my page. There is a long history regarding my page, but to surmise, someone, whom I do not know, created the page. There were lots of erroneous information and I worked with a Wiki writer to help alleviate some of the misinformation. You can see the transcript of our conversation. I recently made some recommendations to update the article. Is it possible to have the newly edited material added to the page? I only want to make sure that the information on the page is accurate and not as a self promotion but updated accurate information

Thank you Terrance Dean 20:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrancedean37212 (talk • contribs)

@Terrancedean37212: Thank you for raising this with me here. If you want to make changes to the article about you, participating in discussions like this is a necessity, so I'm glad you've taken the time to explain your concerns. The first thing you should do is to read this page: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. That page explains how people should engage with articles about topics they have a close connection to, which includes articles about themselves. I think you'll find the entire page useful and informative, but the absolutely vital part is where it says "Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors." Instead of directly editing the article about you, as you've done, you should make suggestions for changes to the article at the article talk page, i.e. at Talk:Terrance Dean. That's the only way to make changes to the article that will "stick"; if you continue to directly edit the article your changes will continue to be reverted. While I appreciate you're not trying to self-promote, these guidelines are in place to ensure that Wikipedia articles remain neutral and independent sources of information. The edits you've made today make it fairly clear what changes you'd like to make, so I'll look over these and the sources you've provided over the coming days (Wikipedia is a volunteer project and we don't write to deadlines, so sometimes seeing changes implemented will take time and will require a degree of patience). In the meantime, feel free to let me know if you have any questions about any of the above or if there are any points I can clarify. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the response, and have viewed the section on "Conflict of Interest." I do understand the guidelines regarding making edits to one's own page, family, friends, or someone I know personally. I would only like to recommend cleaning up the page, making it more editorially readable, and to provide accurate updated information. One source, regarding my Ph.D., and research work can be found here: https://denison.edu/people/terrance-dean

I know you are extremely busy, and work tirelessly on managing pages, and ensuring updates regarding pages are following the guidelines of Wikipedia.

Again, I only wanted to edit the page to be more readable, accessible, and accurate.

Thank you for your time and patience. I look forward to your review of my recommendations.

Have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrancedean37212 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So let me tell you why i had added it in but at the same time why later on i had removed it as part of Protest against Trump. The first reason is one it is debateable as is it part of it or not. I think it's somewhat part of the Anti Trump Protest but it did not started like that. It's starts out as a anti racial and anti police brutality protest but it slowly becoming extreme as far left and black lives matter movement starts to join in and started to do riots in the country. It gets worse as far rights white supremacy and Donald Trump starts to join in on the opposite side. This gets to point when i put in the protest in it as part of the Anti Trump Protest as the protest gets worse. But then i was thinking about removed it not only for that reason but also the second reason. It's not well made it's just a short sentense i made due to being rushed just before my time on the PC is going to end. So yeah i had removed it for both reasons you can re added it in if you like but for me i think its best to do nothing and let you think about it. 15:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)CrusaderToonamiUK (talk)

The issue is whether there are reliable sources describing the ongoing protests as protests against Trump. You or I or anyone else may reach different conclusions, but we need to work on the basis of what reliable sources say. So far I haven't found any sources that would clearly support including the section in the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you edited my addition to Black Bloc. Here is what your looking for? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/style/antifa-fashion.html. They confirm why ANTIFA dresses "Black Bloc". I believe this establish the truth and you correctness is anticipated (something you previously believed, suspected, or feared to not be the case). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey92 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Casey92: I'm well aware that the black bloc tactic is used by antifa groups; however the claims you added to the Black bloc article weren't supported by the source you cited, which doesn't describe antifa as a "Black Bloc movement sub group" (because it isn't), nor the black bloc as a movement (because it isn't), nor does it report that Barr said anything about the black bloc (because he didn't). You might wish to read Wikipedia:Original research, which instructs editors to avoid drawing conclusions of this kind. You can't piece together aspects of different sources to draw conclusions that don't appear in any of them. (When beginning a new topic at someone's talk page, use the "New section" link at the top to create a new section, and remember to sign your posts.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you removed the Ngo incident. Do you think the same thing should be done for Willem van Spronsen? Because there was no consensus for that either as far as I am aware, so I do not know whether you forgot to remove it or if you believe it can stay. It currently says this:

In July 2019, 69-year-old Willem van Spronsen staged a predawn lone-wolf attack on the ICE's Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington. After hurling incendiary devices in an attempt to set fire to a commercial-size propane tank at the facility and aiming his homemade unregistered "ghost" AR-15 style rifle at first responders, he was shot dead by police.^[1] The Tacoma Police Department said Van Spronsen's possible motives included his association with antifa and was reviewing his manifesto^[2] in which he wrote "I am antifa".^[3] Calling him a "good friend and comrade", Seattle Antifascist Action proclaimed Van Spronsen "a martyr who gave his life to the struggle against fascism".^[3]

Other recent additions that may be worth verifying and discussing could be these:

In June 2020, conservative journalist Andy Ngo, whom Rolling Stone has described as a right-wing "provocateur"^[1] and Vox called a "far-right sympathizer" who doxed at least one antifa activist by publishing her full name,^[2] sued antifa seeking $900,000 in damages for assault and emotional distress and an injunction to prevent further harassment. The lawsuit, filed on Ngo's behalf by his attorney Harmeet Dhillon, cites Rose City Antifa, five other named defendants and additional unknown assailants. It stems from multiple alleged attacks on Ngo in Portland during 2019 and accuses Rose City Antifa in particular of a "pattern of racketeering activities".^[3]

On June 5, 2020, three known members of a local antifa group were arrested for looting, burglarizing, and damaging property at a Target retail store in Austin, Texas six days earlier.^[1][2]

Let me know what you think.

Finally, what do you think of this revert (RV, sources don't make connection to antifa or the subject of the section so basically synth/OR) of my edit (from Tucker Carlson (whose show has been described by the Anti-Defamation League[31] and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)[32] as well as news outlets such as Business Insider, CNN, GQ and Vox as promoting and echoing white supremacist discourse.[33][34][35][36])? I thought it was relevant and helpful for context. In all other cases, we describe what reliable sources say about those involved with antifa. Maybe not with those sources and this wording, but I believe it could be worth adding or mentioning somehow.

Thanks for your time.--Davide King (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the Van Spronsen attack material ought to be removed too. I didn't remove it because that would have been beyond what WP:1RR permits, but I did point to the previous discussions on that topic at the talk page. I'm okay with the Ngo lawsuit being mentioned, though it's a case where we ought to keep an eye on the situation – e.g. if the suit is thrown out very quickly it might not be significant enough to include, whereas if it continues to get coverage it probably ought to stay. I think the arrests in Austin ought to go per WP:BLPCRIME, though if the arrests result in convictions that can be re-evaluated. I agree with PackMecEng's revert – it's WP:SYNTH to cite sources that don't relate at all to antifa, but we could perhaps do more to provide context for the incident using sources that are specifically about the incident (e.g. CNN has "They believe Carlson supports and promotes a white nationalist agenda on Fox News"; AP has "Carlson has been a major supporter of President Donald Trump and his policies"). I'll take a look at recent developments on the talk page now and will probably repeat some of this there. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response! I agree that only Ngo lawsuit should be mentioned, with the caveat you mentioned; for the arrests in Austin, it was revise to address WP:BLPCRIME concerns but if there remain only references to local sources, I agree it is undue, at least until there is an actual conviction and a more explicit link to antifa is made. You are also right about Carlson; I merely reported what was sourced at Tucker Carlson. I simply wanted to provide context for the incident (as you wrote) which I hope you can rework in the main body with those sources which relate to antifa and are not WP:SYNTH.--Davide King (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly added this. Let me know if this could be reworded better, with more sources, if it is useful or undue, etc. Also what do you think of creating a third paragraph for the lead sumarising reception and reaction from academic and scholars?--Davide King (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the Carlson incident looks good, I think. A paragraph in the lede on responses might be a good idea, though better to discuss on the article talk page, rather than here, if you're unsure. The thing about "reactions from scholars" is that there's a difference between, say, the conclusions that Mark Bray has reached based on his research, and the opinion of Cornel West based on his own experiences, and it's a shame to elide that distinction, as the current section on that topic sort of does. I'm holding out hope that Stanislav Vysotsky's book, when it's published in a few weeks, will also be useful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I proposed a summary of reaction in the lead specifically to highlight their reactions, including their differences between, say, Bray (legitimate response) and Chomsky (a major gift to the right). I agree it is a shame to elide that discussion, so maybe a better wording could be used. That would really be useful; this article truly need more books and academic studies and research, less news sources written by non-experts, etc.

Since I am here, could you please read my analysis of sources used to support the far-left claim? Any comment, correction, if I missed anything or wrote something wrong, would be greatly appreciated. Because the number of sources used to supposedly support the far-left claim are much less than the dozens given, for their main topic is the protests, Trump, Barr and others' comment, rather than What is antifa like is done for the few sources like The New York Times, where the passive mention is about the protests and the rest is about antifa while for all other given sources the reverse is true. Finally, here The New York Times says The Trump administration blamed what it called the radical left, naming antifa, a contraction of the word "anti-fascist" that has come to be associated with a diffuse movement of left-wing protesters who engage in more aggressive techniques like vandalism. So there is not even consistency in the use of far-left and in other words individuals within antifa are described as generally holding left-wing to far-left views, but the only thing certain is that antifa is anti-fascist.

P.S. Almost forgot to add this. Do you think the very first paragraph of Hoaxes could be moved to the lead? Because right now the lead is not a summary of the whole main body and I believe Reactions and maybe Hoaxes could be summarised too.--Davide King (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've given my views on "far-left" etc and don't really feel inclined to weigh in any further. I wouldn't be opposed to some discussion of hoaxes and conspiracy theories in the lede. Again, better to discuss most of this on the article talk page. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Arms and Hearts. Hope you're well. I'm reaching out to people who have edited [[South Wales East (Senedd Cymru electoral region)] and, in particular, people who know how to edit the table of list members. The Conservative Senedd member Mohammed Asghar has died and having tried to just enter "Vacant" underneath his name, I've got lost in a mathematical haze of rowspan=x rowspan=z rowspan=q confusion. I just can't for the life of me work out which rowspans and column spans and other numbers I have to increase by 1 to add the word "vacant" underneath his name. Could you either help or do this for me please? I had the same problems with European Parliament regions, I just get brain freeze whenever I try to work out what to do with rowspan numbers and I'm too scared to just go ahead and wish for the best!

Thanks for any assistance :) I'll post a version of this message on a few other editors pages too just in case there's someone else about. Speak soon doktorb _words^deeds 18:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doktorbuk: How does this look? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|Arms & Hearts]] You star. Thank you. I will study those numbers and learn how to edit tables! doktorb _words^deeds 19:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears nobody is engaging in communication in regards to why the video should be removed. Please can you engage in the talk section before you undo my revert.

Many thanks, just trying get a more balanced page here! It seems ever so one sided! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gu64rk g (talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at the talk page. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arms & Hearts,

Hope you are well. If you'll oblige my reaching out, I'm a student doing some research for a summer internship related to improving content safety online. The company I'm interning with is trying to keep the web free of misinformation. We are hoping to learn from dedicated Wikipedia editors about their motivations to spend time doing editing work online (so that we can motivate others to do the same on other platforms). I saw that you are fairly active with edits; would you be willing to chat with me about your work for about ~20 min one day? If you prefer I can give you my questions in writing, too.

Thanks for considering!

LailaAtTrustLab (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LailaAtTrustLab: I'm afraid I'm not interested. Best of luck with your research though. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Duggan was lawfully killed - the information is in the article. Read it. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from the RfC page: ‘Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. ‘ Why do you decline to discuss this matter on the Talk page? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Thoroughly" is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. To my mind it means "to the point where it's unlikely to be resolved without others' involvement", which needn't necessarily take a long time or thousands of words. In this case it's unlikely to be worth discussing between us in much more depth as it's basically a black-and-white x-or-y issue – either the word is there or it isn't, there's very little space for compromise. Your long, rambling posts filled with falsehoods also failed to convince me that continuing to discuss with you would be productive. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I edit Wikipedia in good faith and I do not tell lies. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done per request, please fix any links to the article and do any other post move cleanups. Best regards Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 21:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Watkins (politician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Watkins (politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. P-K3 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Watkins (politician), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Watkins (politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for your message. The reason for calling them American is the categories "from Los Angeles" and "from Athens, Georgia". I know that such categories often include people who have gone there to live and are really from some unidentified place. I have no objection if "American" is deleted.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnsoniensis: Thanks for clarifying. I suppose that's fair enough, since in the vast majority of cases people "from Los Angeles" will be American (and there'll be sources) – just in cases like these it's slightly more complicated. I'll go ahead and make those changes. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your post at Talk:Daily Mail will go nowhere. Just as all previous well argued and factual complaints registered there have gone nowhere. Some are still visible on that very page. Lots more have been purposefully removed by Administrators for their potential to expose the truth. That truth being, the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are all in on the idea that it is Wikipedia's mission to be as biased as possible against their political enemies, the Mail being the perfect target, as the most widely read and most right wing newspaper in Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaDaniel (talk • contribs) 12:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a particularly helpful way of looking at things. I pointed out a problem, additional sources were provided and added to the article thereby mitigating the problem, and a reasonably amenable result was achieved. And I wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that the Mail isn't my political enemy too – though that of course doesn't mean we shouldn't have a neutral, well-sourced and well-written article on it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My browser was still on your talk page and somehow I noticed this. I've a script that strikes through names of blocked editors, so - I looked and found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian K Horton/Archive - see the last entry. I really hate socks. Doug Weller talk 12:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, For avoidance of doubt, you might want to update your comment on Talk:Demonstrations_in_support_of_Donald_Trump#Discussion_about_a_merge_into_this_article since it looks like there is support for your proposal. Cheers, Albertaont (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Albertaont: I'm not sure what you're suggesting – I think it's still fairly clear what I'm opposing and what I'm proposing. Could you clarify? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not your porposal: Merge to 2020 United States election protests. just updating the description to that. If that isn't what your porposing, feel free to just delete these messages. Albertaont (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Albertaont: Done. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you saw this, but I declined your request to block UnguidedEmperor [1]. See the diff for the reasoning. I would also like to point out that saying "...if you're able, try to write edit summaries that make sense" [2] towards UnguidedEmperor can be construed as uncivil. Text based communication has its limits, and the phrasing you used could easily be misinterpreted. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: I had indeed missed it – thanks for letting me know. Blanking someone's talk page then refusing to explain why struck me as clear-cut evidence of WP:NOTHERE, but I don't usually hang around at AIV/ANI etc. so it's possible I've got the wrong end of the stick on how that's applied in practice. I would have also thought the RedWarn developers would find it useful to know whether the tool is malfunctioning or simply being misused, but we'll never know now. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Editor Alex2021 to revert his edits as he works for them but I see although he's declared on the talk page he hasn't done that. I was going to but you've edited since. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: My edits were fairly minor so happy for you to do whatever you think best. I was vaguely planning to go back and have a proper look at the sources but reverting would probably achieve the same result, and I can always copyedit again if necessary. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Why did you remove it!!!!! Ngyk198 (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ngyk198. I removed the content you added to the infobox because it didn't reflect the content in the body of the article: the article doesn't say anything about protests against Biden's presidency, so there's no reason the infobox ought to. Protests against Biden's presidency would probably not belong in that article anyway, since the article is about protests around the 2020 election. The content you added was also not written in coherent English: English never uses the definite article ("the") before a person's name. Similarly, there's no need to use five exclamation marks when asking another editor a question. All the best, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can the protestors be considered peaceful, when in the same opening paragraph it says "Ashburton House (the church's parish house), which had been damaged by a fire [arson] during protests the night before"? Why not just say protestors, not peaceful, not violent, just protestors. Teh 14:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were different protesters, obviously. Have you read the article? It's abundantly clear on this point, as are the sources cited. The talk page also contains extensive relevant discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Teh 15:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see all you do with your life is camp wikipedia articles to ensure everything has a maximally leftist slant. Your parents must be very proud. 207.32.162.22 (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Irwin Redlener § Proposed changes

Nice work. Feel free to have at it in all the other UK police force articles, as I have on a lot of the fire service articles. I'll happily support your efforts to remove indiscriminate unencyclopaeidic guff. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 10mmsocket – I've very little time for editing at the moment, so if I do get around to other forces' articles it won't be for a while, but you never know. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just spotted this awful little nugget List of police stations in the West Midlands. Shall we kill it? 10mmsocket (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly doesn't look notable but I'll leave it up to you. There's a bit of precedent for deleting similar lists: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of police stations in Karachi (2nd nomination) a long time ago and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of police stations in Jammu and Kashmir more recently. Curiously the only other extant list of police stations seems to be List of district police stations in Hong Kong. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll PROD it in the first instance. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you fancy a bit of banality trimming - this whole section West_Yorkshire_Police#Former_Divisions. I think it needs deleting completely, or reducing to just a couple of paragraphs. The tables & map are way too detailed for former structures. --10mmsocket (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arms & Hearts, thank you for your message. I think you made a mistake. I can add reliable sources to confirm informations presented. As for the list of photographie series I don’t understand how it can be identified as copyright infringment? I’m going to read the rules on how to write about living people to help me, but if it could be possible to give me acces to my text back it would be very helpfull. Clotse (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clotse. I've replied at your talk page. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You "welcomed" me yesterday after I made an edit without logging in. Thanks for respecting IP editors! :) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, no worries! I think the error you corrected was the result of my own carelessness, so I felt obliged. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation and structure of the Metropolitan Police - Have you seen this? It's horrendous. Fancy a bit of a cleanup / merger into the main article? 10mmsocket (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're doing a good job with it – I'll put it on the to-do list but realistically it'll be several months before I'll get to have a look. At least it seems, unlike West Midlands Police, to have been updated in the last decade! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the gallery in WMP is pointless (which I fully support) then check out List of police stations in the West Midlands. I PROD'ed it and was told not to be stupid. Definitely worthy of an AfD as utterly pointless, especially as no other such article exists for police and fire stations in the UK. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I think I said before, I agree with your assessment of that list – you should certainly take it to AfD (it being deprodded shouldn't discourage you, it happens often enough that articles are unsuccessfully prodded then deleted at AfD). I'm going to continue to focus for the time being on the main WMP article though – having cut out most of the excessive detail, terrible sourcing and so on, I want to go through and replace primary with secondary sources, lists and tables with prose, and any bits of the history that might be missing. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You welcomed a user I already welcomed. Don't know if you meant to do this or not but I just wanted to make sure you knew ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 18:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, yes, I did see that after I saved the page. Still, no harm in a friendly "thank you" welcome after a grouchy "don't do that" one, I suppose. Keep up the good work, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not wholesale revert copyright violation removals like you did at George Floyd protests in Portland. Close paraphrasing (or close para) is still one, please see WP:Close paraphrasing for more information, and WP:Contributor copyright investigations/Albertaont for why I removed the content I did. I've rewritten it like you've asked, but I know very little about this topic and would ask that you ask someone who at least is familiar with the details from hereon out. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, to be honest, why there'd ever be a preference for just removing closely-paraphrased text in a case like this over rewriting it. In this case the way you left the prose is utterly incoherent: "Portland police ordered all persons in the area to leave immediately" – devoid of context there's no indication of what area we're talking about. This could've easily been avoided by summarising the removed content in a single brief sentence, or even just tagging the offending content and letting someone else fix it. But I appreciate you going back and making it make a bit more sense (I'll tweak further in a moment). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why is that we've left copyright go by like that for a long time. I am a user that goes around and fixes tagged copyright violations and I much prefer removing content as soon as a problem is identified and confirmed than letting it languish, or worse, making a terrible and clumsy repair. This is the price that Wikipedia will have to pay as long as there are copyright violations. Rewriting takes too long for me; that alone took me about 10 minutes. We're too backlogged at CCI to effectively rewrite everything, and unfortunately for our readers, complying with our legal policy is more important than context. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed an unverifiable claim. The "source", a free online news article, does not state where exactly it got this information from, how, or prove in any way that it was actually said ("encrypted social media channels"). Moreover, it is gossip. Someone's "Personal Life", should be more than antagonistic gossip. Why are these random, anonymous views so notable that they make up the final line of, essentially, her mini autobiography? I could have removed a lot more. I hope you set ideology aside before you attempt to undo it again.

In a more general view, "Personal Life" sections on less notable individuals should be a basic set of facts (birthplace etc.) or done away with entirely.

Wikipedia should be neutral. I don't expect that ever to be the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LosingBattle (talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LosingBattle, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for getting in touch and explaining your thoughts. I've reverted your edit again because you haven't followed the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Rather than edit warring, if your changes are reverted you should begin a discussion at the article talk page and see if there's consensus for your changes. I've started a discussion there now, and explained why I'm not convinced by your points above: see Talk:Tara LaRosa#Criticism from other Proud Boys. You should feel free to outline your argument and we'll see what other editors think. It may be worth bearing in mind that arguments that are based on existing policies and guidelines are much more convincing than arguments about what you think our policies and guidelines ought to be; and arguments that concentrate on contributors rather than content, e.g. that we're motivated by ideological commitments, are similarly very rarely convincing. I hope that all makes sense; let me know if I can clarify any of the above. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no suggestion in the article that she has ever left the USA. Musicians from Athens, Georgia are clearly American. Rathfelder (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's also nothing in the article that refers to her nationality or place of birth, which is what "American" in common parlance refers to. Someone can live in the United States (indeed, can be "from" an American city) without their nationality being American and without having been born there—in fact, millions of people do. I appreciate this can lead to a lack of neatness in categorisation that irritates some editors, but that's not something we should factor in when writing articles. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesnt prevent her from being categorised as American. Very few biographies specify nationality, and nationality is not as significant as culture and location for musicians. Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page enjoyer) American is a nationality, not a location (which would be the United States of America) and not a culture (American could refer to American culture, but defining people as American uniformly refers to their nationality in my experience). There's a tendency on the English Wikipedia to apply demonyms based on sourcing that establishes location/background but not nationality, but no consensus to do so as far as I know, and I think the practice is generally misleading and nonconstructive. Verifiability applies to categories as well as everything else in mainspace. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 23:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Less than 1% of biographies say anything specific about nationality. Biographies are not classified in the way you suggest. Being born in a country does not necessarily make you a citizen. I think you are being disruptive. And she is already in Category:American musicians by city. Rathfelder (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of biographies specify the subject's nationality in their first sentence. "John Doe is an American musician", "...is a British author", "...is an Icelandic ballerina" and so on are statements about the subject's nationality. But maybe nationality's a red herring here. Whether "American" is a nationality or not, what's actually at stake is whether "x is American" follows logically from "x is from Athens, Georgia". You clearly think it does, but you haven't explained why. I continue to think that your main motivation is a desire to for a neatness in categorisation that doesn't reflect a more complex reality, rather than anything that has to do with improving the article (presumably if you thought the article ought to specify that the subject is American you'd start by adding that to the first sentence). I'm also not sure who you think's being disruptive here or why; this seems like a fairly mild-mannered disagreement among editors, in which one editor's regrettably ignoring WP:BRD.

Thinking about a resolution here (short of a tedious RfC), how about we just remove Category:Musicians from Athens, Georgia? If the problem is that you think all articles in that category should be in the "American" categories (is this a fair summary?), I'd rather have one fewer reliably-sourced statement than several more unsourced ones. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Its true that many articles start along the lines of "John Doe is an American musician" but these statements are rarely supported by references. You may have missed that all the articles covered in Category:American musicians by city are thereby categorised as American musicians. Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't miss that, that was part of the logic behind the proposal in my second paragraph above. What do you think of that proposal? (I obviously think the existing categorisation system is wrong here, but that would have to be a discussion for elsewhere.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• So while the categorisation system continues without the reform you envisage she is an American musician. Rathfelder (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this means. Can you respond to my question above? I'll repeat it: how about we just remove Category:Musicians from Athens, Georgia? If you don't respond I'll probably just go ahead and do it and we can leave this there. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to revert or tag your addition to City of London police as having undue weight. But then I see your user page that your response would be. And guess what, I get it. Thanks to you I'm now a fellow DGAFfer. Thanks for introducing me to a way to express my Wikiattitude. I don't set out to upset people, but DGAF when I do. Your contribution may have been a bit long in words, but it was well-sourced, new information to me, and interesting to read, so why should I GAF about whether it stays or goes? TBH I think it now shows perhaps the article doesn't have enough of these sort of things. And your response to this post? DILLIGAF! 10mmsocket (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great essay. WP:ENDOFWORLD makes a similar point, but WP:DGAF seems like a more holistic philosophy, and also has more pictures of animals. On the slightly more substantive point, there's always a risk of a WP:UNDUE issue, but this strikes me as one of those cases where that's best resolved by expanding the history section with other material—it's fairly bare-bones and there's surely lots that's been written on the subject that could be cited. More generally, my view on these things is that coverage over a span of time is important: if there'd only been coverage of this incident in the immediate aftermath or for a few days I wouldn't consider it worth adding, but sources in national publications spread over 9+ months makes for a much stronger indication of significance. Do feel free to cut down any unnecessary wordiness though. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you're absolutely right. That redirect was completely wrong. I corrected it . Can you check ? Regards, Filiep (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Filiep: Thanks for looking into this – the new target makes much more sense. Do you think the phrase should appear in the targeted section, though, so any readers who arrive via the redirect find it easier to find what they're looking for? I see it's used in that way at Polish–Soviet War in 1920#Operation Kiev; could it be introduced in a similar way here? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arms & Hearts. It seems you have inadevertently put all the RfDs created before yours in a Template:Collapse. Could you fix this or ask an admin to fix this? Veverve (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been fixed. Veverve (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Veverve – thoroughly confused as to what happened there (looks to me like it was fine before this edit?) but appreciate you letting me know and very much appreciate Tol clearing up the mess. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a FB page has usually no outside source, but 5k users are reliable and significant source. The fact that kiwi.com has disgusting business behaviors are good reasons to make this public. Peteruetz (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peteruetz: You'll need to explain at Talk:Kiwi.com why you think the Facebook group needs to be included in the article, why a Facebook page is a reliable source contrary to all prior understanding of that guideline, and why we should ignore the established consensus that articles should be based on secondary sources. You'll also need to either, if you seriously suspect I have a conflict of interest, begin a discussion at WP:COIN, or, if you're just having a tantrum and don't actually believe that, withdraw the ridiculous accusation above (this is probably a prerequisite to being taken seriously in any discussion you might start). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2021 United States Capitol attack shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure how two edits, more than 24 hours apart, to remove material that very clearly lacks consensus, on a high-profile article about a controversial topic, led you to think this was necessary – especially if you're not even going to make the effort to appear uninvolved! – but you do you I suppose. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 June 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sophie Freud, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion at Talk:Swash regarding the brand's ownership. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I replied at Talk:Tina Peters. I didn't want to explain this there, but i am prevented by an editing restriction from putting an article directly into mainspace. If it were up to me I would put a very short innocuous article that would have no contoversy or BLP problems in place right now. Going through AFC, it is effectively required that an article has to be longer and more complete, and to address and deal in a balanced way with any controversy or BLP issues that i would rather avoid for now. I'm just explaining i cannot immediately respond as you might wish/expect to your pressure.

Right now I would prefer, in order:

• 1. Short innocuous article in place.
• 2. Disambiguation page in place with redlink and valid supporting bluelink per MOS:DABRL requirement. This at least tells readers we are aware of the topic, and there is no page on it and they need not continue searching.
• 3-4: Disambiguation page with AFD notice OR just the German athlete getting all the hits.

Sincerely, Doncram (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did see that on your talk page, but thanks for clarifying. I've responded at the dab talk page – my preferences differ but perhaps not that drastically. It's at least possible that the result of the primary and the outcome of the AfC process will clear things up substantially, so won't nominate it for deletion in the immediate term. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category and support your proposed change, so I don't think the discussion is necessary, you have my consensus. CT55555(talk) 18:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CT55555, glad you agree. Kind of confusingly, WP:CFDS isn't actually really a discussion – it's for cases that are expected to be uncontroversial, parallelling WP:CSD. The reason there's a noticeboard, rather than just relying on editors to boldly make uncontroversial renames, is because when a category's moved all the articles in it have to be changed to reflect the new name. In this case it could've been done manually, but it's still easier to do it using automated tools via that page. So if I'd been expecting it to be controversial, I would've gone to WP:CFD instead of CFDS. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting the compilations of Against All Authority, a notable punk band from the 1990s that is still active. They are notable releases and I will file for a page lock if you don't stop deleting almost 5,000 characters off this wiki page. Whatever grief you have against the band will need to be saved for off of an information website. There are countless, literally tens of thousands, of bands with their compilation appearances on their wikipedia. I understand you are a frustrated musician but you need to leave other musicians' public information alone. 2600:1700:8140:29C0:8033:6C89:E253:CE4E (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to continue the discussion at Talk:Against All Authority#Compilation appearances. Remember that arguments based on what is or isn't in other articles don't usually carry much weight, as lots of our 6,626,596 articles are not very good and don't offer very good examples to be copied. Arguments based on policies and guidelines are more likely to convince other editors. (I have many frustrations in life but my lack of musical talent is one I've long since resigned myself to!) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect LGBT activists has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 18 § LGBT activists until a consensus is reached. ^user:A smart kitten_meow 10:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]