User talk:Tsumiki/Archive 1
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Welcome to Wikipedia!
Welcome!
Hello, Tsumiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/25px-Information.svg.png)
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) 17:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/25px-Information.svg.png)
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, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Azur Lane, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages KR and JP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/25px-Information.svg.png)
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) 17:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
September 2018
Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Liu Qiangdong. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:
|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]
Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:
|image=SomeImage.jpg
.
There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption
. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Azur Lane, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Enterprise and Rarity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Azur Lane you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TarkusAB -- TarkusAB (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Azur Lane Chinese Release Logo.png
![⚠](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Ambox_warning_blue.svg/35px-Ambox_warning_blue.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Azur Lane Chinese Release Logo.png. 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) 17:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Manga 4-koma Palette Cover Azur Lane Bisoku Zenshin!.png
![⚠](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Ambox_warning_blue.svg/35px-Ambox_warning_blue.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Manga 4-koma Palette Cover Azur Lane Bisoku Zenshin!.png. 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) 17:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Azur Lane main screen.jpg
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/32px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Azur Lane main screen.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the file description page and add the text
{{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}
below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing<your reason>
with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable. - On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dingo1234555 (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Azur Lane battle screen.jpg
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/32px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Azur Lane battle screen.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the file description page and add the text
{{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}
below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing<your reason>
with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable. - On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dingo1234555 (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Azur Lane main screen.jpg
![⚠](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Ambox_warning_blue.svg/35px-Ambox_warning_blue.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Azur Lane main screen.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) 17:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Azur Lane battle screen.jpg
![⚠](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Ambox_warning_blue.svg/35px-Ambox_warning_blue.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Azur Lane battle screen.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) 17:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/25px-Information.svg.png)
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) 22:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
November 2018
@R3ap3R: If you are suspecting me of Conflict of Interest, I am not. This is entirely my volunteering work and I have nothing to hide. If you think the article has issue, please specifically raise them under a new section on talk page and reach consensus on solving them. I may have a PoV, but I already sacrificed much of that when writing my proposal for lead, which was already approved by other editors on talk page. "that focuses on freedom of speech without censorship" is merely a claim made by the entity of question and tautology, since "The site purported itself as an "alternative of Twitter" and "champions free speech"." already covered it, without first-party PoV under article tone. I was out on mobile and could not read notifications and I never intended on disruptive editing. I must protest your abuse of UW templates. Tsumikiria (T/C) 22:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- First, I don't think *you* have any COI. Second, the entire article fails WP:POV. Finally, WP is not a democracy... I don't need consensus to enforce the editing standards, been here for over 9 years, and the entire article will be rewritten with neutral sources shortly. Any further issues with my edits should be addressed to ArbCom. Thanks, R3ap3R (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @R3ap3R: You used a COI template, so who do you suspect of COI? This article is bluelocked so any editor attempting COI edits would be committing account-suicide. I support NPoV improvements and rewrites, but "that focuses on freedom of speech without censorship" does not appear to be one. It is an opinion that should not be stated as fact to remedy preceived PoV. At least you could use quotation marks per standard practice. Also consider that many sources contradicts Gab's self-promotion of "free speech", which should be another reason not to write it as a fact. I don't want to assume bad faith, but "any issues with my edits go to ArbCom" is really not a friendly statement. ArbCom need not to be bothered with when RfC could help. Thanks. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @R3ap3R: Quoting from Template:COI: "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." You haven't started explaing why this article is CoI and PoV. Please, this is not helpful for us to identify issues and improve the article together. Please join discussion. Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Tsumikiria:Saw this. That guy comes out of nowhere and starts edit warring and wikipedia lawyering. No talk page contributions to explain his edits; nothing. And for what? The chance to insert marketing claims into the very first sentence of the article when that content already exists in the next sentence or two? Doesn't exactly sound like a hill I'd personally die on, but to each their own, I guess. Fluous (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Fluous: Thank you. That was a heck of an intimidating move. I would guess that they are here to respond for a canvassing effort, since this account hasn't been making edits for months and suddenly acting like that. They also did this, so I guess this is kinda self-explanatory. Well, I guess I will be better prepared for this kind of users. Should this incident worth a mention in article talk? Tsumikiria (T/C) 00:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Tsumikiria: Andrew Torba sent out a bat signal a few hours ago, which explains the sudden interest. Fluous (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Fluous: This is pathetic. He might as well intentially cropped this one edit to make his point. I'll go make another notice of canvassing on talk page. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Tsumikiria: Andrew Torba sent out a bat signal a few hours ago, which explains the sudden interest. Fluous (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Fluous: Thank you. That was a heck of an intimidating move. I would guess that they are here to respond for a canvassing effort, since this account hasn't been making edits for months and suddenly acting like that. They also did this, so I guess this is kinda self-explanatory. Well, I guess I will be better prepared for this kind of users. Should this incident worth a mention in article talk? Tsumikiria (T/C) 00:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Tsumikiria:Saw this. That guy comes out of nowhere and starts edit warring and wikipedia lawyering. No talk page contributions to explain his edits; nothing. And for what? The chance to insert marketing claims into the very first sentence of the article when that content already exists in the next sentence or two? Doesn't exactly sound like a hill I'd personally die on, but to each their own, I guess. Fluous (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
COI Alert
@Tsumikiria: I strongly suspect that Megat503 may, in fact, be Gab CEO Andrew Torba. The peculiar phrasings, especially the use of the word "sophist" in his talk-page contribution, strike me as similar to Torba's writing style. It's somewhat of a rarely used word, and Torba, a philosophy major at the University of Scranton, has used it recently on social media. I'm not sure these feelings are strong enough evidence to do anything, but we should be on the lookout. Fluous (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Fluous: I am not familiar with Torba's writing style, but this usage of a rare jargon with a definition limited to the speaker himself is rather striking. Still this could be a fan imitation. More evidence will be needed for WP:COIN. I'm more interested in why a user from 2015 demand to know who made the tense changes when they can check the diff themselves. Now that Torba conveniently deleted his Wikipedia screenshot tweets, it would be interesting to observe what he tweet next. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Antifa
Hey Tsumikiria, my edits on the page relating to "Antifa" were absolutely accurate and you clearly show immense bias in that area, and therefore should not allowed to reverse edits that are in fact accurate. This is wikipedia, and we should try to maintain a level of neutrality. Clearly, you do not understand that. I'd hope we are all opposed to facism, but that doesnt mean that we can distort the facts regarding violent, fringe groups that happen to be on the right side in regards to facism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halijohn (talk • contribs) 04:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Halijohn: I failed to see how calling your edits "absolutely accurate" and accusing "immense bias" can be any contributive to the article. And as other editors warned on your talk page, this is borderline personal attack. Please be civil. I reverted your edit because they deviate from descriptions by referenced reliable sources. CNN describes the movement as "leaning towards the left", and ADL noted mainstream left joining the movement. A broader "left-wing" would be a more suitable descriptor. You also linked the word "fascist" to Fascist (insult). This is your personal opinion unsupported by sources, and adding quotation marks around it is an expression of doubt, an unacceptable practice. Furthermore, "ableist, transphobic, misogynist" is not provided by sources. There is currently an discussion on talk page regarding that. Please join discussion and refrain from inserting your own opinions as facts. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The idea that antifa simply "leans towards the left" is absolutely innacutrate, and if you cannot see that it goes to show your bias. I am not attacking you personally, but I do think that Wikipedia is a great resourse and one that I use all the time, and I really would appreciate it being accurate. And the scope of the ideologies that they oppose does include things like ableism and transphobia. That point would be lost on few. And when Antifa uses the term "Fascism", that could mean people on a wide spectrum, from Hitler to Richard Spencer to Donald Trump to Ted Cruz and moderate Republicans like Mitt Romney. And no, mainstream Democrats are not joinging anarchists in black block and commiting acts of violence. I am anti-facisit, but that does not mean I am "Antifa", and I suspect that if you were to poll people on wheather or not they were "anti-facist", godwilling, almsot all would say yes. Please refrain from inserting your own opinions as facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halijohn (talk • contribs) 05:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Halijohn:, please sign your comments. Further down the lead it says "They tend to be anti-capitalist and they are predominantly far-left and militant left, which includes anarchists, communists and socialists." While anarchism and communism are far-left, anti-capitalism and socialism are not. ADL wrote "though since Trump’s election, some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks.". A broad "left-wing" would certainly be a more accurate descriptor. The lead also says "whom they identify as fascist, racist", which is enough to explain their opposition to various right-wing and far-right figures. Wikipedia is built upon reliable sources. Although Antifa certainly is opposed to transphobes and homophobes, the sources referenced on the page does not explicitly raise them, so we cannot wrote it that way, otherwise it would be unsourced opinion. Please provide reliable sources to support your additions. Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Tsumikiria. 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)
The article Azur Lane you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Azur Lane for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TarkusAB -- TarkusAB (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The Internationale and Anarchism
Hello. I saw your message earlier today --- sorry for the late response. I re-added the anarchist label to Pottier's politics and included references. I left the other change alone because I wanted to discuss it with you directly. The Internationale does have a place in anarchist culture --- the International Anarchist Congress in Amsterdam (which included famous anarchists like Emma Goldman and Errico Malatesta) sang it, the Spanish anarchists sung their own version, and the Portugese version is also credited to Neno Vasco, an anarcho-syndicalist. I'd argue it's enough to include the anarchists into the list of movements inspired by the song. Le Humanitaire (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Le Humanitaire: Thank you for responding. You might want to explain your changes in article talk pages next time, so they're not reverted in misunderstanding. These are good indicators that anarchists celebrate the Internationale, but referencing to other Wikimedia projects, to my knowledge, may not be enough. Could you find reliable sources that directly supports this? Or sources that says prominent anarchists celebrate it? The International Anarchist Congress in Amsterdam website does not seem to mention the Internationale. Perhaps you can import some references from the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedia pages? Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 08:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Tsumikira: I'll have to look around for the Spanish and Portugal stuff. As for the Congress, I should've linked the PDF on that page instead. That was my bad. Hopefully this is better. Le Humanitaire (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanction notices
Have you got notices for BLP and AP2 discretionary sanctions within the past 12 months? D.Creish (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- It looks like you haven't. These are routine notifications. D.Creish (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or 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.
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.
- @D.Creish: I am aware of discretionary sanctions on BLP and AP2. I have edited carefully and never intended to edit against Wikipedia guidelines. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- The notices don't imply you've done anything wrong just that you're aware. You say you've edited carefully but I just removed an unsourced claim about a living person that you added so maybe more carefully is more better ;) D.Creish (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer granted
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Wikipedia_Reviewer.svg/130px-Wikipedia_Reviewer.svg.png)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
Swarm {talk} 01:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Swarm: Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your behavior on Talk:Gab_(social_network)
He, It seems you have been accusing other users of misbehavior.
On 22 November, 2018, you replied to me here [5] saying,
Ridiceo,"You picked an unfortunate time to file your request as most of our US editors are having Thanksgiving breaks. Please do not forget that we all have real life matters to attend to. This is all very interesting, but none of them supported your own subjective assertion that Gab is being censored. None used the term censor, or anything close, verbatim, in describing its situation. As I explained earlier to another editor, without overwheming support from reliable sources, such strong words are to be avoided, else it would be editorializing. It is understandable that you think your favorite gathering place is not getting good treatments, but your own opinion matters nothing to Wikipedia. And seeing you using quotation marks aroud the term antisemetic, if you are here to defend repugnant views that "advocated for genocidal violence against Jewish people", or to question the classification of it as anti-Semitic, you might not be here to build an encyclopedia."
You accused me of using original research to show that Gab is being censored, saying "This is all very interesting, but none of them supported your own subjective assertion", "Your own subjective assertion" linking to WP:OR. You also falsely attributed to me that gab is my "favorite gathering place", without evidence.
On the same day, after I had responded, you replied here [6] saying,
"This conversation can serve no further purpose if you continue to ignore basic Wikipedia guidelines on not presenting your own interpretations as facts. Your assertion that deplatforming is censorship is also not supported. We don't write something as facts because you think they are in line with definitions on Wikipedia. Reliable, authoritative sources have no overwheming support for such assertions. And yes, your further edit requests will be ignored and archived, if they are clear violations of Wikipedia guidelines."
You accused me of "ignor[ing] basic Wikipedia guidelines" on "not presenting your own interpretations as facts".
On December 3rd, 2018, you responded to one of my posts here [7] saying,
"Impressive 11,000 text wall you've composed. No, we will not mass delete and doctor valid content and replace them with fig leaf "free speech aspect" that no reliable source treats seriously. You cannot create false balance out of thin air. Wikipedia policies does not back your filibustering that suggests a motive of whitewashing your favorite website. You have contributed nothing of value to the article or anywhere else on Wikipedia and please stop further wasting everyone's time."
You implied that I wanted to "mass delete and doctor valid content" and "replace them with fig leaf "free speech aspect" that no reliable source treats seriously" You accused me of "filibustering" and that that "filibustering" suggest that I have a "motive of whitewashing your favorite website" again falsely attributing Gab as "Your favorite website".
This is just 3 of the several examples of you misusing the talk page to accuse other users of breaking Guidelines or acting in bad faith. Once more, I ask you to follow Talk page guidelines, and to stop casting asperations without evidence. If you have an issue with another user's conduct, you can discuss with them on their user talk page, or report the behavior on WP:ANI. Ridiceo (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Your first edit was on Nov 5th. A month later you're linking to WP:ASPERSIONS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ridiceo: I believe we were in heated debates, so allow me to walk back my remarks on Gab being your favorite website and that you are here to defend repugnant views. Sorry for that. But the rest of my concerns are reasonable and substantiated. "Gab is being censored", or "deplatforming is censorship", are indeed your own original research, or ideas, that are not reflected in any reliable sources we've seen so far. The closest thing I found is "popular among those who believed that they're being censored". Restating them over and over again is indeed disruptive, and does not change the nature that this is not what Wikipedia policies represents. And since you did not present your argument in a standard "change X to Y because of our consensus on Z" format, I cannot infer what other actions your listing of perceived unfavorable language would suggest, other than systematically doctoring the wording to unwarrantedly alter what reliable sources actually says on the subject. You said that the "'free speech' aspect of Gab" is being minimized on this article, but we cannot minimize things that are not in the sources in the first place. So far I find none reliable sources, including the ones you provided, reported this as a true aspect of Gab - most report it as a self-promotion or marketing, and you certainly did not provide any textual quotations. "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Multiple people and me have told you the above things multiple times over a long time span, but each time, you chose to either deny that you posted what you did,[1] pretend your question has not already been answered,[2] misrepresent what a policy actually says or means,[3] refuse to concede when your position has been disproved or rejected by consensus,[4] or just ignore the user and tell another user the same thing, as if you can give a proof by assertion. You should understand that it is very upsetting for me, and other users, to work with you on this article. But this does not mean you cannot improve, so for now I won't bother to hit up ANI for a problem not yet intractable. You are, however, free to pursue and escalate your case. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- Your concerns being "reasonable" don't mean anything when you're disrupting a talk page about Gab to personally attack another user by claiming that they've broken Wikipedia guidelines and accusing them of bad-faith editing. I've asked already for you to follow talk page guidelines, but you haven't. And the clear evidence is above. I concede on the "Free speech aspect" and I believe that's what caused a lot of the heated-ness. But even then, on your own talk page, you are casting aspersions without evidence. You don't even link to anything I've said. For now, I'll strikeout the part where I argue on the "representation of gab". Keep in mind, however, that this comment on your talk page is simply a reminder to follow the talk page guidelines. Ridiceo (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ridiceo: ↓Citations are right here below the portion which you claimed that I was casting aspersions. Again, please read fully before claiming any source is/isn't supportive of your views, or anyone has/hasn't said something. WP:AGF and WP:NPA are not to be weaponized as an answer, or a defense, for substantiated and legitimate concerns on your content and conduct. I was, and will be, by no possible extent, "disruptive", or "in bad faith". It is good that you're learning to concede on a lost clause. It would be better of you can understand your own behavior, before consciously or unconsiously, resorting or submitting to psychological projections. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- WP:AAGF Isn't a guideline. It's an essay. Furthermore, these diffs don't reflect what you're trying to imply about me. I did not "Deny I posted what I did" in the first diff you quoted, nor did I "pretend my question has not already been answered" in your second diff. Your third is simply an unsubstantiated claim that I misrepresented a policy, and the fourth is someone claiming that consensus is against me, when no consensus has been made on whether "Favorite" should stay in the article. Ridiceo (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, since WP:AAGF is an essay not a guideline, let me point out that your first edit was on Nov 5th, and only a month later, you're lecturing other editors on the difference between a guideline and an essay.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not lecturing anybody. I've simply requested that this user stop attacking others. I will follow guidelines to the best of my ability, not essays. But please, show me more that this community is garbage, and I'll find my way out. I made this thread on Tsumikiria's talk page to try to resolve this issue, and they decided to attempt to flip it on me. Tagging "Assuming the assumption of good faith" is simply an excuse to accuse others of bad-faith editing and then crying "Dont make assumptions about my assumptions" when they call you out on it. There is a very good reason why essays are not guidelines, and that is one of them. Who knew that asking someone to follow basic Wikipedia guidelines would produce an egregious reply like this. But yes, lets join in and dogpile. I'm one person. This was meant as a one-on-one with Tsumikiria to resolve the issue. Ridiceo (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ridiceo: Yes, essays are not binding guidelines, but the situations they describe may invariably exist. I am willing to resolve any content or conduct dispute in the spirit of good faith cooperation, but that spirit is just as much a limited resource as patience. And I cannot help on issues that doesn't much realize beyond your imagination. I've gone nowhere close as to launch deliberate personal attacks. If pointing out other user's error and providing my resonable concerns are indeed attacks in bad faith, the project known as Wikipedia would not effectively exist. Consensus is not unanimity. Recognizing that, and should you still have issues on content or conduct, you are always free to further and escalate. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not lecturing anybody. I've simply requested that this user stop attacking others. I will follow guidelines to the best of my ability, not essays. But please, show me more that this community is garbage, and I'll find my way out. I made this thread on Tsumikiria's talk page to try to resolve this issue, and they decided to attempt to flip it on me. Tagging "Assuming the assumption of good faith" is simply an excuse to accuse others of bad-faith editing and then crying "Dont make assumptions about my assumptions" when they call you out on it. There is a very good reason why essays are not guidelines, and that is one of them. Who knew that asking someone to follow basic Wikipedia guidelines would produce an egregious reply like this. But yes, lets join in and dogpile. I'm one person. This was meant as a one-on-one with Tsumikiria to resolve the issue. Ridiceo (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, since WP:AAGF is an essay not a guideline, let me point out that your first edit was on Nov 5th, and only a month later, you're lecturing other editors on the difference between a guideline and an essay.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- WP:AAGF Isn't a guideline. It's an essay. Furthermore, these diffs don't reflect what you're trying to imply about me. I did not "Deny I posted what I did" in the first diff you quoted, nor did I "pretend my question has not already been answered" in your second diff. Your third is simply an unsubstantiated claim that I misrepresented a policy, and the fourth is someone claiming that consensus is against me, when no consensus has been made on whether "Favorite" should stay in the article. Ridiceo (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ridiceo: ↓Citations are right here below the portion which you claimed that I was casting aspersions. Again, please read fully before claiming any source is/isn't supportive of your views, or anyone has/hasn't said something. WP:AGF and WP:NPA are not to be weaponized as an answer, or a defense, for substantiated and legitimate concerns on your content and conduct. I was, and will be, by no possible extent, "disruptive", or "in bad faith". It is good that you're learning to concede on a lost clause. It would be better of you can understand your own behavior, before consciously or unconsiously, resorting or submitting to psychological projections. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- Your concerns being "reasonable" don't mean anything when you're disrupting a talk page about Gab to personally attack another user by claiming that they've broken Wikipedia guidelines and accusing them of bad-faith editing. I've asked already for you to follow talk page guidelines, but you haven't. And the clear evidence is above. I concede on the "Free speech aspect" and I believe that's what caused a lot of the heated-ness. But even then, on your own talk page, you are casting aspersions without evidence. You don't even link to anything I've said. For now, I'll strikeout the part where I argue on the "representation of gab". Keep in mind, however, that this comment on your talk page is simply a reminder to follow the talk page guidelines. Ridiceo (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)