User talk:Websurfer2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Websurfer2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Politrukki (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


File:One-Pager Recs FINAL VERSION 3-20.pdf[edit]

Sorry to be a pain but can you add the US gov website you got this PDF from? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00:, done. Websurfer2 (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Accused?[edit]

Regarding this:

He just repeated fake news. -- 

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: Good point. "Asserts" is a better word. I changed it. Websurfer2 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMARY[edit]

The rule is, reliable independent secondary sources. Primary is provisionally OK for uncontroversial content, but here we have a well known crank ranting on a far-right website, and that needs a secondary source to demonstrate objective significance. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Websurfer2. 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)[reply]

Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum#Timeline[edit]

Hello, Websurfer2. I moved your "September 20" 2018 edit to Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum#Timeline. As space is getting tigher on the "2016", (2017), and (2018) articles; I will attempt to move items to the parallel Timeline for Brexit, that are more specifically just located there. Some items might be in both Timelines, of course. X1\ (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Politics editing[edit]

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.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Purported made-up citation"[edit]

I am working on un-cluttering Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Is it okay for me to Archive "Purported made-up citation" now? X1\ (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@X1\: Go ahead. I had to take a break from Trump World for awhile.Websurfer2 (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More than understandable. X1\ (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are hereby awarded the ...
Defender of the Puppy barnstar

A WP trick you can learn from my edit of the James B. Stewart article[edit]

By adding the name= parameter inside the <ref> for the 1987 L.A.Times article in the "Career" section, I was able to re-cite that same ref in the "Awards" section without redefining it—note the two lower-case letter jump-to-cite flags in front of it in the "References" section. That left room for me, without increasing the number of references, to add the L.A.Times ref for the 1988 Gerald Loeb Award. IMHO that ref makes the The New Yorker and UCLA Anderson School of Management refs superfluous, but I've left them in for you to delete if you want. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DovidBenAvraham: Thanks for the tip. The UCLA Gerald Loeb Awards historical winners list seems duplicative of the other citations, but it is full of errors (duplicate entries, partial lists of winners, missing entries, missing categories, etc.), so I only use it when I can't find contemporary references for each individual award. The contemporary news reports can also be problematic because they frequently leave out details like award categories or the names of the winning pieces. This is especially true of printed newspaper articles where they cut details to fit the story into the available column space.Websurfer2 (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. In this particular case the L.A.Times article does contain the needed details for Stewart's 1988 award, which the The New Yorker Article doesn't. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, when you used the L.A.Times article as a ref in another WP article, your hand slipped and you used the address of the WP Los Angeles Times article as the URL. I'm sure you didn't mean to do that, because I'm sure you know that another WP article cannot be used as a ref (as opposed to a link) in a WP article. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Gerald Loeb Award winners for Magazines) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Gerald Loeb Award winners for Magazines.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hey, Nice work - Good thing I knew about this award before I saw the article! Jeez, you have been busy, fantastic list of citations. Keep up the good work

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Gerald Loeb Award winners for Magazines[edit]

Hello, Websurfer2,

Thanks for creating Gerald Loeb Award winners for Magazines! I edit here too, under the username Hughesdarren and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Earwig copyvio detector tool is picking up the article up as Violation Suspected at 83.1% , which I think is a result of the names of the pieces winning the award being the same. I'm going to pass this along to an admin who has more expertise in this area. Cheers and Regards

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed by admin, list is OK to copy with no prose. Cheers Hughesdarren (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This intended?[edit]

Was this what was intended here? X1\ (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@X1\: Thanks. More than one copy got uploaded to Commons that came from various news sources in addition to the official DoJ copy. Psantora already fixed-up the file link on the 2019 page. Websurfer2 (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this here. Maybe when more is unredacted the kerfuffle will have smoothed-out some. Hopefully. Thanks for the 2019/Psantora pointer, I'll look to thank them there. Anyway, much thanks for all your great contributions. X1\ (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
Many thanks for your recent additions of details excerpted from the Mueller Report to the Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Finally facts! — JFG talk 10:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the appropriate scope of our timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — JFG talk 21:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lawrence Minard[edit]

On 28 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lawrence Minard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lawrence Minard has a business journalism award named after him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lawrence Minard. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lawrence Minard), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstared[edit]

The Minor Barnstar
Good to see you back! X1\ (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy notice[edit]

It appears after three months Talk:Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019)#" these stories are about Facebook privacy, not Trump/Russia" is being revisited. X1\ (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

still active?[edit]

Are you still active a wp? X1\ (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been very busy since July and haven't had the time to keep up with editing. I plan on adding more content from the Mueller report as I have time. Websurfer2 (talk) 07:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick response! Thank you for your contributions. I look forward to your future contributions. X1\ (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with template:anchor functions: to/from where does {anchor|20190330} point?[edit]

Anchor 20190330 points to/from where? X1\ (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@X1\: The anchor template is used to define an arbitrarily named HTML anchor point. You can then use the name in links as the # parameter. In this particular case, I used it in a link in the 2017 article. Websurfer2 (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! More useful than I first thought. Thank you, again. X1\ (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have made changes [1][2] at "2016" and "(2017)" to reflect the Anchor naming pattern. X1\ (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@X1\: Ah, typos: the bane of editors everywhere. Websurfer2 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the detailed contributions! I assume you don't want masses of "thank you" notices, so I just picked a couple examples. X1\ (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because you thanked me[edit]

Websurfer2, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...
 YOU'RE WELCOME!
It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! X1\ (talk)

00:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for "2018" & "2017 = I've reading to do.[edit]

You deserve this. X1\ (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And, you deserve this, too. X1\ (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of people named in the Mueller Report moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, List of people named in the Mueller Report, does not have enough sources and citations, and is missing most of the necessary content to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?)

I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Mirror Cracked: Thanks. I intended to create it in my sandbox. Websurfer2 (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm looking forward to seeing the completed article. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 split in two[edit]

As the top editor of Timeline (2018), courtesy notice: I plan to split the year into two halves relatively soon, as it is in the top ten of longest articles now. Is there a date window of a few of days that are better for your editing in which I can make the change? I plan to redirect the original page to the (new) first half page, and then sift through the old wikilinks to correct the connections. X1\ (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@X1\: I noticed it is up to nearly 700 citations and am concerned that we are going to hit the "number of templates" limit. There is still a lot to add to 2018 from Volume II of the Mueller report. I will leave the page alone so that you can split it. Websurfer2 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The soonest I plan to start is Monday. X1\ (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some started. X1\ (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy notification[edit]

For your, see "Excised text". X1\ (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@X1\: Huh. Not what I remembered, but upon rereading the article, your edit is fair. Websurfer2 (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my edit. I wanted to see your response, since I have been stretching my self too thin lately. X1\ (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted[edit]

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:

TonyBallioni (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special:LongPages[edit]

Currently on Special:LongPages:

9) Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections ‎[423,303 bytes] (with #11 being Topical timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections ‎[422,692 bytes])

and 38) Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017) ‎[411,288 bytes]

It will only take off about 20K, but what do you think about moving the List of "Relevant individuals and organizations" to its own page and transcluding it to "2016" (See Draft:Relevant individuals and organizations to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections) ?

X1\ (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@X1\: Getting past my initial "not worth it" reaction, I do see system performance benefits to splitting-out that section and the two other sections used for transclusion ("Further reading" and "page bottom") into one or more separate dedicated pages. It wouldn't help the 2016 article (except for size), but it would cause the other timeline pages to load faster since the server wouldn't have to parse the full 2016 page every time one of them is fetched from storage. Websurfer2 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to put it up for Talk, or go BOLD? I could move the Draft List to "live" mainspace (Draft process HEAVILY overburdened), and you could do the other two? X1\ (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@X1\: This doesn't alter the content, so I say be BOLD and see who has a substantive complaint. It needs to have a lede section explaining what it is and some links to the timeline pages to direct people to the "real content" or it may get deleted. I can do the other two sections, but I won't have time until at least late next week. Websurfer2 (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now, "Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" is #3 (& "Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017)" is #34).
So, I'll mainspace the "Relevant individuals and organizations" soon.
I'll slowly do the same process I did with "(2018)" for "(2017)", and the wikilink sorting slowly after that. I'm still not done with the "(2018)"-into-two-halves sorting yet. I'll assume you'll do the parts you mentioned as time permits. X1\ (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the rate of growth of Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections ‎[427,692 bytes] (now number 2), moving the List out won't be enough.
I'll split it in two as with "(2018)" and following the same style of
Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018) and
Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018);
with Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections becoming
Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (before July 2016) (a rename/move of the original) and
Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day)
Similarly, Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017) (now number 5 at 423,036 bytes) will become
Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2017) (a rename/move of the original) and
Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2017)
I plan to make them all "live" mainspace before the end of the year. As there are disruptive lurkers, you may need to run defense to keep this from becoming a mess.
X1\ (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update, currently on Special:LongPages:

X1\ (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, post-commenting, Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Requested move 14 January 2020 for "a rename/move of the original". X1\ (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@X1\: I am leaning towards keeping the title "Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" for the main article. I am also leaning towards arguing that the second half of 2016 should be moved back into the main article. A combined 460k article that is fairly mature is perfectly fine. We aren't adding tons of content anymore. The people whining about it being too long are being troll-ish and just want to jettison content. I appreciate your efforts, but you can't keep everyone happy and I think you are being pushed down a rabbit hole by the size arguments. Websurfer2 (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Be confident and proud of the quality and quantity of contributions you have made to the Timeline. I have found them useful, other editors have found them useful, and undoubtedly the Readers have found them useful. Readers such as voters, politicians, lawyers, etc.
The Split is inevitable, as the guidance is "> 100kB / 100,000 chars" is "Almost certainly should be divided". Not only is 460k far above that, 460k is also significantly above the top of Special:LongPages. Size discussions have also been, multiple times before, time resource wasting. There is no time like the present to do the overdue split.
We aren't adding tons of content anymore is a perfect time to stabilize these, now two, pages. The only way to do that is by the Split.
The usual deletionists will continually push to delete. Having one less tactic to argue, the better. The other discussors have not contributed once to the article, and have shown they do not understand the history of the page(s). Recombining to create a massive 460k page will not end the drive to delete the useful high-quality (particularly from the Mueller Report) history you have created; but instead will make it significantly worse. My guess is this information will increase in usefulness in one year.
Thank you again, for you contributions. X1\ (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Mónica Villamizar source restoration[edit]

Thank you for restoring that source on the Mónica Villamizar page! It appears that I removed it inadvertently, I have no idea how. Glad you caught it! Mwanner | Talk 00:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting citation identifying the full name of a living person[edit]

Let's say a WP article discusses a government report. A page in the report refers to a person only by their surname. A WP:RS article discussing the same exact subject matter and events lists the person's full name. Is it a WP:BLP violation to cite the RS article to establish the full name of the person even though the RS article doesn't mention the report? Websurfer2 (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • See below. The filter is there for a reason. Guy (help!) 10:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: You are not qualified to respond to a help question about your behavior. Websurfer2 (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help me![edit]

Let's say editor listed as the author of a private filter deletes content from a (different) page and provides a questionable edit summary, but reverting the edit is blocked by the private filter. What is the remedy and complaint procedure that should be followed? Websurfer2 (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLPNAME. I am assuming you know why it's a problem. This filter was discussed at the filter noticeboard in advance, it is maintained by multiple admins, and is sufficiently high profile that the WP:OVERSIGHT team are routinely suppressing the logs. If you want to challenge it you need either WP:EFN or WP:AN. Guy (help!) 10:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: You threatened me after I tried to use the name in my false-positive report. That is dishonest behavior on your part. Websurfer2 (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're being warned for evading the edit filter to violate BLP. As Guy notes, this is routinely oversighted, not just deleted, and it's a warning you need to take seriously, rather than attacking the person who warned you. Acroterion (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion: My suspicion of JzG (talk · contribs)'s unexplained motives for banning this name are warranted by his personal POV efforts to get content deleted from related articles on Trump/Mueller/Russia as displayed in Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Merely pointing at WP:BLPNAME when asked for an explanation of how this person's name applies is not helpful. The warning, as you put it, looks capricious since it gives no explanation as to why this particular name is banned from all of Wikipedia in any context. It took me several edit attempts to figure out what was triggering the filter, and the filter notice does not give any information at all, with the filter itself being hidden from view so I have to guess what the trigger is. Instead of answering why this name meets WP:BLPNAME even though it is found in RSs, I am merely told not to use it without any explanation other than a single edit summary that claims the cited publication is not an RS even though it is widely cited throughout English Wikipedia. Websurfer2 (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your "suspicions" combined with all those edit filter hits are not a good position from which to criticize anybody. The reinstatement of the article draft is up to the oversight team, I've discussed it with them and left it in their hands. Acroterion (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you trigger the edit filter. Guy (help!) 10:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Why are you blocking me from using a specific person's name on any page without explanation? How is preventing the world from knowing the name of a National Security Council staffer a violation of Wikipedia policies? Your arbitrary filter you wrote a day ago is blocking any use of a specific name. That is malicious behavior and has been reported. Websurfer2 (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See above. WP:BLPNAME. That probably applies to most of the list, to be honest. Many of the sources you have used are differently reliable. Guy (help!) 10:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: Again, why are you threatening to revoke my editing privileges if I use a specific name on any page, regardless of the context? Websurfer2 (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Websurfer2, that's a standard warning to editors who persistently trigger edit filters. Nothing personal. But please don't do it again. Guy (help!) 10:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: Discuss your actions, don't make threats. Why have you banned the use of that name in any context on any page in Wikipedia? The name appears in RSs, so what is your rationale? Websurfer2 (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's sweep these three sections and responses into one, for simplicity.

  1. I warned you after the filter logs showed you had triggered filter 1008 a dozen times in a short period. It's a standard warning to editors who persistently trigger edit filters. Nothing personal. But please don't do it again.
  2. The filter exists to control persistent abuse and violations of WP:BLP, including serial block evasion. It's sufficiently serious that log entries for the filter are being suppressed by WP:OVERSIGHT.
  3. The name does not appear in RS. That's very much the point. Reliable sources are being careful not to mention it even when there are determined efforts to force the harassment of this individual, e.g. by Rand Paul. See Jimbo's view.
  4. The filter is managed at WP:EFN, but the best venue to discuss any issues you may have with it is probably WP:AN as that has more admins watching.
  5. Please note that per WP:BLPNAME we normally don't include the names of non-notable individuals who are associated with a single event. The list you're compiling may violate that, maybe WP:BLPN would have a view on that.
  6. Yuo accused me of "vandalism". That is very obviously completely inappropriate, and you should not do that.

You have been caught up in the management of long-term abuse. That's not a judgment on you, but it is a risk for you. You need to know that, because sometimes people will just see a load of filter hits and wade in with a block. You are framing this as abuse by me, but it's just a side-effect of long-running abuse of Wikipedia by trolls, and you're (at this point) an innocent victim. Guy (help!) 11:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforcing Guy's warning, you will be blocked if you persist in attempting to evade the edit filter. I've deleted the revision where you went ahead and posted the name of the whistleblower in the edit filter reporting page. It's very easy - don't do that again. This is by consensus a serious violation of the BLP policy, and now that you understand that, I'm sure you'll respect our advice. Acroterion (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I've deleted the draft where you reinstated the BLP violation after being warned. Your characterization of Guy's removal of the BLP violation as "vandalism" is noted, and isn't helping your case. The draft can be reinstated without the violation, providing you undertake to stop with the edit filter evasion. You're courting an oversight block. Acroterion (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion:, @JzG: This entire spat could have been avoided by a simple but clear WP:ES. My vandalism note stems from the ES being worded like common vandalism ESs, with things made worse by heavy-handed actions made without explanation other than cryptic references to WP:BLP, claims that a widely recognized RS is not an RS, and referrals to a discussion I am not privy to. No, I did not know who this person is claimed to be, and, as can be seen by the date in the citation and the edit log for the draft page that has now been conveniently deleted, the citation is from 2017 and had nothing to do with the Trump–Ukraine scandal. And, @Acroterion:, you could have reverted my edit and given a simple but clear ES instead of deleting the entire page making the edit history unavailable to anyone who tries to respond to the complaint I filed. Websurfer2 (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could also have been avoided by you realising after the first couple of hits on the edit filter that you were doing something that was like to be at least controversial. 11 hits on the filter? That's not a good look. Guy (help!) 22:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted[edit]

Hi Websurfer2. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for all your significant contributions to the Timelines of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and journalist articles! (From User:X1\) Firestar464 (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been pruned from a list[edit]

Hi Websurfer2! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Websurfer2&oldid=1124490182"