Page correctedEdit

[personal note from badboyjamie] Thank you for correcting this page for me. badboyjamie talk 20:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Josef HofmannEdit

OK, Sirlanz. Duly noted. Regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

AN/IEdit

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- samtar whisper 16:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015Edit

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: It behoves everyone to look at the facts before making wild claims. No one has identified any "disruptive" edit. There was a huge number of edits made by me to the page because there was a huge amount of bad material in it. If comment is to be made on my editing, it should be directed at the facts. Inform me if you find anything erroneous in my efforts and, in doing so, bear in mind that an error or two might surely have crept in among dozens of positive contributions by me to the page. Sirlanz 03:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I note that you have accused me of being "childish". Please provide support for your assertion and, at the same time, accompany your response with some example or examples of editing performed by me which was "disruptive" as you have also falsely suggested. It is self-evident that you have simply fallen into line with Citobun without establishing anything about what has transpired. It is also telling that Citobun, the originator of the attack on my work, has, in response to my invitation to identify the faults in my work, instantly passed the baton and asked for someone else to do his dirty work. This is simply not good enough. Look into the facts and get back to me, and desist from suggesting people are "childish" without justification. Sirlanz 03:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Sirlanz, please see WP:SIGLINK and adjust your signature accordingly. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: I have followed up on this. I have been using the four tildes but noted that this was producing just plain text. I have followed your link (thanks again for that) which links to User_talk:SineBot where I'm instructed that I may have missed a checkbox in my preferences. Problem is, I haven't. So the only way to generate the proper link is to manually enter it each time (pain). As the bot does not give me a solution to this niggling issue, I wonder if you happen to have heard anything or have any tip you might be able to offer (or anyone else). Sirlanz 13:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas Bernard Collinson has been acceptedEdit

AFC-Logo.svg
Thomas Bernard Collinson, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Schwede66 21:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent editsEdit

Hi again Sirlanz. I've reverted your capitalisation of the word "romanisation" where it is not part of a proper name per MOS:CAPS – please let me know if I am mistaken. Secondly, I ask you again to please consider making use of the preview button to avoid making so many numerous consecutive minor edits that unduly clutter and confuse the revision history. Thanks. Citobun (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I don't feel strongly either way on the initial cap. I have two comments though: (1) it would have been helpful if you had done more in your comment than simply provide the entire MOS:CAPS reference with no specific item cited; I can't find one that tells me that my use of the initial cap violates the policy but it's a long page and I'm keen to hear which part of it you were thinking lent support for your position; and (2) it's logically inconsistent that we would never consider not capitalising Anglicising but do it to the Romans because, what, they died out a while back? Illogical.
On your criticism of clutter (again! and I note you never condescended to a single detail about your criticisms last time which was a disappointment), firstly, I would think it appropriate for edits made which are obvious erroneously executed and subsequently reversed, i.e. the result of oversight which would have been caught for preview. I do not think it appropriate for my step-by-step approach to editing. Second, yes, it makes a long list of edits but each is informative. That's very beneficial, not detrimental. Third, I prefer to work this way as I can never be sure how long I can work on something before being interrupted. Small pieces are sure to get done, longer ones will just end up never going to press and lost forever.
And I don't mind a bit that you did a one-word revision to my talk page just now - I can stand the clutter. sirlanz Sirlanz 08:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
We don't capitalise "anglicisation" either. As the first and second sentences of MOS:CAPS state, we avoid unnecessary capitalisation, reserving it mainly for proper names or acronyms.
It's your choice if you want to be deliberately obtuse about "last time". I and others already explained why making numerous minor edits in a row to make a point constitutes disruptive editing. Citobun (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Your response is unresponsive and demonstrates that you had no specific reason to reverse the edits but that you had some sort of vague feeling about it. Rome is a pronoun, just as Anglican and American are. So any comment on Americanizing, then? I have been very specific. I note that both Americanise and Anglicise are capitilised in the Oxford and I dare say that applies to all localisation verbs.
What's obtuse about "last time"? Evidently, you knew what I meant without me having to give you dates and times.
What's really happening here is that you are not making a positive contribution to WP but rather looking to troll my work. I urge you to think positively and expend your remarkable tenacity in making substantive improvement to the encyclopedia, not nitpicking near irrelevancies which is all you've contributed to jyutping today while I've been trying to add substantively to it. Sirlanz 09:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing vague about anything I'm saying. Don't capitalise "romanisation" or "anglicisation" – I've linked you to the relevant policy. Don't spam numerous small edits to make a point – we've linked you to the relevant policy. I don't know what's in the Oxford dictionary and it doesn't matter – we use the Wikipedia MOS here. These are not "near irrelevancies" – the fact is, you have severely criticised others for making mistakes while you're making constant errors yourself. Don't dish out criticism if you can't handle receiving it. And I was much more polite than you were to the user you criticised in a racist, trolling manner. Citobun (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
What is the basis for your new suggestion that I am a racist? I have roundly criticised an editor incapable of meeting a reasonable standard of English on English Wikipedia and made no reference to that editor's race in which I could not be less interested. If I were to start editing Chinese WP, I'd expect to be told off and sent home and would not think for a moment that there was anything racist in that; I'm simply not up to scratch there and know it. The point of my criticism was to protect WP from out and out rubbish and in the face of one who did not accept correction at all, flatly rejecting it without discussion. You seem to think that I am not a fair judge of such standards yet upon invitation for specifics from you, you did not volunteer a single one.
I am ready to accept correction. Take, for example, your contribution today about Romanisation. Having received your correction, I dutifully did some research and found that the Oxford (and do I really have to write out Oxford English Dictionary for you to acquire your comprehension? And we're talking Hong Kong pages and British English is the prevalent form here, thus the Oxford must be relevant) lists the term uncapitalised, so I have not reverted your edits. That's respect for your position, though, at the same time I don't agree with it. It's reasonable, though I think not strictly logical, as I have pointed out.
The bottom line is that you have made petty edits simply to satisfy a gripe, and have now gone a step further with yet another baseless epithet. Very unfortunate, Citobun; I suggest you can do better. Finally, I would like to gently remind you that I do not wear the cloak of anonymity here. I take full responsibility for what I write. Perhaps, in respect for that concession on my part, while you do speak from behind that cloak you might care to exercise a little more circumspection before writing again. sirlanz Sirlanz 15:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

A user is crazyEdit

The user is User:Lmmnhn. He just revert, revert and revert my edits, and is quite rude and ban new edits, e.g. prevent me from listing total seats of district council of HK, retain the misleading elected seats of district council of HK, prevent me from categorizing Hong Kong Localism Power into Category:Liberal parties in Hong Kong, retain the misleading categorization of Hong Kong Localism Power to be Category:Localist parties in Hong Kong, and etc. UU (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Your frustration is well understood, though we need to keep our debate on substance, i.e. not use personal epithets like "crazy". What I do know is User:Lmmnhn was granted rollback rights recently and that this was a very poor decision by the administrator involved because now we see the even poorer standard of judgement (and skill) being exercised by User:Lmmnhn in wielding this weapon. He/she has in recent days rolled back a mass of work I did to fix his/her grammar mess, editorial, original work, etc., on Localism in Hong Kong so there goes all my time into the garbage bin. So if you want to do something formal about it, I will support such moves. sirlanz 01:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Decided to mark the page for speedy deletion sirlanz 02:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You've actually invoked Proposed deletion rather than speedy deletion... In any case I think it's better to go to WP:AFD because the corresponding article in zh.wp cites a number of external sources. Deryck C. 11:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

engvarEdit

If you look in the categories for dick smith retailer, you will find engvar australian, which sort of makes [1] - rather revealing, Australian usage trumps not only us usage but also british.... JarrahTree 03:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right and I've reversed the reversal. I was not aware that Australian English had moved on for target. It's an interesting piece of illogicality, though, as I note that the double-L is retained, e.g. travelled, travelling. sirlanz 03:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
well we oztrylians do odd things with da language at times - JarrahTree 04:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please respect the naming by Chinese peopleEdit

In Hong Kong and Macau media, the pro-Beijing camp is just called "建制派", and it is NOT an abbreviation of "親建制派". The Chinese name need NOT be a direct translation of English name. It is offending to include "親建制派" but not "建制派" in this article. 182.239.79.93 (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I have never made a contribution to the subject page, i.e. pro-Beijing camp, so there may be some wires crossed here. Second, the anonymous writer of this remark seems to have his/her English backwards in the last sentence because the term which he/she finds "offending" (offensive?) does not even appear on the page and the term desired does. Third, since I seem to be being invited to comment, yes, it is not an abbreviation; the two terms might best be interpreted Establishment Camp and Pro-Establishment Camp. Fourthly, it is hard to understand what sort of offence might be taken as the whole point is that the persons considered (by others or themselves) to be either in the camp itself or, applying the second term, aligned closely to it would not be expected to be offended if grouped loosely (or even tightly) together. So, in summary, I'm at a loss as to the concern or the offence apparently taken but if I can be of assistance in some way, I'll be delighted to try. sirlanz 10:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

for your work on the Thirteen Factories, especially finding those cities and then improving the source. Also nice of you to add the Cantonese, although I think we're supposed to use Jyutping as a general rule. (Or is that the same as SL?)

There were a few issues, though, if you're going to be around the Chinese pages for awhile. (And G-d knows we need more work over there...)

1st, just as a general matter, kindly remember that we're trying to make the pages more accessible and helpful, not less. You don't have to add them, but don't remove Wiktionary links for Chinese characters.

On a more personal note, there's no policy whatever that we're supposed to use the {{zh}} template and, although its coder doesn't care, it's broken. There are good arguments to be made that Chinese and Cantonese are different languages; simplified and traditional characters certainly aren't, and neither is pinyin. If there's an article on something (like cohong), WP:MOS-ZH says we should usually just link to it. Where we have to include inline Chinese, I understand {{zh}} is easier to do than my formatting, which is why it's spread despite its problems, but there's no policy requiring you to remove clearer, terser, and (mho) better formatting that already exists. Again, that edit isn't wrong but I hope you understand and can do your bit to (at least) minimizing the use of that broken template.

2nd, pretty much don't ever remove {{anchor}} links. You might not understand why they're there, but someone added them and you're probably needlessly breaking helfpul links.

In this specific case, hoppo (official) isn't written and only exists as a redirect to this article. (That's why the term is bolded and followed by Chinese.) That's not the best solution, of course. You're welcome to replace the redirect with a stub article, move the Chinese there, and add a link to the link talking about the hoppo. But it is a solution and isn't improved by removing the anchor.

3rd, you're completely right that articles use their COMMON ENGLISH name. You're right that, especially in period articles, we should use those names first and then gloss them. You're off on referring to Canton rather than Guangzhou.

The thing is that specific uses still use the old names (Cantonese, Peking duck, Howqua) but the city is Guangzhou. It didn't move and it wasn't renamed; it's just a romanization we don't use any more. "Khanbaligh (now Beijing)" works but "Peking (now Beijing)" doesn't. Per WP:MOS-ZH, we can gloss the old romanizations, but we don't use them in our running text except where it's still the common form of the place... and Canton isn't.

4th, you made some edits regarding two offline sources that might be well taken but still need tweaking. The first quote is "barbarian houses" as a phrase; that needs translation and a cite. The second cite is talking about the use of "barbarian" and that needs a separate cite. Originally the first was Tamura and the second was Basu.

Now, you changed what Basu is saying and, if you did look him up and he was being misunderstood, that's fine. But Tamura needs to stay where she was as a cite for "barbarian houses" as a phrase and, even with a link to Hua-Yi distinction, we need to know which term is being translated as barbarian here.

As for your edit note, the interchangability of Cantonese terms is neither here nor there in reference to official phrases, which were done in Mandarin. It seems simple enough to understand: the official term for "foreigners" at the time was apparently not 外國人 but something that was then unpleasant and is now only a slur. That could probably be expressed more clearly in the article, but it depends on which term they're talking about. probably needs to be expressed more clearly in the article, but it depends on which word they're discussing. — LlywelynII 14:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

First, thanks to Llywelyn for taking time out to communicate so much in this thank you. The fact is I'm not into WP nearly as deep as Llywelyn and have much to learn. For what they're worth, here's what I'd like to contribute further:
  • I had no idea there was a formal pro-Jyutping policy and, no, it is far removed from Sidney Lau, e.g. yuet ping is the way SL does jyuetping which sounds like "ute ping" in mainstream English pronunciation, by the way. Any chance of directing me to where I could read and, perhaps, contribute to the policy?
  • Agree, some of the worst quality material on WP is to be found in China/Chinese-related pages.
  • I was very reluctant to remove the Wiktionary links. I tried various ways not to but failed due to my ignorance. Ultimately, as I, frankly, haven't come across any for Chinese characters in the past, I really did not know what I was dealing with and thought they might be some anachronistic hangover of old thinking on WP. I could not work out how to run zh into the syntax successfully. If they can live together, I'd be delighted to be shown how or directed to where I could find out. I do apologise for messing that up in spite of my best efforts.
  • My ignorance again but I do not understand what is broken about the zh template and I do see it used all over the place, much more than "yours" (is it called "Chinese")???
  • Right again, I do not know what on earth is meant by "anchor link" and do apologise for disturbing one or more of them. With time focused on content, little remains for focus and concern on the technical aspects of the pages, frankly, but I do need to know where not to tread on people's toes, certainly. As for hoppo, I don't even recall dealing with it but, if Llywelyn says I did, I surely have, again, with no intention of deleting anything useful.
  • Perhaps Llywelyn would be able to clarify further his views on Canton. A starting point is that it is not a Romanisation, as he claims. The article is a pure period piece and it is about a principally foreign enclave in a city which, in English, was known exclusively as Canton and not Guangzhou throughout the time of its existence. The article contains many names all of which are presented in the Romanisation used in the period in question, none of which conform to current norms either of Pinyin or any form of Cantonese Romanisation. If the city is to be sanitised into current Putonghua-speak, why not every other Romanisation for consistency? So I disagree on this point and I am interested in whether Llywelyn wish to clarify further (and to do so in some terms other than to say, "Oh, there's a rule which says we should impose today's terms on all historical accounts", if I've understood him, that is.)
  • I take Llywelyn's point on "barbarian". I confess I have neither Basu nor Tamura. What I note is that the word "house" was in no way relevant to the "foreigner" element of the statement, i.e. the contradistinction was made in respect purely of that part of the expression. Forgive me but I am confident that was what it seemed, i.e. comparing "barbarian" with "foreigner" as alternate translations of the SAME Chinese. The word "house" is simply neither here nor there and it just does not matter an iota whether the word appeared in the Tamura quote or not, it's just not relevant. The suggestion that the Chinese term for "barbarian" (野蠻人) as used in those times can be simply translated as "foreigner" is incorrect. What might, alternatively, be suggested is that it was customary to use the term "barbarian" in respect of all foreigners at the time but that is far from establishing that the term could simply be translated that way. This defect is self-evident in the text as presented on the page, so I confess I went out on a limb to deal with it. I sought the citations but do not have access to them so could not verify my edit as I would have hoped. I was somewhat emboldened, I have to say, by the fact both sources are evidently authors not of Chinese extraction. I hope someone with access to these sources can contribute but in the meantime, it is just extremely unlikely that the statement has any truth in it at all because there simply is no term in Chinese for "barbarian" which can be translated "foreigner", nor was there. When used for "foreigner", it was a pejorative term bearing all the meaning of "barbarian". My edit note referenced Cantonese because I took the view that if we are to introduce claims about the terms used at the time to the describe the factories, it may be more pertinent to think from the Cantonese point of view because what almost all the people of Canton in and around these buildings were speaking was not Putonghua. Does it matter, in describing usage, which is what I perceive to be the point of the sentence, what a tiny minority sent down from the north have to say about it? sirlanz16:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Esta SolerEdit

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Esta Soler has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no reliable references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 23:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@KGirlTrucker81: I wholeheartedly agree. As per my Edit Summary, I was merely opting to move the material to a new page as against deleting it outright. I think it's salvageable with sourcing (if someone is interested in doing that work) and should pass notability comfortably (sponsor of legislation, etc.) sirlanz 01:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@KGirlTrucker81: I have now done a little sourcing for it and you may think that it is above the deletion bar now. The subject definitely meets notability, so a page ought to be on WP if sourced adequately. sirlanz 10:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please help me settle the centrism link dispute, thank youEdit

Is there any possible way to stop User:Lmmnhn from removing link "Centrism#Hong Kong" in various related article? Thanks. UU (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@UU: Hi, UU. Thanks for writing. I'm not an admin, so not clear how I can assist but if you give me some of the example originating pages, I'll have a look and see if any edits are warranted, in my view. I have just tidied up the grammar in the target piece (you will no doubt have seen) and see nothing sinister there. sirlanz 10:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me. The example pages are Hong Kong legislative election, 2016 and Leung Ka-lau. I think the readers should have the right to know more about centrism and pro-Beijing. UU (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@UU: My view is that the term Centrist is likely to mislead because its general use is in speaking of middle ground between left and right politics. In Hong Kong, the major issue is not that at all - it's about the political stance on democracy and China and there is no specific generally accepted term for taking a median stance in that particular debate (it's unique to Hong Kong, after all). So I agree that terms such as "moderate" and "middle-of-the-road" are a satisfactory solution. sirlanz 15:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016Edit

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Cahk (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Bot driven warnings are mindless. The reverting began with Lmmnhn and without any edit summary at all. Look at the substance of what has happened, not at some mindless machine conclusion. sirlanz 08:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Localism camp for discussion, as User:Lmmnhn has very strong intention to "mislead readers" that "Localism camp" does not exist? (Actually he knew there is "Localist camp" or "Localist groups", but he did not move the "Localism camp" to one of those alternative names...) Thank you. UU (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

NPOVEdit

Hi Sirlanz. You've made some recent edits where you wrote "NPOV" in the edit summary. NPOV is a policy that states that articles should be written neutrally and without bias, but your edits citing this have mostly been adding countries into article text. Just wanted to give you a heads up that NPOV doesn't really apply to the edits you're making. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

An article with a geographic connection whose lede does not identify the country to which it relates is either incomplete or written with bias towards the country to which it relates. The effect either way is POV and it is almost endemic in pages relating to the United States, Canada and Britain. The reality is that the editors blithely write from their national POV and fail to present the material neutrally. How many pages have you seen with Polish or Rwandan connections that fail to announce that connection up front? The United States is not the centre of the Universe; readers are not obliged to know that Milwaukee can be found there. It's a blatantly discriminatory bias in WP and we need to do our best to bury it and that is precisely what the NPOV policy is all about. If you think there is another, more applicable, policy, let me know. If there isn't one and you still think I've got this all wrong, let me know. The edits are important to WP's neutral voice and all this comes down to is you don't like the edit summary; I believe I'm free to give whatever reason I think appropriate there and I will be reverted if the edit's substance is wrong. sirlanz 16:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Good point - I hadn't looked at it this way. It still may be worth you being a little more explanatory with these edits so that others don't get confused. Thanks for explaining. :) Sam Walton (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016Edit

Information icon Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Hello sirlanz, you have been posting message on my TalkPage and also on WP:AN (here); attacking me at both places. Your contributions are welcome but refrain from attacking fellow editors. I know that the AfD outcome was not as per your wishes, but you have a proper recourse of WP:DRV or a second nomination. I also asked you to let me know if you want the AfD to be reopened, but you continued with the personal attacks. Kindly refrain from personal attacks and be civil. Any more act of hostility will be reported. Thanks and happy editing. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Would user:AKS.9955 care to deal (substantively or at all) with matters of substance, i.e. the three objections to his carrying out a non-admin closure, or are we to continue to be diverted by wounded pride diatribe? Was the action ultra vires or not? That's the matter at hand, a matter of real substance to WP good governance, let's get on with it. sirlanz 14:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • AKS.9955's reply here is intriguing in that no response (substantive or otherwise) has been posted by him on the AN. sirlanz 15:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I have not replied to anything here and have warned you about personal attacks and harassment (which you continue to do despite warnings). I have already replied on the AN and you are resorting to lies. STOP this nonconstructive editing. I don't wish to waste any more time on this and will not reply to you unless there is a valid discussion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Regrettably, AKS.9955 is oblivious to the responsibility that comes with exercise of judgmental power. This is certainly about his performance in a key role but not about him personally, a distinction he cannot see, evidently. By exercising the NAClose, he must be ready to face criticism, particularly when that criticism specifically identifies process failure. If he is not up to facing and intelligently dealing with the substantive issues at stake, he must not step into the forum and pass judgment. The most important question remains unanswered: did he comply with the non-admin closure policy or not? If he did not, he needs to know, take it on board and reform his behaviour. The policy appears to have the purpose of preventing unqualified people, such as AKS.9955, from entering controversies and standing in judgment over them. He has been rejected in the past for admin, as I understand, and observation of his work does not inspire confidence, so why is he wielding a big stick on WP? sirlanz 23:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Access date?Edit

Why are you removing them? It's extremely valuable informtion for verification and archiving purposes. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Because every one of them causes a footnote error. The old date format without a day of month has been deprecated. There is no option but to remove such references, unless one were to just make up a random day which would not be factual. sirlanz 23:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I guessed as much. Creating a bot to check for the day would be a lot of work, and the bot would have to search the editing history which I'd guess we rather not have happen. From experience, searching for the access date manually is difficult and time consuming. I think you have the correct solution. Thanks for your work! --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'Anson vs. L'AnsonEdit

Hi: I thought that the name was from French... is it really I'Anson...? the way it appears in the article and title makes it look like a lower case i... thanks... FeanorStar7 01:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@FeanorStar7, the typeface is unhelpful; it's an i. I'm an I'Anson, a North Yorkshire name originating from a 15th century connection to Forbin-Janson, Provence. Before stepping in on something like this, best advised to do some looking around first. Still, an easy mistake to make - everyone else does. sirlanz 02:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the info. I appreciate it.--FeanorStar7 02:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Randall HicksEdit

Hi Sirlanz. I commented on your comment in the Randall Hicks article I created, in the "talk" section. I'm not too experienced in Wikipedia, however, so I don't know if you would see it there, so I'm sending you a copy of my reply. I hope it is helpful. Thanks and best wishes. Gelo962 (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Gelo962. Here is my copied comment: Hi, Gelo962 here, addressing above comments. Sirlanz, I see you mentioned above that "'the several books claim' draws a blank - page not found." Perhaps I'm looking at it today after an edit which moved a footnote, but I just checked and the online link (after "several books") to the New York Times article mentioning Hicks's book, and quoting him, works just fine. The other link is valid as well, but not an online link. And of course, there are many, many cites to his books throughout the article, not just there. And just FYI, the Gumshoe Award is not inactive since 2008 as you say. But the link I gave for years 2002 to 2008 is as I gave it, and it works. And I can't help it if no one updated the Wikipedia article on the Gumshoe. The Gumshoe Awards through the 2017 nominations is here: http://www.nsknet.or.jp/~jkimura/. Re notability, I took out the mention of the national TV shows Hicks has been on (according to some of the newspaper articles and ihdb.com - CBS This Morning, The Today Show, PBS talk show host of Adoption Forum, and quite a few more) as someone said that was promotional. I saw it as factual, like listing books, but I took it out. But now it does not seem fair to claim he is not "notable" as a reader like you does not see those national TV appearances as an author and expert in adoption mentioned. So do I put them back in? I'm really at a loss here. Re his acting credits, I agree completely it is not notable by itself. It seems only two roles were featured roles. I just put it in has part of his past, as I think such interesting facts are what make Wikipedia fun and helpful. If we could only list facts which by themselves made someone notable, then each article on authors and similar people would be bare bones. Lastly, regarding notability, he has written 7 or 8 well-covered books (New York Times, Rocky Mountain News, Chicago-Sun Times, Orange County Register, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal). I'll send this message to your personal page as well as I'm not sure if you will see this. I appreciate your comments above and I hope my additional information is helpful to you in judging the article. My fault if a link didn't work before. Gelo962 (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Gelo962

Joseph CrookEdit

I realise that if you make enough small changes etc to Joseph Crook then, sooner or later, you will do something right. But in the intervening time, it will be tedious to keep having to revert you. It might be best for you not to bother at all. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Just STOP. Please. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017Edit

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Joseph Crook. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

  • I don't like templating people who have been here for a while but now see no alternative. Sitush (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Joseph CrookEdit

You were asked to discuss the issue, not just wait until the page protection expired. I started a thread on the article talk but you just reinstated your crap, at least one bit of which is definitely misleading and the other bit contradicted by another source. I've reverted you. - Sitush (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You have reverted the edit without providing any valid reason. It is the most fundamental principle of WP editing that there be a sound reason for reverting any edit. I shall give you 24 hours to provide one failing which I shall reinstate the edit. sirlanz 13:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I have given you the reason. You are edit warring and seemingly trying to game the system by waiting out the page protection then immediately returning to reinstate the same edit. You haven't even commented in the thread I started on the article talk page, and regarding which I have more to say when I get my brain in gear. I doubt Floq will be impressed, given that they protected the page precisely to encourage discussion. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

MOS:DATEFORMATEdit

Please read closer on that page, to where we have MOS:DATETIES. The article should use the date format appropriate based on the subject. In this case, it's an American with strong ties to the U.S., so mdy is appropriate. As it was, the page used mdy, dmy, and ISO formats, which is not appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree enforcing US date style to the content of a US article is entirely valid. My primary concern (refer edit summary) was that it is a non-edit because every date change on the page was a change to a date in a cite, i.e. none of the edits served any MOS purpose at all. It was an edit for edit's sake and nothing more, which is a nuisance if one is watching pages. sirlanz 23:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with that interpretation, since MOS:DATETIES is part of MOS, so that was the "MOS purpose". It was an edit to standardize date formats in the article, which I do wherever I see date formats are not standardized one way or another. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
You're correct, my apologies. I had it in my head that the cite format was automatically converted to something standard, i.e. transparent to users. Wrong. Treat this as hot air; I left the edit undisturbed in any event. sirlanz00:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignoreEdit

Please read WP:DENY, particularly WP:RBI. General Ization Talk 01:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

If you think the conversation the blocked editor attempted to start should be undertaken, you are welcome to start it yourself. My evaluation was that it was not constructive, considering its content along with the total of the editor's edits, and removed it. General Ization Talk 01:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@General Ization:. My ignorance. If an editor is in the blocked bin, how is it their edit is postable? Having received an edit notification (watching page), I had just written in opposition to the editor's opinion when it all got blasted away which is an avoidable annoyance if the edit were blocked before even being posted. sirlanz 02:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The comment was posted shortly before the editor was blocked. General Ization Talk 02:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

HelloEdit

Can you please fix the grammer at the page The Rise of Sivagami like you did at Baahubali 2: The Conclusion ? My grammer and spellings are not very nice, thanks ! 31.215.114.150 (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Restoring PROD tagsEdit

FYI you can't restore prod tags as you did at Match (drink). The claim in the PROD that the company is out of business was also incorrect. I have the sense that here are good sources in Japanese, but I don't read it well enough to add them. Take it to AfD if you feel the need.104.163.142.4 (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017Edit

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on Hope Hicks. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. This edit summary is entirely inappropriate and could easily be considered a personal attack. Toddst1 (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The original toddst1 edit was removal of subject's father's background on the basis (edit summary) that it was "not about her early life or education", i.e. the material was in the wrong section. This is extremely unhelpful and incorrect editing. If the only fault with material is that it is in the wrong place on a page, if an editor is interested in advancing the value of WP, he/she will reposition it. There was simply no good basis for removal and thus stretching the concept of good faith. Reference was made by me to the particular editor because this is his/her central theme, i.e. criticising, attacking, removing, etc., (in recent days doing the same sort of wrong-section based wholesale deletion on Louise Linton and recently adding an "excessive citations" tag (first one I've seen in ten years) to the same page instead of actually doing the work on pruning the problem), where the positive step to take is to correct, improve, etc. This is not a personal attack. This is a plea to tone-down overly-aggressive, non-contributory editing. sirlanz 02:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

October 2017Edit

Information icon Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to The Standard (Hong Kong). Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.

A company named Hong Kong iMail Newspapers Limited aka Hong Kong Standard Newspapers Limited is NOT the publisher of HKiMail aka The Standard?! The description on page 76 stated the principle activities was "newspaper publishing and porperty holding" it is obvious as a citation. Matthew_hk tc 16:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
(1)To suggest that my edit is unconstructive is nonsense. Notably, my edit summary explained cogently its good faith intent and purpose. The page references provided for the source document were the start of a wild goose chase for readers as there is nothing in them that mentions this particular publication. (2) A first principle of editing WP is that we cannot simply supplant fact with our own personal knowledge. It may be "obvious" to one editor or another, arising from personal knowledge and experience, that a publishing company has only one (indeed, does/did it?) publication and that publication is the subject, but the source provided here does not aid readers in ensuring that what is obvious to an editor is, indeed, factually reliable. WP editors do not have the luxury of simply saying "Believe me." sirlanz 16:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
unless you can find a better citation, either remove the content entirely due to wikipedia:verifiability but not just citation. And here is the transcript of a speaking of Elsie Leung, to support Hong Kong Standard Newspapers Limited is the publisher of The Standard at that time. Matthew_hk tc 16:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The fact is fairly covered in the subsequent reference (as noted in my edit summaries); the source upon which this debate is now focused is unnecessary and, worse, just wastes an interested reader's time in that it does not answer the question at all. There is no need to either replace it or remove the text. It is pointless to provide links to people talking about this fact; the issue is not about whether the fact is true or not, it's about sourcing it properly. sirlanz 16:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
It just not a good practice to remove a citation to make the entire statement without any referencing. It only after i add the speech of Leung and add back the annual report as supplement to make the statement have a proper referencing. https://www.hongkongdir.hk only referenced the name change of the company but not the business activity; http://www.hkabc.com.hk only referenced to the current subsidiary The Standard Newspapers Publishing Limited, which "Hong Kong Standard Newspapers Limited" is not the same subsidiary. Matthew_hk tc 17:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Territorial disputes in the South China SeaEdit

I find it a refreshing change (novelty?) to see someone (anyone?) making intelligent changes to this page. Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

South China Sea IslandsEdit

Dammit! And this one is refreshing too. Not only is 1958 not new now, but I doubt it really was as late as 1958 that they issued the declaration. (But, the truth be told, I would need to check that.) Anyway, the point of the post is to say again: Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It is very good You try to find mistakes in "Umbrella Movement", but not be in a rushEdit

You redress as mistake "to six to eight months", but this and other sentences based on English newspapers, so, please, You would redress You own mistakes back and not be in rush, because I first watch newspapers, then only write, so the grammar is more or less good. See quotation about "Three prominent Hong Kong pro-democracy student leaders were jailed for six to eight months on Thursday for storming the government ­headquarters compound at ­Tamar during an illegal protest that triggered the 79-day Occupy sit-ins of 2014." http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2107216/occupy-activists-joshua-wong-and-nathan-law-jailed-hong-kong --PoetVeches (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I always appreciate thanks and no less on this occasion. The grammar was incorrect. The current version is correct, i.e. "sentenced to ..." With respect, your work is great but lacking much in the English grammar department. As a team, I think we can do fine. sirlanz 14:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The SCMP went for "jailed for" which is perfectly legitimate but not quite as formal and strictly explicit as "sentenced to". In future references to English imperfection or otherwise, I strongly advise you abandon the SCMP as a guide. If your English education is to rest upon today's SCMP, you are in big trouble. sirlanz 14:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
No, You see the meaning: imprisonment "from 6 to 8 months", as well as other "from 8 to 13 months". In all, they all have different terms: one has 6 months, other 13 months. But in English it's mistake just to say: "Students jailed to 6 to 13 months", so journalists used the constructions, which you just changed in wrong way. Best wishes. --PoetVeches (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I regret to say you are simply coming up short on English comprehension. And you have mixed usage in your latest remark: "jailed to 6 to 13 months" would be wrong; the version now is "sentenced to 6 to 13 months" which means that sentences from as low as 6 and up to as high as 13 were handed down (pronounced), i.e. the current version expresses precisely the meaning you and the source call for. You need to go back and hit your English grammar textbooks. sirlanz 14:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
OK. I think You right. You are Well done with so good English. Best wishes! :) --PoetVeches (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

thank you for checkingEdit

Thanks a lot for checking many of my previous editing. It has fixed many of my poor grammar mistakes, although some of them maybe need to be discussed. :) --WWbreadOpen Your Mouth?) 20:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

For Chinese language, discuss specifics of my revert if you think it's still wrong. sirlanz 23:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

SCMPEdit

ICYMI, I responded to your clarification request on the SCMP talkpage. Your reply would be welcomed. Wingwraith (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

With regards to your comment on the SCMP tp...fair enough, and I'll message you again when I get around to it. In the meantime, you obviously have deep knowledge and strong views about the publication so I don't quite understand the dearth of your edits on that article... Wingwraith (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

RE: Communist Party of ChinaEdit

Stop removing content because of you're own POV. Its not fine to remove sourced content on the basis that "polemical; collateral attempt to bolster Deng reform as consistent with Marxism; unsourced: support required for suggestion that Lenin's practical response is Marxist rather than Leninist or socialist" and its not fine to remove content because you think the following "statement made in very limited context: "their" refers to "countries that have ideological prejudices against us [which] have also opened up to Confucius Institutes", so not a general statement of principle or inevitability of socialism".... I mean, what does "unsourced: support required for suggestion that Lenin's practical response is Marxist rather than Leninist or socialist" even mean? According to the Soviets, to Mao and to the whole ruling Communist movement of the 20th Century; Leninism is Marxism & Leninism is socialism... You won't find many people who say otherwise either. Its not a case if either this or that; its the same. Thats what Marxism-Leninism is, and why the CPC is officially a Marxist-Leninist party.

I worked my ass of writing that article, and I won't accept users removing content because of their own belief (and their beliefs only). You've obviously havn't read Pantsov's book Deng Xiaoping: A Revolutionary Life, nor have understanding of Marxism and have decided to give Xi Jinping's utterings new meanings. He just said yesterday that the Chinese model was the future and that the party had to oppose capitalism and that the CPC was the great heir to the October Revolution. Its not a coincident either that the 19th National Congress ends on the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution
I'm not having this debate. The statements you removed were perfectly sourced, and so are others. If you believe this and that, fine! That's fine by me, but don't remove referenced work because they don't fit you're POV.

Sorry if I sound pissed. I am. The reason is, if I'm to be very specific; I worked for a very long time on that article, and seeing people just remove content because they disagree with it.. Well, that's not OK. --TIAYN (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need: I'm not going to go down the route of discussing your personal ownership of the page; perhaps, you might reflect upon that quietly on your own. What is vital is that the page not be a tribute to the subject, nor that it be a substitute for its own publications and/or primary website. The function of the page is to describe the subject, not to promote or expound upon the world view of its actors. Finally, the published material ought to be, to the maximum extent feasible, sourced from independent sources rather than the subject's own mouthpieces. The quotation boxes removed by me fail the WP:POV test and they are apologia which go to support the subject's own propaganda. Additionally, detailed discussion of political theory does not belong on this page; you may consider expanding such material on the section's main page, for example. As much as I feel for your toil, regrettably, that never figures in any decision about page content, and rightly so.sirlanz 22:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
How is Alexander Pantsov's Deng Xiaoping: A Revolutionary Life and The New York Times not independent sources? --TIAYN (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@Trust Is All You Need: That's thoroughly misleading: the two quotes removed were pure statements of Vladimir Lenin and Xi Jinping, nothing to do with the independent sources you now mention, and without the least indication of why they appear on the page. Standing in quotation boxes as they do, they simply trumpet statements dear to the subject. If they are relevant to the page, they might be brought into it as part of its editorial content, but not as banners more suited to the subject's own propaganda pieces. sirlanz 08:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Independent statements used by authors to get a point through yes which you happen to not agree with.--TIAYN (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Let's be perfectly clear about this. The two quotation boxes deleted were not independent statements. They were, I repeat, direct quotations from leading figures in the subject, spokesmen of it. It is entirely false to suggest otherwise. I repeat, to place this material in boxes without comment, without any independent basis for their inclusion, without any contextual setting for them, is to present them as WP:PROMO. If you have a sound basis for your position, make it but do not seek to perpetuate a blatant lie. If they are not brought into the article with appropriate contextual justification, they will be removed for that reason. sirlanz 08:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The contextual setting for them is obvious. The Lenin quote is in the same place in which the article summarises how it manage to rationalise market reforms and the other is in the view of capitalism section, which describes the party views on capitalism. For instance, the Pantsov book uses the quote to showcase an early Marxist stance for marketization and how Deng, and others, were able to access these early thoughts when they were educated in the Soviet Union during the 1920s.
Just because Xi Jinping and a communist made a quote doesn't make them irrelevant. That has nothing to do with WP:PROMO or propaganda. Its like saying the Iraq War shouldn't include Mandelas quote that Bush initiated the Iraq war because (a) he was after oil and (b) because the UN General Secretary was black. If it is relevant, of course it should. Many would disagree, but that doesn't make it breach WP:PROMO.

I'm done with this conversation. --TIAYN (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in Umbrella MovementEdit

This is not my opinion that Joshua Wong and Nathan Law are most famous leaders of Umbrella Revolution - there you can read in presented references from CCN "Wong and Law are two of the most famous protest leaders to come out of the 2014 demonstrations, which shut down parts of central Hong Kong for more than two months." http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/24/asia/hong-kong-joshua-wong-nathan-law-umbrella/index.html?sr=twCNN102417hong-kong-joshua-wong-nathan-law-umbrella1207PMStory, and many other publications (as Netflix movie about Joshua Wong) - so it looks you have a bias against that the persons as if they are not important in the Umbrella Movement. You look like a personal censor for the Umbrella Movement! Do You really study the Umbrella Movement? Then You would add your own study with references sources instead cutting out text that you didn't supply in the article. Why didn't you? --PoetVeches (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

More care is required. Material must not enter the encyclopaedia which is neither accurate, nor faithful to independent sources of quality, nor expressed to at least a workmanlike standard. PoetVeches' material added on Umbrella Movement failed each of those tests. The grammar and expression are far below the standard we need in WP. It distorts the source material. Case in point: PoetVeches' edit includes "After sentencing ... the presiding judge also accused 'learned figures'" which is flawed in no less than three factual matters: (1) the sentence begs the question "Of what?", so it is meaningless as it stands; (2) the expression used by the judge was "individuals of learning" - we must not place in direct quotations marks words which do not appear in the source material; (3) the comment was made BEFORE sentencing, not AFTER, which is a point of the utmost importance because it is highly controversial to speak of remarks made after sentence rather than before - if made before the court adjourned, after sentence, they may be treated as not forming part of the judge's reasoning in arriving at sentence; if AFTER the court adjourned, then a Pandora's box is opened, including probable misconduct on the part of the judge. This is just one example of the approach of PoetVeches to WP editing. A great deal more circumspection is required and, most of all, attention to grammar so that at least the material reads intelligibly. Needless to say, there is no POV issue here. PoetVeches might like to visit Occupy Central with Love and Peace and inspect my activities there to satisfy him/herself of that. My only POV is that WP should not be a receptacle for wayward trash. sirlanz 03:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I will not dispute all texts you deleted. I write here about that that you every time try to shorten all sourced text about Joshua Wong, Alex Chow, Nathan Law, etc., under pretext redressing typos (as you call it "numerous errors", but I have doubt about "numerous") or "overdetail" as if readers will not be interested to know all the details about the leaders of Umbrella revolution. When readers read the article they will not understand why Joshua Wong and Nathan Law freed, while Alex Chow remained in prison, because you deleted all the update, explaining your deletion with pretext as if it was "overdetail" and errors. I may consider that you has bias against the students, and other leaders of Umbrella Revolution, and I notify about it, because you can be considered as a vandal. Postscript: The same I wrote on the "Umbrella Movement" talk page. Postscript 2: Your contribution to article "Occupy Central" is unknown for me, so I don't discuss this here as not relating to the article "Umbrella Movement". --PoetVeches (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I put on you talk page last warning for second deletion update about the name of Pik Uk Prison where Alex Chow imprisoned!Edit

Why do you delete my update - especially about the name of Pik Uk Prison where Alex Chow imprisoned? This is very important detail about subject of the article! I disagree again with your deletion as disruptive. You cannot delete endless time good verified text under pretext like: "WP not news site", etc.

You cannot delete warning of vandalism on your own talk page!

This is already second and last warning by me. I cannot block your user page, because I am not an admin, but I ask admins for warning you preserving from deleting good sourced text supplied by other Wikipedians or block your user page for first time for a week.

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Alex Chow. PoetVeches (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Sirlanz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Assistance to other editorsEdit

I see you are a long-time editor on here. I'm doing some groundwork on the subdistricts and townships of Wuhan and Hubei. I would appreciate any input and criticism you have on what I have done so far. Most of what I have done centers around this page: List of township-level divisions of Hubei. I would like to pick up the tricks from long-time editors and avoid wasting my time. Thanks! Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I always try my best to provide informative edit summaries while being economical. I hope the information provided in them assists all other editors. You are welcome to raise any matters with me on this page anytime. sirlanz 10:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!!Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. You have done a lot of editing work on pages I have contributed to. I don't want to do work that will be deleted later; your edits help me make higher quality edits. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

You are welcome. Funny thing is that I was hovering over a link to thank you, but didn't want it misunderstood as thanks for any one particular edit, as what I appreciated was your whole series of edits -- well commented edits -- generally improving an article whose subject was in the news, and not just concentrating on the recent news. So thank you! -- ToE 13:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Jack CharlesEdit

Hi, in the "Early life" section of the Jack Charles page, you've written "He was long of the mistaken belief he was a Koori.", this contradicts the introduction to that page, which suggests that he is a Koori. Should that sentence read "He was long of the mistaken belief he wasn't a Koori."? WillKemp (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussionEdit

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 104.163.153.162 (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Noted. I have also noted that the complaint was raised by this IP editor in regard to my brusque manner in nominating Michael Rogge for deletion, specifically for having described the page offensively, as "rubbish". I subsequently also noted that, just a few days after the aforesaid complaint, the same IP editor commenced a nomination for deletion contribution with the sentence, "A very large piece of garbage." It seems that my error, in that editor's view, must have been in my failure to particularise the magnitude of the material to which I took offence. Or the IP editor is an appalling hypocrite. sirlanz 13:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

no proper source; general page linked onlyEdit

It looks like many or most of Supasun's meteorology-related contributions seem to lack a proper source [2] Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

More on this-- User_talk:Supasun#Chinese_Meteorology_Citation_method Shangchuan Island Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Is there any way to cite that type of resource? That user is doing some really valuable work. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The editor concerned has an automated method to generate the climate section, which is at the seat of the problem. He/she is not taking the requisite care to ensure that material cited has references accessible to readers. I would not get too excited about the value of the work; it's being done with little effort (see the speed with which each page is updated by this editor). If there is no proper link available to the relevant page or at least to a page which is intelligible and usable by WP English readers (as in this case), it's not adequate and a better one has to be found before publication. More work is needed to come up with an accessible source or we simply can't publish. sirlanz 05:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Joshua WongEdit

You again. That said I'm going to modify your revert (esp. the donation conspiracy theory part) and it's been well established by the WP community that we don't use that source for anything except for stating the views of its government. Can we please work together to get rid of the low-hanging fruit first because I/we really need the time to edit the stuff that matters instead of spending it on these useless edits. Wingwraith (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be helpful if Wingwraith would take a little more care in editing to ensure that what he/she publishes does not go beyond or distort sources provided. sirlanz 08:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
My edits are fine, you just aren't reading the material carefully enough (here's a good example). Wingwraith (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the particular words to which you now draw attention do appear in the second reference, not the first. It would have been better to attach the references directly to their respective related material making verification easier. What's more important, though, is that Wingwraith's phrasing subtly disconnects the status of the material from claim to evidence. Despite the passage of three years since the events in question, not a shred of evidence has emerged to support the claims of "frequent meetings with US consulate personnel" or receipt of "covert donations from Americans". WP's job is not to scour all sources to find every wild and unsupported outlier nonsense people say, even if WP accompanies that with denials/counterbalancing material. The alternate voice must have some level of credibility and not be a lone one. This particular material is best left unrepeated here. sirlanz 23:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmong peopleEdit

Can you please explain why you regard the fixing of a reference and the addition of detail to a sentence as “disruptive editing” as you did here: [3] All the best Wikirictor 17:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I had no intention of challenging your edit. Unfortunately, it was a trade-off in dealing with all the disruptive editing of Karim Masouar. I thought it a small sacrifice for a much larger gain. My apologies. sirlanz 02:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI:Third opinionEdit

Edit warring is a pointless waste of time, and I've requested a WP:3O here. Keahapana (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

There has been no "war" because Keahapana has gone directly to whingeing about editing before actually engaging in a discourse about the substance of the editing that I have done, i.e. providing specifics, by way, for example, of alternative edits (sourced, logical and not internally conflicting). Keahapana, instead of responding with arrows and barbs, just wants to have a "war" somewhere else entirely. sirlanz 23:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Nicholas Clinch) has been reviewed!Edit

Thanks for creating Nicholas Clinch, Sirlanz!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

A well-written article and a useful addition to Wikipedia.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018Edit

Stop icon

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You should also note, per the header of the talk page, that all articles relating to the Troubles are subject to a 1rr restriction - no more than one revert in 24 hours. I strongly suggest you self revert before an uninvolved admin happens along and blocks you-----Snowded TALK 06:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The history of this little issue should be better understood. The bombing aftermath photo was introduced by Volvlogia yesterday. The edit was reverted by Ernio48. No reason for reversion was provided. I reinstated the original edit. Ernio48 reverted again, again with no reason. I reinstated. It is a serious breach of the basic principles of editing to undo people's contributions without providing any reason whatsoever. It also leaves editors such as myself no more the wiser as to what reasoning might support the reversion. Such action cannot form the foundation of any discussion because it places an onus on an editor such as myself to simply start a talk discussion with "Hey, why did you do that?" If that's the modus operandi to be adopted here, nothing will be achieved. In this instance, firstly it must be understood that Ernio48 is the editor challenging material by reverting editing, not sirlanz. Secondly, only after my rejecting Ernio48's intervention did that editor find the motivation to provide the explanation which ought to have been included with their reversion of the original edit, and that was accompanied by persistence in propositions such as consensus required before editing, as a blanket rule, as justification for reversion. It's up to Ernio48 now to develop the case on Talk. But let's be clear: this would have gone a whole lot differently if Ernio48 showed a modicum of respect for other editors by explaining why he thinks their work should be erased when he/she chooses to do so. sirlanz 06:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
None of that justifies you breaking the 1rr rule and you are still subject to sanction - I strongly advise you to self-revert. You have engaged on the talk page which means you have seen the notice. -----Snowded TALK 07:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, how on Earth am I to know that there is a 1RR rule on the page when I engage in editing it? I do not visit every page's Talk page before editing, nor would I contemplate doing so in future. This 1RR special is a pretty poor mechanism because even the most diligent editor is not going to have the least awareness of it until he/she breaches it none the wiser. I should add that being bombastic about the rule in those circumstances is disingenuous because you are assuming I knew there was some special affecting the article. sirlanz 07:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
You edited the talk page and its right there at the start of the page. But yes, you may miss it which is why I've told you about it. It applies to ALL articles which are in any way connected with the Troubles, -----Snowded TALK 20:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I did not miss anything when doing the subject editing. There is nothing to warn the editor at that stage. I visited the Talk page after the event. That's the point: the process is flawed. If there is a special condition affecting an article, then the editor needs to be notified when editing, not after the infraction. sirlanz 23:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Then raise it ANI or another forum - until then we warn people if they commit an infraction. You have now been warned so breaching the 1RR restriction on ANY Troubles related article could earn you a block. The talk page of all articles will have the notice if you feel the need to check. -----Snowded TALK 04:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Snowded: Sorry, I'm sure you meant well here, but your comments here are inaccurate, and that's not appropriate given the authoritative tone you took. Let me be clear: this user was never subject to sanction for 1RR, as neither of the awareness criteria were satisfied. In order for page restrictions such as this to be enforced, there needs to be a formal {{ds/editnotice}} on the page, which there is not, and the user needs to have been formally made aware using {{alert}}, which he was not. It actually doesn't even count if you just tell them about the restrictions in your own words, it has to be done using an unmodified, official template, which makes no threats, warnings, or implications of wrongdoing (this was done below as an example). Talk page headers do not satisfy the awareness criteria in any way, and page restrictions are enforceable only if the awareness criteria were satisfied prior to the violation. I will add the required editnotice to The Troubles, and if you're aware of any other Troubles-related articles that require an editnotice, let me know. Swarm 23:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Addendum: Actually, this is an interesting case that is genuinely confusing. I'm not even sure if I'm right on this, so I apologize if I'm not. The remedy is a blanket 1RR page restriction that is specifically enforceable without warning, on the sole condition of the talk notice being placed. However, this predates the standardized discretionary sanctions. So, it's unclear whether to interpret that "no warning" provision as something that has been superseded by the standardized practice that requires the strict notifications, or as something that is specifically exempt from that practice. I think I'll file a clarification request. Swarm 23:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you are wrong, or were wrong in respect of the past! The notice is clear on the talk page and I referenced that so it links to the arbcom resolution. Yes there is a template but I can never find the bloody thing when I need it; if you can give me the form I'll store it for future use (unless its one of those admin only things). I've seen people blocked over the years if they had been made aware without the template and often innocent editors got caught up in a 1RR restriction thinking it was the normal 3RR. Hence my alerting this editor and suggesting he self revert before he got caught up in it. Interested to see what happens with clarification -----Snowded TALK 04:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, you weren’t in the wrong here, that restriction is very specific and does correspond with what you said. It just seemed wrong to me given the fact that notification procedures are standardized, and they are very strict. In that context, the fact that a page restriction could have such an almost-nonexistent notification requirement seemed unreasonable and unrealistic. But, these awareness rules were put into place more recently. The editnoice requirement, for example, was just implemented this year. I would guess that ArbCom intended for the stricter, standardized notification procedures to apply to that restriction (and every other), but IF that is the case, we’d have no way of knowing because the restriction was never formally altered to comply with the new rules. Regardless of what the actual intent is, the issue could definitely be made more clear! Swarm 05:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Anyone who has lived through the various Troubles and British and Irish edit wars & sock farms over the years onelearns the value of that that rigid restriction and the need to make people aware of it. Hardened warriors in these fields can come over as a little to assertive as a result so apologies to Sitianz if it came over that way; I was doing my best to make you aware that you were in danger. A lot of admins who patrol Troubles pages are also hardened and tend to impose a block fast -----Snowded TALK 06:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI noticeEdit

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  Minimax Regret (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for The TroublesEdit

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding The Troubles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 10:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Please note that this is simply an alert to help clarify the sanctions and to help you avoid problems. It does however mean that you can be sanctioned, but it isn't meant as a comment by me on your actions. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

NRHPs in Birmingham / Jefferson County, AlabamaEdit

Hey, there is a big system of list-articles covering U.S. NRHP-listed places (under List of RHPs) and other related systems covering other historic site registers. It would be great if you'd be interested in contributing to developing them. There is wp:HSITES and wp:NRHP wikiprojects which would welcome you.

But I saw you moved National Register of Historic Places listings in Jefferson County, Alabama to List of Historic Places in Jefferson County with edit summary "Mouthful; the WP's objective ought not to be to simply reproduce a list from elsewhere but, rather, to present its own list, albeit relying upon sources such as the National Register." I was able to reverse it, and did, because that was not consistent with the system set up. I do sympathize with your view that the name is a mouthful, i agree. But there were reasons (which could be revisited, of course) why the mouthful was chosen. If you actually want to take on discussing that, perhaps you could post at wt:NRHP, say. But it would be better just to help out with any of its articles. Perhaps you have any knowledge, capacity to get photos of, say, Red Mountain Suburbs Historic District? --Doncram (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am a aware of the structure that has long existed and I knew my edit would raise questions. Way back when an error was made. It is not WP's function to just write up lists (albeit embellished, paraphrased, trimmed, etc.) that are prepared by someone else. What these pages do, in effect, is a job for the National Register's website, not WP. Or, put another way, WP is doing their job for them. I also knew that there was no way anyone was going to be with me on changing the whole thing, so there you have it. The material is, of course, very good though I don't think I'll be back as there's so much else needs doing ... sirlanz 00:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your warring on the Lowell page.Edit

You claim there's no source for her having been a polyglot, yet you revert the text to linguist, for which there is no source. Makes no sense whatsoever to revert one for the other, equally unsourced. The fact is that she knew a number of languages. Okay by me not to mention that in the brief blurb on the Lowell page, but if it's going to be mentioned, the label should be unambiguous: polyglot. Linguist is ambiguous. Please stop the nonsensical warring. 47.32.20.133 (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Suzanne Pepper) has been reviewed!Edit

Thanks for creating Suzanne Pepper, Sirlanz!

Wikipedia editor Innisfree987 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks so much for your contributions! I've add some references to reviews of one of her books--if possible adding independent discussion of her or her work helps a lot to establish notability and avoid any risk an NPR reviewer might send to AfD. Plus of course, useful for further expansion of the entry! Thanks much.

To reply, leave a comment on Innisfree987's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Innisfree987 (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop Reverts on Jerzy Kukuczka page == Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussionEdit

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ==

Hello,

You've been reverting my edit to your own (incorrect information) on the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerzy_Kukuczka

Neither Kukuczka, nor his family is from the "highlands". Also, "goral" is a slang term compatible to "hillbilly". Your edit is simply keeping false information on a page of one of the greatest high altitude climbers in the world. Please stop, as the information is wrong and against Wikipedia policies. Treat this as a warning before a report is submitted against you.

Thank You

What is important to note here is that the edit complained of introduces a repetition of the subject's birth-date, sufficient basis for reversion in itself, and the competing editor has not taken any step to deal with this plain error despite being notified of it in edit summaries repeatedly. Second, the opinions of the competing editor are not reflected in the WP article on Gorals, and thus appear to be outlier views, i.e. the reference to the subject's Goral background is not as pejorative as the editor suggests (or at all). What is worth noting is that the statement is not supported by any source and if that were the editor's complaint, he would find no objection here. I have now tagged it. sirlanz 01:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Postscript: source now provided for Goral claim; it appears the competing editor is merely on a WP:POV crusade and has no basis for challenge. sirlanz 01:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Source of Goral is plinly made up by the user. Additionally, there is no need to mention the birthplace again, due to repetition stated above. Katowice, is not near the "highlands" which contradicts calling anyone from that region a "hillbilly". This is plainly false information. Information already exists about "Gorals" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorals. As stated on that page, the translation also means "Highlanders" due to the settlers living near mountains in significantly higher elevation than the rest of the country. This does NOT support the claim that someone from Katowice is a "Goral". It's actually plainly FALSE reporting.

August 2018Edit

Stop icon

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
This is a courtesy warning, placed AFTER another user opened an AN3 thread about the subject. StrikerforceTalk 18:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sirlanz. Both parties have been warned against either adding or removing the term 'Goral' from the Jerzy Kukuczka article per the result of the edit warring complaint. No further change can be made without a prior consensus on the talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

About the snow mountainEdit

The government is the government. Whether you like it or not, it exists, and it is admitted by most of UN member countries. Its voice cannot be replaced by some websites. Moreover, I have been there days before, talking with local people, including local Naxi people and the landlord of hostel. They have not heard about it. There are something has nothing to do with their uncertain exploration, and you should not delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryZhang (talkcontribs) 09:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Do not make any comment if you have never been there. You are a Chinese, and there's a Chinese saying that 'What you experienced is the fact.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryZhang (talkcontribs) 09:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a common sense in law that one thing does not happen if you have no evidence to prove it. You know? Where is the evidence to support your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryZhang (talkcontribs) 09:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for editing the intro to the Republic of China (1912-1949) to something more sensible.

Please feel free to add your voice to the talk page (there are several relevant sections at the top), so that we can demonstrate a consensus on this. RitKill (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Note to Sirlanz re edit on John Worrell Carrington pageEdit

Greetings Sirlanz. You are quite right on keeping detail and explanations out of the first paragraph. I did it because the Wikipedia page on the Chief Justices of Hong Kong is still titled "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong," and a reader might avoid confusion with an early explanation. However, I suspect the proper solution would have been to change the name of the page on the Chief Justices to just that: Chief Justice of Hong Kong. Seeing that you are in Hong Kong, and much more practiced in Wikipedia than myself, you may want to make the change. If not, I'd be happy to do it if you agree that it is for the best. Let me know. JamesSBenton (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)JamesSBenton

Thanks for the comment/invitation. I think the distinction someone is trying to make is just a load of bollocks. In normal parlance, the Chief Justice is the one and only such post in Hong Kong and it heads up the Judiciary. Thus, he/she is the Chief Justice of Hong Kong. Before 97, he/she sat as chief judge (note, generic) of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court; after 97, as the chief judge (generic) of the Court of Final Appeal. The suggestion that there is error in the pre-97 use of the term "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court" when it is equally suggested that "Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal" is currently correct usage is a distinction without a difference. But before changing the page content, I suppose one has to dig up legislation and look at the expressions used, delimit the terms with the necessary qualifications, etc. I may do it some day but you're welcome to have a stab at it. In the press, he/she is the Chief Justice or Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal (descriptively, note all entitled Mr/Mdm Justice X) now and was the Chief Justice or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court before. (The fact the chief judge (generic) of the Court of Appeal of the High Court is now the Chief Judge of the High Court is neither here nor there but the source of quite some confusion among those not clear about the structure) sirlanz 06:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Itchy fingers - I've done it. Welcome to improve on it, if you can! By reference to legislation, perhaps. sirlanz 06:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Sirlanz -- Your edits are what were needed. After finishing a few other projects unrelated to Wikipedia I'll be putting together a better developed account of Carrington, using his papers, and will welcome your input when it goes live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesSBenton (talkcontribs) 16:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Sirlanz. 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 Veil (upcoming film) listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Veil (upcoming film). Since you had some involvement with the The Veil (upcoming film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018Edit

Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Microwave auditory effect; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring at Microwave auditory effect. You didn't need the above warning, as you have previously been repeatedly warned about edit-warring, and have even been the subject of a report at the administrators' edit-warring noticeboard, so you are certainly aware of the policy on edit-warring; nevertheless, you did receive a warning specifically about this case, and you continued with your edit-warring. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sirlanz (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

(1) A healthy, reasoned and polite debate (at least as far as every contribution by me is concerned) was concurrently being healthily engaged in on the article's Talk page. This is not an appropriate case to impose any sort of block. Read the page. (2) The fact I have engaged in vigorous clashes from time to time in 11 years of editing is an unsound foundation for basing this, first, block on my account in all those years. A balanced view taking into account all the positive contributions made over those years to the encyclopaedia ought to be engaged. (3) Even if a negative view were taken of the particular reverting carried out by me on this occasion, the state of play at the time you decided on this block was that I had bowed out and left the article sans my edit. So why close the barn door after the horse has bolted? It appears to me that the blocking policy was not followed, i.e. if one looks at the timings and the state of play at the time of blocking, the requisite imminent damage was not present, nor any absence of congeniality (from me - there was a concurrent acrimonious debate going on on the subject by two other editors in which I was not engaged). (3A) Before deciding to block, the current state of affairs should be observed, i.e. the last reversion by me was reverted by VQuakr just nine minutes later, at 1059 on 6 December and there was no response from me, then 18 hours later JamesBWatson decides to block my account. (4) The active editing step taken was the deletion of sourced content. I entered to restore that content; that is, the stable version was disrupted by another editor. As I understand it, the consensus onus then falls on the deleting party (not me) before making the desired change. I believe you've simply got the wrong editor as my action was protecting the consensus principle. (5) I fear this abrupt decision to block may have been influenced by the unfortunate late involvement of the sockpuppet (so expertly snagged by JamesBWatson (nice work!)) leaping into the debate at the end and happening to do so on the same side as me, tainting my activity. Clearly, I want nothing to do with this vandals. Overall, is action is misconceived. sirlanz 00:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Clarification on stable version. My impression that I was reverting a stable version was wrong. I see in the history now that the material I was restoring was a fresh addition at the time which had been rapidly reverted by VQuakr, so as regards consensus onus, I may be mistaken in raising my point (4). The reason I had the wrong impression is that the edit notification email link took me to the deletion of text and, as I had not received any earlier email notification about the new text creation, I relied on my sense that it was some considerable time since my last edit on the page, i.e. it must have been a deletion of stable content. So I went too fast about things and should have looked more closely (one wants to move on, as all active editors know, and some mistakes are inevitable - my apology to other editors for all such mistakes I have made in the past). I continued my interest in the edit on the basis of that misconception. A separate point that does arise, though, is that, in practice, the first revert breaching the 3RR was, in reality, VQuakr's, ironically the editor who issued the edit warring notice, if one takes the three reverters as a group. Technically, I guess that does not make it a 3RR at that point but, in practical terms, that's certainly how it feels. sirlanz 01:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I note now (only now) that VQuakr put an anti-edit warring notice on this page on 4 December. I did not see it then. Seeing it today, I thought it must have been posted overnight, my time, just in advance of the block. If I had seen it timeously, I would not have made my edit on 6 December which triggered this block. sirlanz 02:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Generally speaking your rationale should go inside the unblock template. Reading through the below, I parse your statements as, "This block was unjust, I did nothing wrong," followed by, "oh, actually I might be mistaken," followed by, "yeah, actually I did do the thing I got blocked for." Self-awareness is great, but since it's clear (to you as well now, I think) that the block was in line with policy, you'll need to appeal it in the usual manner. Yunshui  13:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sirlanz (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Simply because in what I have stated in response to the block, I plainly fully satisfy the unblock criterion: "that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead". As regards Yunshui's parse of my explanation, it is fair as far as it goes but it was an oversimplification: My retraction was of my point (4) and my observation about missing the edit-warring notice was a matter of circumstance, not affecting the principle of any of the points made. In considering my appeal, you may observe that I am in no doubt as to why I was blocked and I have already (the 18-hour pause) demonstrated that I had already ended my reversion activity, i.e. that I "would not do it again"; and there must surely be no doubt that I am a particularly productive and conscientious contributor to the encyclopaedia.

Decline reason:

The blocked has expired. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sirlanz (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

The block has expired without any response to my appeal. I continue my appeal. I invite whoever looks at this to read my post-block post to Talk:Microwave_auditory_effect where I describe how the edit-warring complaining editor lied blatantly and repeatedly about the source in contention, in service of a dispute in which he/she accused the text-originating editor (not me) of failure to edit in good faith. That editor had, on any view, been completely civil and positive in his/her conduct in relation to the contested text, in stark contrast to VQuakr. I have had nothing to do with VQuakr at any time in the past but I now note the generally and consistently abrasive performance of VQuakr in his/her daily activities on our encyclopaedia. The block was technically correct (breach of 3RR) but the background to it is such that it should not have been triggered.

Decline reason:

The blocked has expired. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:TPG and WP:NPAEdit

I understand you are frustrated, but edits such as this are simply not appropriate, as someone with over a decade of editing experience must know. Edits to article talk pages should focus on content, not other editors. Can you please consider self-reverting and making another attempt without the attacks? VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Truly sorry you have to put up with VQuakr's antics. It seems that his pattern of overly punitive blocking continues even towards an editor as respected as yourself. VQuakr seems intent on censoring any information confirming the weaponization of MAE, limiting discussion to only talk pages, away from public scrutiny.PaulGosar (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)PaulGosar
@PaulGosar: VQuakr is not an administrator and cannot block users. They may warn and eventually report, then an uninvolved administrator could chose to block if necessary (supported by the community, confirmed sockpuppet, obvious disruption, etc). User rights can be listed using the "view user groups" link in the vertical toolbar, available from the particular user's page. —PaleoNeonate – 01:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Pardon for Morant, Handcock and Witton revertEdit

Sorry, I didn't mean to revert your recent changes to the Pardon for Morant, Handcock and Witton article. I've now reverted my revert. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Pardon for Pardon slip granted. Consider yourself thoroughly pardoned. sirlanz 15:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philip Dulhunty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rose Bay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussionEdit

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Block (New Guard)Edit

You have been blocked from editing for 36 hours due to edit warring. Please do better. El_C 01:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Sirlanz (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #24831 was submitted on Apr 22, 2019 11:39:37. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Sirlanz (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #24835 was submitted on Apr 22, 2019 17:07:20. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

No idea what this is about. I have not appealed the block. To this day, I find the WP:WAR on the edit warring policy page inadequate in failing to explain the relevance (for surely there must be) of who "starts" the conflicting editing activity. It seems to me I was making originating edits which were being reverted by the conflicting editor so that the first 4th revert transgression was by that editor, not me. In any event, it would have been better to avoid the conflict altogether, though, in the rush and tumble of things, that seems all too tiresome. The page I lighted upon was a jaw-droppingly poorly sourced and somewhat deficiently composed article making numerous grand (and seemingly sensational) claims without specific bases. In my view, the grander the claim, the more specific and robust the source necessary to sustain it, hence my very robust editing attitude to the page. It has improved, thanks to the source found by the conflicting editor, though masses of work is still needed. sirlanz 17:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
We've recently had a troll faking UTRS unblock requests, and it seems like this is another example. Best just ignore it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

ANI-noticeEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Xinjiang Pages and User:Alexkyoung. --Darthkayak (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Elisa.rolleEdit

Hi. The discussion about the above user is roaming over many different locations, so I thought I would post my request here, and you can answer it here or refer me to a different page where I can find the answer. Anyway, you posted as follows: "The editor appears incapable of writing anything but seriously flawed English, then the text switches gears to something flawless. The editor plainly has a fundamental lack of English competence driving the irresistibility of copying others' text." Can you give me an example of what you are talking about? Yours and best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I was primarily drawing attention to the self-evident problem with the editor, as plainly demonstrated in the content of that editor's own posts in seeking to be reinstated, i.e. unattributed copied perfect text embedded in the editor's original, fractured English. Secondarily, I was making reference to the general standard of prose brought to the encyclopaedia by the editor. I am not, at this point, able to embark on the time-consuming task of delivering specific references (they abound); I strongly support the case against reinstatement but am too busy to prioritise making the case. I sincerely hope others do. sirlanz 00:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

DiscriminationEdit

That's a "thin end of the wedge" argument. But the appropiate place for discussion is the article talkpage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Appeal for adviceEdit

Hi Sirlanz, I've noticed that you've reverted quite a number of my large contributions. While reversion due to lack of references is an acceptable course of action, I find your charge of "overdetail" curious. As a new Wikipedian there is always a need to learn; could you please direct me to any guidelines which lay out how concise one is required to write in this encyclopaedic environment? I would appreciate your contribution to my body of work as you appear to be quite learned. AwakenedWorld (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you refer me back to which articles that would be? I'm happy to explain my reasoning. sirlanz 07:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Definitely! If you have an email, I think that would be the best medium. AwakenedWorld (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019Edit

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
This block is for edit warring BLP-violating material into the Second Cold War article after I'd already blocked another editor for this, as well as edit warring other material I noted did not meet WP:BLP back into the Gladys Liu article. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nick-D Okay, let's start with the second half of your reason for this block, the "edit warring other material", that's a reference to Gladys Liu where you suppressed material (not mine) stating that the subject has been investigated on the ground that the subject had not. My edit summary reinstating the statement drew attention to the source which stated "Gladys Liu's association with Chinese figures who were deemed a security risk was the subject of an ASIO investigation". Your response was that "source does not say that she was investigated by ASIO" and "The story states explicitly that they looked into the guest list." You breached 3RR (you began by deletion of the material introduced by another editor only yesterday) and I had only reverted you twice. Your edit summaries were a flat distortion of the source content, so your three reverts of the material were groundless. On the first half of your ground for blocking me, it is extremely harsh to treat me as an edit-warrior when I made only one edit, particularly as my edit was AFTER you had just breached 3RR in warring with another editor over that material. I had also made a plea for calm and reason to prevail, instead of using unnecessary threats damaging the tone of the community. Finally, I wish to draw attention to the policy that admins should not exercise their power of blocking other editors if the grounds for the block arise out of that admin's own edits. This is a matter of basic procedural fairness. So I invite you to remove the block. sirlanz 10:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
My edits to both articles have been only to remove BLP violations, which is a core role of admins, so I am not WP:INVOLVED as you suggest. You don't get a get out of jail card for edit warring a BLP violation back into an article because other editors have removed it multiple times - it actually makes the matter worse for you (editors are responsible for what they add to articles, regardless of who originally wrote it). Please also not that even if I were WP:INVOLVED this would not limit my ability to respond to obvious BLP violations per WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPADMINS. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Your freedom to intercede in your own dispute over BLP is limited to "clear violation" and "if less clear", you are obliged to refer to a disinterested admin. You have no basis to invoke that freedom in respect of the second part of your reason to block me. What is clear is that you not only misunderstood the source but also misrepresented its effect in your edit summary. This was nowhere near "clear" and ought to have been referred. You abused your privilege to further your own enterprise, in breach of WP:BLPREMOVE. As to the first part of your grounds, you fail to take into account that the subject is a politician. Controversial material by definition will and must appear in BLP of such persons as their credibility is a key feature of their success or failure in the course of public life they have chosen to adopt. These are not ordinary BLPs. The material you deleted from the Second Cold War was typical politically oriented material, did not touch for one moment upon Ms Liu's personal life or character and was supported by highly regarded sources (The Guardian and ABC). Its phrasing could have been improved, perhaps, but there was no breach of WP:BLP whatsoever. What's worse, in your original deletion edit summary you gave as your reason that the material "falsely claim's(sic) she's Chinese". I'm completely unable to begin to understand the basis for this suggestion. Her Chinese extraction is perfectly and undeniably established. Her surname might be a clue to that, I guess. What is apparent is an attempt by you to whitewash material in favour of the subject. I urge you to unblock me or I shall consider whether to take this to appeal. sirlanz 12:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


You reverted my correction regarding HK-PRC relations without useful explanation. It would appear to me that the sole difference is this: what is the definition of “early 2000s”? Please define — in the appropriate Talk page, prior to editing — what you understand to be the difference between “since the early 2000s,” and “in the early 2000s.” Thank you. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit Warring on "Government of Hong Kong"Edit

It seems that you and 100.2.53.186 have been edit warring and both of you have broken the three-revert rule. Please discuss the edits with the other user and come to an agreement before continuing to edit war. Trg5503 (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit on Tatar article talk pageEdit

Excuse me, why did you revert my edit?? you have no right to revert any edits on any article's talk page!!!! I was discussing an edit war issue on the article! I wasn't having fun! There's an edit war going on, and I was trying to understand why the User Vaultralph was insisting on making those edits without giving an explanation on the edit summary! Now, can you explain me why did you revert it?!! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The Talk page is subject to constraints. It is a venue for discussing article content. It is not the place for personal messages or any type of discussion not addressing an aspect of the article content. The material deleted was a personal message appealing to one other specific editor to join forces against a third but included not a single word about anything in the article. It failed the basic requirements for posting. And it is highly desirable to keep irrelevant material off Talk pages and preserve them for worthwhile discussion contributing directly to the formation of relevant, verifiable article content. sirlanz 00:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
firstly, it is not your job to keep talk pages organized.
"to join forces against a third"? Are you serious? What are you talking about? "but included not a single word about anything in the article"? did you even read the "material deleted"? I was asking user Oliszydlowski about the way to undo Vaultralph's edit On the Article automatically. And I tried to make the user Vaultralph explain his edits on the article. why the heck did you delete it? please don't get yourself in any discussion if you are not willing to contribute in editing the article mentioned. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
(by talk reader) Sirlanz is correct. You asked another editor to conspire against a third in order to get your preferred version. You are what's wrong with Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Red Cross Pageant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vogue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Too Blessed to be StressedEdit

Your deletion nomination for Too Blessed to be Stressed is missing a deletion rationale. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrote one but it did not appear; guess it was me but ... 02:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

John Chalmers (disambiguation)Edit

Sirlanz, per your edits at John Chalmers (disambiguation), I get your concern about redundancy, but your edits contravene MOS:DABPIPE, which states that "Apart from the exceptions listed below, piping and redirects should generally not be used on disambiguation pages". See also numerous analogous examples like John Smith, Tom Jones, etc. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

You are correct and I am not unaware of this. What interests me most, though, is substance. If we look at the guide, the rationale for the policy is set out:

This is to make it clear to the reader which topic is the subject of an article title. For example, on the disambiguation page Moment, in the entry Moment (physics), the parenthetical disambiguator "(physics)" should be visible so that the reader sees which "moment" topic the entry is about, among others sharing the same base title. In many cases, what would be hidden by a pipe is exactly what the user would need in order to find their intended article.

My approach to this particular disambig page (and, indeed, it can be applied generally) is to serve precisely and fully that very purpose. My approach is an enhancement of this policy, i.e. by letting the explication appear naturally in the very concise text which follows the article name. Slavish compliance has ill effects, viz your reversion of my edit leaves us with repetition of the delineator for almost every entry. You've taken us backwards. I know, of course, that your technically valid response to this can be "Take it to MOS talk" but surely we can look at this page in front of us and ask what serves the reader best without going through a mountain of bureaucracy. sirlanz 07:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
There's doesn't seem to be anything unique about this particular disambiguation article. Your same rationale could be applied to John Smith, Tom Jones, or any of many hundreds (thousands?) of similar articles. Given that consistency across the encyclopedia is a virtue, doesn't it make more sense to challenge the status quo of the MOS given that you think such repetition is a problem? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation at the Rose McGowan articleEdit

After this edit was made, you made this edit. In what way do you think it is appropriate to add this pointy WP:Synthesis? And by "pointy WP:Synthesis," I mean you (not sources) essentially stating, "But look, everyone, she didn't give Harvey Weinstein the same pass. Hmmm." And, yes, I reverted both additions.

I see that you were blocked by Nick-D just last year for a BLP violation. This latest edit by you further shows your lack of competence editing BLPs. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

First of all, there is no need to get all worked up about this, so relax for starters. Yes, it was pointy - no question about that. What was the point? Balance. If the heroism went in, (and I have no objection to your deleting it altogether), the factual material I provided gave readers the opportunity to make up their minds about its value for themselves. I'd like to see how you frame your suggestion that it was WP:BLP, though. What was not factual? And you are out of line questioning my competence. Don't make this personal. sirlanz 00:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
No need to get all worked up about it? Read WP:BLP. I'm tempted to take you to WP:ANI. You should not be editing BLPs. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Out of line? Yes, you are. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, this is very poor. I have invited a discussion about the substance, if any, of your suggestion of breach of WP:BLP and I receive nothing but petulant retorts. Let's talk substance, if there is any. sirlanz 02:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Nope. This is a BLP matter, and I don't think you should be editing BLPs. So to WP:ANI this goes. There is no debate. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sirlanz and their editing of BLPs. Permalink here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

BLP discretionary sanctions alertEdit

 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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020Edit

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Nick-D (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Blocked for this edit in which you made up something about this person for obviously POV reasons (the news story linked doesn't even mention her). Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Nothing whatsoever was "made up", created or otherwise falsified. The statement in the edit was an incontrovertible fact. It may be fairly criticised on the ground of comment. To suggest that the subject is not mentioned in a source is not a ground for criticism. A block is going completely overboard. Such measures should be reserved for just what you falsely describe, i.e. making things up and publishing them. Kindly identify what was "made up". sirlanz 09:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sirlanz (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

The block is in breach of the block policy because it is purely punitive. Blocks are required to be preventative of disruption. I made one edit; someone disagreed with it and that was the end of the matter. I took no steps to reinstate it, for example. The edit was, I grant, controversial in that it had little independent verifiable sourceability, as it was a statement of non-existence of something (proving a negative is always difficult). It was certainly a challengeable edit and others may disagree with its content. That's all fine. What is not fine is that this block fails the basic test of the policy. There has been no disruptive editing. There has been nothing to suggest a need to prevent anything further happening after after the material was deleted by the protesting editor. The block is a plain and unnecessary overreaction in violation of the express policy.

Decline reason:

We must take violations of BLP seriously. You were blocked previously for violating BLP and did so again. Blocks are not punitive, but are meant to adjust behavior. You will need to show that you will understand and better abide by policy in the future in order to be unblocked without a ban from editing BLPs. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sirlanz (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

The block is in breach of the block policy because it is purely punitive. Blocks are required to be preventative of disruption. I made one edit; someone disagreed with it and that was the end of the matter. I took no steps to reinstate it, for example. The edit was, I grant, controversial in that it had little independent verifiable sourceability, as it was a statement of non-existence of something (proving a negative is always difficult). It was certainly a challengeable edit and others may disagree with its content. That's all fine. What is not fine is that this block fails the basic test of the policy. There has been no disruptive editing. There has been nothing to suggest a need to prevent anything further happening after after the material was deleted by the protesting editor. The block is a plain and unnecessary overreaction in violation of the express policy.

Decline reason:

One unblock request at a time; you had two. In this edit, which appears to be the root of the problem here, you claim that this article (which you used as your citation) makes specific mention of McGowan. I read the article and could not find the reference. I then used my browser's search ability and still could not find reference to McGowan. I then searched an archive.org version of the page from 2019, and still could not find the reference. Please show where in that article, McGowan is referenced. Yamla (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

{{unblock|2=Am I to understand that an appeal against block is considered, a decision made and then no reasons are given for declining it? There are no reasons at all in this decline notice.}}

Note that this matter is now before WP:ANI. They may choose to lift the block or may choose to apply additional sanctions. --Yamla (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the request I declined; declined requests cannot be removed until the block is removed. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I'd say you have a point to some extent, but it's probably not the one you intended to make. These sort of blocks strike me as interesting because one way they work is they often send a message to editors that they do need to take whatever policy or guideline they keep violation seriously, or more generally that they need to cut out whatever crap they are doing. So in some ways it seems like punishment, but it is trying to be preventative in that it's trying to get the editor to stop their unacceptable behaviour. But the second thing is that these blocks are also preventative, since the history suggests the editor could make a major policy violation at any time. The editor clearly either doesn't understand, or doesn't respect the policy they have violated. In this case it's BLP, and it was clear before the block, and even more clear after the block, that there is a good chance you are going to make further serious BLP violations. Would you have made them within 1 week? I can't say. But that doesn't mean a block isn't deserved. It clearly is. However to ensure it's preventative, you will need to be indefinitely blocked until you give sufficient indication you will stop the BLP violations. (Or you're topic banned.) But many admins are reluctant to indefinitely block in that fashion without a long block log, especially experienced editors. Ultimately though, your argument doesn't mean we should unblock you or should never have blocked you. It means we should block you indefinitely. Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The block was instigated on the basis that I "made up something about this person". That is a serious allegation and would certainly justify a block. It never happened. I have invited those making this decision to identify what it is I fabricated. Then it has got worse. I'm criticised for stating that the source I provided mentioned the subject. I never did. So the factual aspect of this block is completely fabricated. That needs review.
As regards a legitimate objection to what I did, it may fairly be couched in terms of improper editorialising. If that be so, how is it sufficient to justify a block? Did I embark on an edit war, for example? I did not even contest the reversion. If I had not been unfairly attacked, I would have had nothing more to say about it.
Hence, the ideas subsequently expressed here about my propensity to do ongoing damage to the encyclopaedia do not arise for consideration.
The least important aspect now is to justify the edit itself but I do contend that it is defensible, though controversial. The subject is a very high profile public figure at the centre of a great deal of controversy arising from her strident opinions. The idea of calling a rapist a "hero" is quite remarkable. As the article discloses, she has claimed to be in a similar position to the Bryant victim, in relation to Weinstein. It is legitimate for WP to disclose balancing facts, even if the fact is a negative averment. Evidently, editors feel it is a step too far in this case and I'm fine with that, as I demonstrated by not contesting the deletion in the first place and I had no intention of pressing my material any further. But what really matters most here now is that the block's justifications never existed as a matter of fact. sirlanz 00:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Some background. I note that the blocking admin in this instance is the same admin who instigated the block five months ago in which he himself was the opposite party to the subject edit war. I believe there is an element of impartiality here. I also note that the block now is the first time I have been blocked purely on the basis of an allegation of breach of WP:BLP. There is no established pattern of BLP policy breach and I have made almost 2,000 substantive edits since then including many to BLP. I ask that the effects of the imprecations to editors of the WP:IGNORE policy and WP:BOLD guideline be incorporated in consideration of this unblock request. sirlanz 01:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Negative avernment. Our encyclopaedia is littered with unremarked negative averments, i.e. where the editor makes a statement which is based purely on their inability to uncover any evidence to the contrary. Every time a BLP begins "X is currently the ..." a negative averment as been made that the editor has not read (or cannot find sources) of the termination of that status. Nobody cares. Certainly, nobody suggests someone is making things up, as it has been claimed here as the sole reason for blocking my account. sirlanz 02:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "I also note that the block now is the first time I have been blocked purely on the basis of an allegation of breach of WP:BLP". Per the block log and #September 2019, the previous block was for a BLP violation as well. And in fact this was mentioned when declining one of your recent unblock requests. Yes it was by the same admin, but this isn't uncommon. Two blocks in 5 months for BLP violations is enough to establish a highly concerning pattern. Making sufficiently serious BLP violations to earn two blocks in 2000 edits is not the acceptable behaviour you seem to think it is. And while I have not looked at the September edits, it's clear both from the ANI and from your unblock requests that admins and non admins alike share serious BLP concerns about your recent edits. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
"This block is for edit warring BLP-violating material" are the first words of the block. What's not to understand? The present block is entirely dissimilar in nature. It is not edit-warring. It is a single edit, which I did not attempt to defend when challenged. My behaviour has been completely dissimilar, demonstrating an improvement, i.e. I did not resort to even a first step in warring. I had learned my lesson. Please, everyone, be careful in looking at what's going on here and stick to the facts. sirlanz 05:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
BLP violations are BLP violations. You clearly have not learnt your lesson or you wouldn't be adding clear-cut BLP violations in the first place. You assumption that it's acceptable to violate BLP if you don't edit-war is incorrect. The fact that what you learnt from your first edit is that it's acceptable to violate BLP provided you don't edit war is unfortunate but ultimately on you. Still it was only a 1 week block until you proved with your comments after the block, that you still think it's acceptable to make major BLP violations provided you don't edit war. So in fact the original 1 week block was completely justified since you are apparently incapable of learning that it's not acceptable to violate BLP. The only problem was that it was too short, but that's been fixed now. Let me repeat for one last time, if you want to have any hope to be unblocked, you need to learn that it is completely and utterly unacceptable to violate BLP. It does not matter if you don't edit war to preserve the BLP violations, although that's a more serious violation assuming the BLP violations are equally serious. Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

As you are still claiming above that it is OK to add unreferenced claims about living people to make a point (and I'd note here the point you are trying to make here is to mock someone who states that they were the victim of sexual assault for not accepting an apology from the person they allege assaulted them), I've extended the block duration to indefinite given that it's highly likely you'll violate WP:BLP and WP:V again when the block expires. If you'd like another admin to review this, you can use the unblock procedure. Nick-D (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

So we now see that the blocking admin is abandoning the sole basis for the block, i.e. that I had made things up, reducing it to "adding unreferenced claims". That is a very different thing entirely. One is deliberate fabrication and lying, one is lack of care, occupying an entirely different position on any scale of seriousness. Then, why plural? More exaggeration. Let's take it he really means one unreferenced claim. What was that claim? A negative averment cannot be referenced, see above. Nobody was mocked. That is happening entirely in the mind of the blocking admin. A bland fact was stated. A fact which no one has been able to say was untrue. The hype about how I am a risk to the encyclopaedia is pure punishment. It is hyperbolic nonsense to suggest that I am a threat to the project. Now, what do you mean I can "use the unblock procedure"? Isn't that what we're doing right here and now? What additional unblock procedure? sirlanz 04:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes you have made 2 unblock appeals although these were before your block was extended to indef. Both were reviewed by different admins and both failed. You're free to make another appeal, especially since it's now the only way you'll be allowed edit again. No one said anything about an additional unblock procedure AFAICT. If you want to make another unblock appeal, you really need to read and take onboard both the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and WP:BLP. So far, you haven't demonstrated a sufficient understand of either, hence why your unblock appeals have failed. Your implication that it's just one admin persecuting you or that there was no basis for your block is clearly wrong, as your older unblock appeals, and the ANI thread have shown. You can make yet another appeal under that assumption. But it will fail, as you previous ones did, and if you keep making pointless unblock appeals, you will lose talk page access. Nil Einne (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I thank you for providing a clue about the appeal process. But I am disturbed that you do not seem be taking much care in reading what is written. The last words of the blocking editor's message immediately before my last post were "If you'd like another admin to review this, you can use the unblock procedure." As I had already twice run that procedure, I asked to what further unblock procedure they were referring. Is that not perfectly simple and clear? You imply that I am some sort of nitwit. Your bread and butter is blocking and appeals pertaining thereto. It's not mine. Your condescension is inappropriate. You expressly state that a further appeal will fail notwithstanding your never having addressed the substantive matters which I have raised. Your position is simply, "Go away, I'm not discussing it." I'm surprised and disappointed that so little regard is had to dealing with the facts, and in the face of 12 years of dedicated service. sirlanz 08:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sirlanz (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I think this is my first unblock request after being blocked indefinitely. No sanction can be higher, so I expect that the administrators around here will give this both very careful consideration, will address the facts and will give cogent reasons for their decision based on fact. I do not want to repeat all that has gone before. It's all here on my Talk page. In a nutshell, the initial block was made on the sole basis that I had "made up something about this person". If that had been so, I would have no objection to a block. It would be a serious violation. I did not make anything up whatsoever. I made a negative averment, which is commonplace in the encyclopaedia and a very different thing. If the material was considered POV, then by all means call it out for that, but such a violation is on an entirely different level of gravity. The blocking admin withdrew (without apology) the allegation of falsification by me, substituting that I had "add[ed] unreferenced claims". That there was only one claim in my edit demonstrates the lack of care and precision in the admin's consideration of my work. It is a very serious matter for a block to be imposed on an editor but the approach to it by the admin has been lackadaisical. My objections were met, without ever addressing the substance of my request for unblock, with this indefinite block, the admin nuclear weapon. Another admin came into the fray and, likewise, said not a word to establish the initial allegation of fabrication nor dealt with the usual impossibility of referencing a negative averment, a circumstance which must greatly diminish the severity of the perceived breach of WP:BLP. The second admin made the circular statement that "blocks are not punitive" in answer to my contention that this one was just so because it cannot be supported under the essential WP:BLP criterion of prevention, the only permitted purpose. Any study of my track record of 12 years' editing (in which I have the extremely low edit deletion rate of only 0.9% which is not achievable except through constant diligence and observance of the standards required) shows there is no danger in my continued participation here.

Decline reason:

I'll be blunt because maybe that will help you craft a workable unblock request. You simply will not be unblocked until you can explain why your edits violated WP:BLP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sirlanz (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I apologise to fellow editors for having made an edit which was motivated by a point of view and amounted to original research. The offensive words were “McGowan was not reported as celebrating heroism on [Weinstien’s] part”. That this was an incontrovertible statement of fact is irrelevant because the statement has not been reported anywhere. There are no sources and I provided none. It amounted to a veiled criticism of my own. That’s the sense in which it was “made up” (though I did not make up and publish any falsity) and that is a plain breach of policy. My wrongdoing arose in this way: I had no clue as to who Rose McGowan was (I do not watch any form of television or any series) and I had only the vague idea that Bryant was a US basketballer (I do not watch any US sports or read about them) so I came to the article without any baggage. I was driven to it by a report of McGowan’s criticism of Portman as I’d noted the former’s name in the press at times (though never reading any articles) and the frequency with which it appeared gave me the sense my knowledge was lacking and that I should learn more (“Why is everybody so interested in what this McGowan has to say?”, I wondered). I was then shocked to read of her heroworship of a rapist (whether that term should be qualified at all is not a matter of importance here but what matters is that it was my view that his ex post facto agreement that his victim did not consent coupled with the physical injury she suffered are sufficient to establish recklessness as to consent and guilt of the offence, and that view motivated me to cross the line and act out of POV, i.e. I felt something should be done to highlight the appalling idea of describing this rapist as a hero. Flyer22 was shocked beyond belief by my edit; I was shocked almost beyond belief that anyone would describe a rapist as a hero and get away with it). Fans get so emotional about the objects of their adoration that they are often blinded, which is what I see of what surrounds Bryant and McGowan. I was blinded by my shock and I had a momentary lapse in judgment and acted recklessly. I remain shocked and appalled. That’s absolutely no excuse. What I did was wrong and I repeat my apology to other editors for my edit. I believe there is ample reason to accept my apology and unblock me on the basis that purpose of the block is prevention and the circumstances here are exceptional and not likely to arise again, particularly having had my wrist firmly slapped on this occasion.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

By way of further mitigation and nothing more, I invite editors to take a look at what The Guardian did today in a [news article] (not an op-ed). After reporting Rush Limbaugh's comments on Buttigieg's prospects of being elected as a recently married gay guy, they signed off the article with the line "Limbaugh has been married four times." What they did there was precisely what I did, i.e. tossed in an oblique, though incontrovertible fact, for no other purpose than to criticise the subject. That's in a very highly-respected journal. They considered it fair game. I'm not suggesting now that it is fair game on WP; it isn't; I was wrong. What I'm saying is, when organs viewed as respecting the highest journalist standards stoop to it, we get tainted. We have to be strong enough not to stoop to their level. sirlanz 01:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The last line in the Guardian story is clarifying what the quote from Pete Buttigieg which immediately precedes it is referring to. You still seem to be trying to make excuses for making stuff up to attack someone. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what mitigation is, notwithstanding my being at pains to make that abundantly clear in what I have last written. So I will spell that out for you: in a just system (indeed, in virtually all systems of justice) after a person pleads guilty to an offence, accepting that he/she was wrong, he/she is entitled to speak about the circumstances in order to assist the adjudicating body to determine an appropriate penalty. I am advancing, by way of mitigation, the argument that a block is not necessary. As regards your take on The Guardian, Buttigieg never suggested that Limbaugh's multiple marriages grounded his refusal to accept Limbaugh's advice on family values. Buttigieg made no references whatsoever to Limbaugh's marital status or history. It was a cheap shot from The Guardian, the sort of cheap shot Flyer22 found in my edit. sirlanz 10:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
And your repetition of the expression "making stuff up" gives me no choice but to repeat the essence of my mitigation on this point. When one uses the expression to "make stuff up", the natural and ordinary meaning of that is to fabricate (make up) facts (stuff). I must repeat that it is important that it be recognised and understood that I did not fabricate any fact or change or alter any fact. I used a true fact to create material which was pure unsourced editorial from a POV and in breach of WP:BLP for that reason. It must not go into the record by your choice of words, that I had done what is normally known as making things up. sirlanz 10:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Timeline of Earth science satellitesEdit

 

A tag has been placed on Timeline of Earth science satellites requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DannyS712 (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)