User talk:Girth Summit

This is Girth Summit's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is Girth Summit's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Hello. John Milburn recently did a peer review for the article on the Biblioteca Marciana (WP: Peer_review/Biblioteca_Marciana/archive1) and suggested that I contact you for further guidance prior to nominating the page for FAC. The article is currently a Good Article.

The Biblioteca Marciana is one of Venice's foremost monuments with a long history, an imposing building, and lavish art. My goal is to have the article promoted to FA and then nominate it for TFA on 25 March 2021 when Venice will celebrate its 1600th anniversary from the date of its legendary foundation on 25 March 421. The Marciana Library is ideally suited to commemorate the event since it is the only institution founded by the Venetian government that survives and continues to function today. I would like the article to present and cover all of the relevant information in a clear and meaningful manner, both for casual and advanced readers, and would appreciate any guidance and/or suggestions to further improve the article and make it a thorough source for information about the library.Venicescapes (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venicescapes, hi - thanks for reaching out. I just took a skim through the article, it's fascinating, and those drawings are fantastic - are they really your own work, how did you create them?! I'll try to find some time to read it closely, and also to read through the Peer Review discussion as well. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in advance for whatever time you can dedicate and for your willingness to review the article. The images were scanned from old texts and then elaborated in Corel Paint ... a great deal of copying, cutting, moving, colouring, and pasting. I felt they were needed to explain some of the architectural aspects.Venicescapes (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from Venice. I hope all is well. I’ve made some more progress on preparing the article on the Biblioteca Marciana for FAC. Since this is my first experience with the nomination process … for me a little daunting … I would be very grateful for whatever suggestions/observations/corrections you might have. If none, please let me know.Venicescapes (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Venicescapes, I'm really sorry to have left you hanging for so long about this. It's been at the back of my mind to take a proper look at it, but I'm afraid that real life has got in the way a bit, alongside some on-wiki stuff, and I haven't had mental space to devote to reading through such a long, and already excellent, article to look for things I might want to improve about it. I will try to find time in the coming days to take a look at it, but don't wait for me - if other people are telling you the article is ready, it probably is! GirthSummit _(blether) 12:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I realize that this is a courtesy and that real life also needs a little attention. Thank you for your time.Venicescapes (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I want to join counter-vandalism academy as a learner Tbiw (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tbiw, hi, and thanks for reaching out and expressing an interest in going through the CVUA course. Before I accept a student onto the course, I take a look at their contribution history to see what sort of things they've been getting up to in the past - please don't think I do that because I'm nosey, I want to see whether I think that CV work is likely to be well suited to their interests and skillset. In your case, I'm a bit concerned. Your recent requests for lots of permissions you don't need was a bit of a red flag, as was your remarkably high proportion of edits to user talk space (as opposed to, say, article talk or article space). What really gives me pause though is your recent comment on Iridescent's talk page, where you said that you were easily affected emotionally. Counter vandalism work involved dealing with a lot of unpleasant trolls and vandals, who will often attack you personally; we nevertheless have to deal with them in a calm, impersonal and professional manner. I'm not sure that you're ready for that, and I don't want to put you through an unnecessarily unpleasant experience. If you spend a bit longer learning the ropes here, do a bit more work in article space, and are still interested after a couple of months then come back, but for now I'm afraid it's a no from me. Sorry, and thanks again for your interest. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay man. I know you don't wanna try to affect my emotion answer is no . Okay am cool with that. Fails is now a random i get in every wiki thing i try i think one day they are gonna accept me. Thanks,Tbiw (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girth Summit I need your opinion on this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sriram Krishnan, Thanks. - MRRaja001 (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Girth, while tagging promotional userpage I generally use G11 but ultimately the deleting admin often delete it under U5. Pls clarify the difference between the two, the only thing I know is that U5 is only for userpages. Antila ✉ 06:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antila, it's something of a grey area - the two categories overlap. If a userpage is set up as an unambiguous advert - e.g. if the language is like 'Ace Ladders Inc is the number one provider of latter in the US. Visit AceLadders.com to find out more about our amazing range of high-quality ladders at fantastic prices', I would delete under G11. If it's someone writing their CV extolling their SEO skills U5 is probably more applicable. If in doubt, a lot of admins will go for U5 because there's less room for disagreement - I can imagine a situation where the applicability of G11 would be borderline, but where U5 would definitely apply, so it is the safer choice. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Girth, I'll use the U5 criteria for userpages if I'm not sure. As a side note, do you think I'm ready to become a CVUA trainer as I've been counter vandalism work ever since joining wikipedia and secondly there is no trainer in the Indian time zone so I was thinking of adding myself to the list but decided seek your advice. Pls let me know. Antila ✉ 05:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antila, there's no easy way for me to say this, but I think it's important that you hear it so I'm going to be frank. I do not think that you have either the experience, or the maturity, to act in that capacity at this point. Let me outline my thinking.

• Experience Your edit count is still rather light to be a trainer. At the point I started training, I think I had something around 10,000 edits, most of which (90%ish) were counter-vandalism work. I still thought of myself as fairly inexperienced to be a trainer at that point, and I'm still learning now after 40,000 edits. There's more to it than just being able to regurgitate the content of the course, you also need to be able to provide effective guidance for your trainees if they get into difficult situations.
• Maturity There was the issue of cheating, and then lying about having done so, on the CVUA course itself. I was prepared to overlook that, given your assurances that nothing like it would happen again, and it wouldn't necessarily have been a show-stopper. The fact that you quibbled about your score on the final exam was a bit of a yellow flag for me - I have never experienced anything like that before, since of course the score doesn't really matter provided you have learned something during the process; again, it wouldn't be a show-stopper, but then today I looked at your contributions and found that you have retrospectively edited my comments in our training page, in my userspace, to change the feedback I gave you and the associated scores. You also refactored my congratulatory notice on your user talk page, again to reflect a higher score than you were actually awarded. This is a level of duplicity that I have never experienced before from a trainee, and I simply can't understand why you would do it. I am guessing that you are young, and that the score means a lot to you, so I don't want to go too hard on you, but lets be clear: you cheated and lied on your own CVUA course, and you have attempted to change the record of the course afterwards without telling me. To be very blunt, I cannot trust someone who would do that - I do not think you have the maturity to train other editors at this point.

I don't imagine that this is easy for you to hear, and I sympathise with you for that, but it's the truth. Drop the idea of becoming a trainer for now, carry on with your editing, and your real life studies which are of course much more important, and then reconsider whether you still want to do this in a year or so. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 17:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But pls explain this, yellow tick means that answer is partly correct so why did you cut the full Mark's for that answer, it seems to me that both yellow ticks and cross means the same. You might have noticed that my last change to the CVUA page was about a month ago since then I've learnt more and more about Wikipedia and got involved in NPP and recently received the NPR right, score dosent mean anything to me anymore and understanding relevant policies and guidelines and answering them in your own words is way better than cheating from other's page. And as about experience I currently have about 1.6K edits in total, I have reported many users to AIV and UAA correctly and have reverted many vandalism and good faith edits since then, I must say that my counter-vandalism work has reduced a bit ever since I got involved with NPP and copy editing but the work I do is done with accuracy. I'm dropping my interests in becoming a trainer but I think a year is too much, I'll try to build up more experience in about two months and would then reconsider this. Antila ✉ 18:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antila, hi. Put it this way - it's not your job to decide how many marks you should get for an answer in a test - that's the teacher's job. If you had asked me about it, that would have been one thing, but for you to change it yourself afterwards was wrong. You changed my comments - which had my signature after them - without asking me whether it would be OK, or telling me that you had done it. That's seriously not OK here, and it will affect the levels of trust that people feel able to place in you. Please continue editing and building up experience, but think about how things like this might affect people's judgement. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth, why was it oversighted? I dont remember posting any personal information here. Antila ✉ 05:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antila, Kevin offered to explain it to you by email, you should take him up on that, I don't think we should discuss it publicly. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the articles are not completely obnoxious or promotional, and some of the subjects are notable, user Kyda6468 appears to work for U Colorado, and be creating blp pages on U Colorado subjects with minimal disclosure (their first edit summary, only). I left a message on their talk page telling them they should disclose, but nothing happened. Do you think it would it be too much to add a upe tag to the pages the user has created? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... and I hadn't seen the follow-up you'd already left on the user's talk page. It looks like you have it well in hand. I'll stay out of the way unless you tell me to do otherwise. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Woodroofe, thanks for drawing my attention to the edit summary they made with their first edit - I hadn't actually noticed that. Yes, I think that adding a UPE tag to their articles would be appropriate in this case. I'll give them a bit of time and see if they respond to my message before doing anything further myself. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went ahead and left UPE tags. Since I left the COI message about 2 weeks ago, and since they've done some more recent editing without responding, I think it's reasonable from me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girth, you have an amazing history here. Well, I wanted to bring something in to your notice on the revert you made. Santrex, 1 user is continuously adding blogs and unverified info on the page and there's no evidence that Santrex is/was HostSailor, his stubbornness is clear and I think he is Brian Kerbs himself. As per my knowledge no one can add unsourced info and his all claims are based on blogs and/or unsourced. Need your valuable insight here it will help me learn as well, thank you. Elena Marcus D (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Marcus D, hi. I'm not aware of ever having reverted anything on that page (or indeed ever editing it at all) - I'm not sure why I'm getting pinged about it in the edit summaries of other people. I've commented on the talk page, and will look into it properly soon, but I agree that the article should only reflect what can be supported by reliable, secondary sources. (At the moment, from a very quick skim, I'm not 100% confident that the subject is notable - I'll try to establish that when I have a bit of time. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok thanks, so this is more clear now and kinda fishy. I'll try to guide that person on editing but please have a look. I think its vandalism as that user is trying to label the page with a different company with no evidence, even using logo some other company. And yes I also think its not enough notable for a stand alone article. Anyway, your decision is much more valuable and I appreciate your interests. Thank youElena Marcus D (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit well he understood about his editing after your message to him on the talk page. I was writing to him some tips but didn't after seeing that. Still have a look if that deserves a mainspace as sources are not enough better nominate AFD. Also let me know as it will help me as well. Thank you very much :) Elena Marcus D (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Girth, I am Get a smart idea, I wanted to request if you could train me in the CVU academy. I have been reverting vandalism for a while and I have rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. I want to be more experienced in the field of counter- vandalism and maybe you may also be able to adapt me and take me through my journey on Wikipedia. Hope you accept. Regards Got a smart idea^{Tell me about it📩} 11:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get a smart idea, hi, thanks for enquiring about the course. I'm sorry for the delay in responding - this is an incredibly busy time for me in real life, I don't have a huge amount of time for Wiki stuff over the next few days, but I've had a quick look through your contributions and what I see looks quite promising. Can I provisionally say that I'll do this, but it might be a few days before I get around to setting up the course - would that be OK for you? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, I don’t mind at all. At least I’ll be be able to learn something from you. Take your time  :) Got a smart idea^{Tell me about it📩} 17:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get a smart idea, great. As a starting point, it's a good idea to read through WP:VANDALISM carefully, and make sure you are familiar with WP:TWINKLE - even if you've read them before, give them a good going over in the next couple of days, they will prepare you well for the course. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, Okay, I’ll start on it immediately. Cheers Got a smart idea^{Tell me about it📩} 18:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synoman Barris, I see you have changed your username? I've started your course page, hopefully you got the ping? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, Yeah I got it, sorry for replying late.I’ve been busy with something in real life I’ll start on the course immediately. Cheers Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, I changed it to look more like it belonged to a person Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sydney on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 07:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 07:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tripartite Pact on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Did you know on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:No-go area on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Militarization of police on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, no worries. My other such articles survived deletion attempts because I was able to come through with references. Coylet is another matter. I seem to struggle with finding online references for Scottish inns and hotels. If only Mr Baddeley had wandered a few miles closer to Loch Eck from the Whistlefield Inn, he would for sure have mentioned it.

I'll have another search for info on Coylet. - Seasider53 (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more detail and references. - Seasider53 (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seasider53, thanks. I'll take a look at some point today. By the way, do you happen to have access to the relevant Pevsner architectural guide for the region? Along with the Historic Environment Scotland and Cranmore sites, they're my go-to resource for historic buildings, but I don't have the one for that region. An inclusion there would be a string indicator of notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at the AfD discussion. This is the book I'm talking about above - great sources to work with for this type of thing, but as you can see, rather pricey! If the building's 17th C, I'd be very surprised if it wasn't in there - but then, I'd also be surprised that it wasn't listed, and it's not. I'm pretty dubious about the 17th C claim - I realise that all the sources mention that, but they're probably just getting it from the owner's description of their own hotel. If I were to guess, I'd say it's been built on the site where there used to be an older coaching in (and I note that there is an older, ruined building listed on Canmore a short distance away, also called the 'Coylet Hotel'), and that the current building is 19th C with substantial mid-20th C additions - but I'm totally guessing there, of course. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seasider53 Just wanted to reiterate the offer of discussing what an NPP reviewer looks for when they come across an article, and (if you're interested) how I select buildings to write about. You're contributions are right up my street, in terms of subject-matter, and I don't want you to get discouraged by the number of AfD and PROD notices that are appearing on your talk page. I'd be happy to share some tips if you fancied it. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Girth, finished the first course. Hope you got the ping. Cheers Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synoman Barris, hi - I'm afraid I didn't get the ping, so thanks for letting me know - I'll take a look shortly when I get the chance, cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, Second bit done, hope you got the second ping. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synoman Barris Yep, got the ping, I was just pretty busy yesterday. I've replied now, next task is up. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, Done Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Took the liberty of reverting to the original colours for the image: On the one hand, we shouldn't present a modified image as the original, which an unmentioned colour change tends to do, and secondly, I think the changes emphasised the damage on the photo, whereas the unmodified image, due to the lower contrast, is a bit more subtle, making it easier to ignore as an overlay. I'd edit it out, but, well, it's hard to coherently edit something that small. Have to get sub-pixel levels of correctness.

Anyway, one bit of advice: remember to always upload the original before a modification, it's important to document, especially if the orginal goes offline. Cheers! Article itself is fantastic. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 18:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cuerden, hi - thanks for letting me know. I'd be tne first to admit that images are not my area of expertise, so happy to bow to your judgement on this; I'll note though that it wasn't me who made the change to the image, I'd have to dig through the history to find out whose idea that was. Entirely happy to allow image experts to make the call. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess, it looks like an autolevels to me, which people tend to presume works better than it does for non-modern photos. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 22:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just had a quick question - is there a template you use for the completion notice you hand out to CVUA graduates? I've been just going into my archives, copy-pasting the message you gave me and changing the fields to reflect the different student and score, which takes a bit more time then I would like it to :). Thanks for your help as always! Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 05:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puddleglum2.0, hi - if there's a template, I don't know about it. I've always done it the way you describe - copy, paste edit. Let me know if you find a template out there, that would be pretty handy! GirthSummit _(blether) 07:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, thanks for the reply, I (and the good folks over at WP:VPT) got a template made, you can view the documentation at Template:CVUA-completion! Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 05:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puddleglum2.0, Cool - I'll take a look! GirthSummit _(blether) 10:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller talk 13:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said that "body glitter" should fall within "body painting" article but I find "body painting" means only painting on body but not using other stick-on jewelleries (multi-coloured jewels, gemstone, rhinestones or crystal ornaments), how do you think? AneHara (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AneHara, hi. I wouldn't be averse to a couple of sentences being added to the body painting article discussing glitter (but with the language considerably tuned down - we don't refer to 'tits' and 'ass' in Wikipedia's voice, we would say breasts and buttocks). Essentially, the subject is the decoration of the external surface of the human body with coloured substances. The fact that these substances may sometimes be shiny doesn't seem to me to be sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate article - that could be covered in the main article. I think that these terms would be suitable redirects for the body painting article (and Praxidicae seems to have thought the same thing), but since you clearly disagree we will see what consensus emerges at the AfD discussion. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged you here. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I was in the middle of typing a comment there. I guess I'll write something else. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Double checking that you got my pings about the canvassing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm curious to know which school you teach at, since I studied at All Saints myself. Jenny Jankel (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Jankel, hi there. I know All Saints, lovely building. I don't give away personally identifiable information publicly though, so I'm not going to tell you which school I teach at. Suffice it to say that at this specific moment in time, I am not teaching (or I wouldn't be responding to you!) GirthSummit _(blether) 09:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! It's a lovely building indeed. Jenny Jankel (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Girth,
I saw your message to Total Eclipse 2017 on their talk page and I see they have been actively editing the Simple English Wikipedia under their original account. I think what you could do so they see the message is to go to their talk page on Simple English Wikipedia here and copy the message so they can see the message. Hope this helps. Interstellarity (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Interstellarity, but without wanting to be cryptic, I don't think you've fully considered exactly what I wrote, and the context of where I wrote it. I'm happy with leaving it there. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. It was just a suggestion. No pressure. Interstellarity (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I appreciate your time and thoughts. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems best not to engage at all with the subject of your advice - to avoid further escalation by that subject. Hope you understand. Thanks again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pasdecomplot, you should do as you think best; the avoidance of any further escalation is definitely the right goal to keep in mind. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. In the meantime, the subject isn't getting the message. They continue to attempt to engage in negative ways. Can an administrator drop them a hint, possibly? Thanks again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pasdecomplot, I'll be happy to look at anything you're worried about - can you drop me a diff please? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Girth, sorry to disturb you but take a look, one persistent spammer creating unnecessary and inappropriate pages. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synoman Barris, hi - I've had a look, thanks for letting me know. I've blocked the account, partly because of the dubious page creations, but also because they had been posting block notices on other editors' talk pages, which they have absolutely no business doing. I'll discuss this with you further on the training page, but could you take a few moments to look over DENY when you get a chance? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 07:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, Okay. Thank you! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Girth, I noticed this it was moved to draft because of lack of Reliable sources,I just have a question on this, should a template have citations? Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synoman Barris, so, that wasn't a template - that was an article, published in article space. It contains a single, short, unreferenced sentence, followed by the template itself, which still exists at Template:Military ranks by country. Should the article have been draftified? I don't think I'd have done it myself, I'd have considered it more like a disambiguation page myself in its current state, unsourced but leading the reader to other useful and properly sourced articles - I wouldn't have a problem with it. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, Okay, thanks for the feedback. Cheers. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Girth, I entered into a conversation with this user about CSD. I just added a CSD tag for an article without any content, because it didnt have any. The user has now started attacking how i use my username and other stuff. I only wanted to solve the issue but he may be going overboard. Thanks Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synoman Barris, I'll need to look at the context - what was the article? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, this, he had previously moved it to draft and it seemed like it was recreated but had nothing in it so I tagged it for for CSD under A3. He then reverts it and indicates a R2. That was not the problem, after reversion indicates in the edit summary as vandalism, so I approach him and redirect him to WP:VANDALISM, to see what is and what is not vandalism. I just wanted to reconcile and maybe clarify. He then turns into Battleground Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synoman Barris, OK - I can see what happened. I think that there are things that both of you could have done better there - I'll drop a note at their talk page outlining my take on it. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, Okay. Thank you :) Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Girth Summit, as you suggested in last month's ANI that Wikiditm started against me regarding the Graham Linehan article (sorry, I can't figure out how to do a Diff for that - it's near the bottom of ANI Archive 1036), we have been attempting to do an RFC on the Linehan Talk Page to resolve the issue of the subject heading "Anti-transgender activism". As you may have guessed, it isn't going all that well. I would like to ask you to perhaps keep an eye on the discussion and in particular, I request help in dealing with an issue between myself and Bastun. Among other issues, Bastun has engaged in these two actions in recent days:

• Changing the subject heading to "Anti-transgender activism" [1] when the RFC on it had only just begun hours earlier and declaring that it is the "consensus" version in the RFC [2]. Bastun has made this claim numerous times over the past year when making edits on the Linehan article, but each time that I request a link to any discussion where consensus has been reached as I did again here [3], I receive no answer. I have asked a number of times for many months, and the edits and "consensus" claims just keep being made, but no reply to my inquiries is ever given. I believe this constitutes a WP:DISCUSSFAIL.
• When a number of first-time Linehan editors arrived eager to post the news that he was suspended by Twitter in the last few hours, they repeatedly used a source that is not allowed because it has been deemed unreliable (Metro UK). I reverted an edit for this reason, and Bastun immediately reverted me again with a sarcastic personal remark in the edit summary here [4] telling me to go "look for another source instead of whitewashing" (there was, in fact, no other source yet available - he had only been suspended in the previous two or three hours) and saying "no wonder you're exhausted". Such notes in edit summaries are explicit violations of WP:CIVIL policy. I subsequently left an edit warring notice on Bastun's talk page [5]

Thank you for any time you can give to this issue. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note on Moneytrees' talk page. Are these the books you're looking for? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlackcurrantTea, yes, they are indeed - thank you very much! That will save me shelling out £100 for a reprint of the whole set (or a damn sight more than that for an original copy...). Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm glad I could help. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girth, it's WikiMacaroons. I am interested in starting reverting vandalism more seriously. I have been undoing edits with Lupin's tool for a little while now, and I was wondering if you could take me on for the CVUA, as you're the only active trainer in my time zone. Looking forward to a response back! WikiMacaroons (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMacaroons, hi there. Just to let you know that I've seen this request - I've got another couple of students on the go at the moment, but I expect it should be possible for me to take you on as well if you don't mind going slow. I'll be in touch shortly. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, Girth! That's fine, hope to hear from you soon WikiMacaroons (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Political party strength in U.S. states on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

---

The Yorkshire WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter Issue 147 - July 2020 June issue Got any suggestions? — Add them here Project News Welcome to the one hundredth and forty seventh WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter. Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 15,729 last month to 15,795 on 30 June 2020). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 175 is ahead of WP:GM who have 87. WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 68 out of a total number of 4,509 articles. Currently we have fifty two Yorkshire featured articles: Henry Moore • George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore • History of Sheffield • York City F.C. • Joseph Priestley • Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C. • Valley Parade • William Wilberforce • History of Bradford City A.F.C. • Last of the Summer Wine • Ealdred (archbishop of York) • Paulinus of York • Wilfrid • HMS Endeavour • Cosmo Gordon Lang • Thomas of Bayeux • Cottingley Fairies • Wilfred Rhodes • Guy Fawkes • Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927 • Roy Kilner • George Macaulay • Frederick Delius • Battle of Towton • Halifax Gibbet • Gerard (archbishop of York) • George Hirst • Geoffrey (archbishop of York) • Len Hutton • Hedley Verity • Abe Waddington • Æthelwold ætheling • Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball • The Combat: Woman Pleading for the Vanquished • The Wrestlers (Etty) • Bootham Crescent • History of York City F.C. (1908–1980) • William Etty • History of York City F.C. (1980–present) • Candaules, King of Lydia, Shews his Wife by Stealth to Gyges, One of his Ministers, as She Goes to Bed • The World Before the Flood • Musidora: The Bather 'At the Doubtful Breeze Alarmed' • North Eastern Railway War Memorial • York City War Memorial • Northern England • Albert Pierrepoint • RSPB Dearne Valley Old Moor • Keldholme Priory election dispute • 2018 World Snooker Championship • 2019 World Snooker Championship • Capture of Wakefield • 2017 World Snooker Championship There are also seventeen featured lists: York City F.C. Clubman of the Year • List of York City F.C. managers • List of York City F.C. players • List of York City F.C. seasons • List of Bradford City A.F.C. seasons • List of York City F.C. records and statistics • List of Leeds United F.C. seasons • List of Scarborough F.C. seasons • List of awards and nominations received by Arctic Monkeys • List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cleveland • List of Hull City A.F.C. seasons • List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Northern England • Sheffield United F.C. league record by opponent • York City F.C. league record by opponent • List of York City F.C. players (25–99 appearances) • List of York City F.C. players (1–24 appearances) • Bootham Crescent • Kate Rusby discography Thank you and well done to all those who contributed. Article Activity 2018 EFL League One play-off Final was nominated for GA on 25th May 1987 World Snooker Championship was nominated for GA on 27th May 2017 EFL League One play-off Final was nominated for GA on 28th May 2008 Football League Championship play-off Final was promoted to GA on 29th May 1986 World Snooker Championship appeared in DYK on 29th May 2017 World Snooker Championship was promoted to FA on 30th May 2016 Football League One play-off Final was nominated for GA on 31st May 2016 Football League One play-off Final was promoted to GA on 3rd June 2018 EFL League One play-off Final was promoted to GA on 11th June 1987 World Snooker Championship appeared in DYK on 14th June 2017 EFL Championship play-off Final was nominated for GA on 15th June 2014 World Snooker Championship was nominated for GA on 15th June 1925 FA Cup Final appeared in DYK on 16th June 1988 Football League Second Division play-off Final appeared in DYK on 16th June 2014 Football League One play-off Final was nominated for GA on 16th June 2002 World Snooker Championship was nominated for GA on 23rd June 1988 Football League Second Division play-off Final was nominated for GA on 23rd June Member News There are 88 members of WikiProject Yorkshire! A warm welcome to the new members that have joined us since the June newsletter: MJGarratt (talk · contribs) No members left the project. Thanks A very big Thank you to all the editors who labour away quietly and help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed. To members who have added suggestions to the ToDo list at Yorkshire Portal. To the football and rugby editors who have done stirling work in keeping abreast of the top clubs. To all the WikiProject Yorkshire editors who have been busy on vandal patrol at watchlist.  Great! Yorkshire articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 2 1 15 60 78 FL 1 16 17 GA 2 7 36 175 220 B 9 66 135 352 562 C 5 143 291 1,490 1,929 Start 1 238 1,248 8,642 10,129 Stub 20 357 5,675 6,052 List 4 12 912 928 Category 3,856 3,856 Disambig 21 21 File 22 22 Portal 95 95 Project 225 225 Redirect 2 189 1,351 1,542 Template 1 7 408 200 616 NA 10 1 11 Other 1 10 11 Assessed 19 480 2,105 17,929 5,781 26,314 Unassessed 1 1 2 Total 19 480 2,105 17,930 5,781 1 26,316 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 96,771 Ω = 5.10 Assessment Assess and review As of 28 June 2020, we have assessed 100% of all articles with a project banner. (Some new and additional article talk pages may still require a banner however) Aims After discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire in April 2008. Specific aims for the project are:- To complete tagging and assessment of all Yorkshire related articles (See below) To recruit more active editors (See Member News) To bring our top level article Yorkshire up to Featured article status To bring all other top priority articles (currently 15 with 2 at FA) to at least Good article status To set up a weekly or monthly selected article improvement drive (See this month's feature below) To produce a regular news letter for circulation to members and apropos of the above a 2010 New Year article improvement drive/collaboration is being organised. Priority Articles The top priority articles that have been identified to date are as follows - Bradford • East Riding of Yorkshire • Henry Moore • Kingston upon Hull • Leeds • Northern England • North Yorkshire • Ripon • Sheffield • South Yorkshire • Wakefield • West Yorkshire • William Wilberforce • York • Yorkshire • Yorkshire and the Humber The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first. Clean-up There are 26% of project articles tagged for clean-up at the moment. It would be good if members could take a few minutes to clear-up some of the outstanding tags on articles. The main problems are those tagged with {{citation needed}} and {{refimprove}} templates which amount to 2,797 of the 7,170 identified problems. The next one that needs attention is the {{dead links}} template which has 918 problems highlighted. A new listing is produced each Tuesday giving a list of the problems by category or in alpha order. WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project The July 2020 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on the project talk page. Month Dates Article(s) B class choice Start class choice 123 1 Mar 2020 ~ 31 Mar 2020 River Dearne Fairfax House 124 1 Apr 2020 ~ 30 Apr 2020 Herbert Sutcliffe Goldsborough, North Yorkshire 125 1 May 2020 ~ 31 May 2020 Independent Labour Party Lendal Tower 126 1 Jun 2020 ~ 30 Jun 2020 William Jacques Halifax Minster 127 1 Jul 2020 ~ 31 Jul 2020 Kilton Castle Masbrough Independent Chapel Please nominate future articles for improvement at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire. Please bear in mind... The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis. Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible. Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.  Thanks Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below... Written by Keith D • Template by Jza84 | Single-Page View Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:YORKS? Please nominate yourself at WT:YORKS! New editors are always welcome!

15:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what to do any more. This has been going on for months. I'm being tag-teamed and hounded from article to article by two editors who have made it clear that they don't want me editing on Wikipedia. Our viewpoints may differ, but I try to edit without bias and to use WP:NPOV in my wording. They revert every edit I make, delete reliable sources I use, slant any article that I'm editing to their point of view, constantly tag-team me and use WP:UNCIVIL and condescending tones. All of which I have had to put up with, but following me from article to article, even though these aren't articles they have ever edited before, is clearly WP:HOUNDING. One is Wikiditm, who opened the ANI against me last month that you said was a conduct dispute requiring no sanctions, and the other is Newimpartial, who bullied me so relentlessly in that ANI, to the point of overtly implying that I am like the people who stood by and let the Nazis kill Jews (I am a Jew, by the way, so that was exceptionally offensive) and stated that because I said nothing about trans people being killed in a discussion that had nothing to do with that, it meant that I want trans people killed.

I finally let them bully me out of the Linehan RFC because I couldn't take it any more. I walked away, so they immediately followed me to a new article I wrote on gay rights activist and Pride co-founder Fred Sargeant, repeating the exact contentious edits they made on the Linehan article that have caused so much dispute. (Newimpartial only showed up in the Linehan article in the first place months ago after I disagreed with their editing on yet another page; they started reverting my edits on the Linehan article, where they had never been before, a day after that dispute). When I object, they profess innocence and claim they have just coincidentally suddenly taken an interest in the same page I happen to be editing.

In the case of the Sargent article, I gave in to Newimpartial, even though they were editing with incorrect sourcing repeatedly, and let them have 90% of the changes they made to the article, in an effort to make peace. Along comes Wikiditm and deletes the 10% I had managed to get in, including my reliable source, and replaces it with heavily biased language calling Sargent "transphobic", etc. in an effort to begin again the entire debate over calling Linehan "anti-transgender" and "transphobic", on yet another page.

They won't quit until they have bullied me off Wikipedia altogether and I don't know what to do. I'm sorry, I'm falling asleep now and have probably done this wrong and won't be back to check until tomorrow, but I had to ask for help because I am at wit's end. Defending myself in the ANI did no good, the RFC did no good, walking away does no good. If nothing else, can they at least be told to stop HOUNDING me around Wikipedia and reverting every reliably-sourced edit I make? Lilipo25 (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "hounding", nor is it "bullying". I don't speak for any other editor, but Lilipo is a SPA and has been engaged in RIGHTGREATWRONGS POV crusading to whitewash criticism of people engaged in activism against Trans people. I have repeatedly tried to steer Lilipo towards not taking things personally, following WP norms and (yes) compromise, which seemed to have been bearing fruit recently, but when Wikidtm edited in an improved source and added a properly attributed reference to "transphobia" in the article text (as they subsequently explained on Talk), Lilipo's response was to revert, calling the addition (sourced from The Independent) "unsupported", without contributing to the Talk page discussion.

It is difficult to deal with SPAs, and I certainly don't always work at my very best in my attempts to do so. But some editors are so close to certain topics that they simply cannot work in them on WP without running into CIVIL issues, etc. While starting with broader interests, Lilipo's account has recently entirely limited itself to editing on gender identity debates and participants in those debates; it might be best for them to try some other topics, rather than accusing editors who work in these difficult areas of "hounding". Newimpartial (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, I don't think your description of Lilipo25 as an SPA is fair, despite their recent editing interests, and I believe that she's editing in good faith. I don't want to get into a dispute about content on a user talk page, but I do note that the Independent article does not (from a quick skim through) actually say that the organisation in question is anti-trans or transphobic - sure, it's got a lurid headline, but it is reporting on other people making that accusation, not saying that the accusation is accurate. Do you think there is any further room for compromise in how that assertion should be worded, based on that? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think there is further room for compromise, but not through the removal of The Independent as a source. Newimpartial (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is really disappointing to see. I have approached you with infinite patience and civility, in the face of a level of antagonism which I think is unacceptable. Following the ANI, this antagonism has sadly not abated, and has now culminated in a very long serious of false accusations which really does seem to border on WP:PA. The overall thrust, that I have hounded you "from article to article" is false. I think there are only two articles on the entirety of wikipedia where we have in any way interacted. Further, the repeated use of "tag-teaming" clearly implies that I am colluding or communicating in some manner with Newimpartial, which again is false. The claim I "revert every edit you make" is false. Looking through my contribs, I couldn't actually find a single time I've reverted an edit you made, though it may well have happened. In contrast, here are two recent examples where you reverted my edits. Of course, this is fine. Every user has a right to do this, but this pattern of doing one thing and then accusing someone else of doing it is sadly much too prevalent. The claim that I "delete reliable sources you use" is false. If I find a better source for a claim, I will swap it out, and one time comes to memory when you had added four sources for a claim, which I trimmed down to the strongest two. I don't think there's been any occasion in which I have unjustifiably removed a source, but if so then that's really a discussion for the relevant page. The claim that I use uncivil or condescending tones is false. Again, I have been infinitely patient in the face of needless hostility. In a recent example I attempted as delicately and tactfully as I could to discourage you from canvassing, which risked harming the quality of discussion on an RfC I had started. Your response was disgraceful, and I think speaks for itself. In another recent example you called my deletion of 6 words in brackets an "egregiously biased edit," and accused me of making an edit which I hadn't made, along with accusing me of using a "tactic of pretending that you are simply difficult." A final recent example which I think is important to include is when you made a false accusation against me but then retracted it. This was very welcome. The accusation that I've "made clear I don't want you editing on wikipedia" is false. I've actually said the opposite on several occasions. I welcome your contributions, but feel much of the conduct is unacceptable. I did not open the ANI with a view to getting you banned or anything like that. Rather, I want to find a way that your contributions to wikipedia can be incorporated productively, without the antagonism and distress that has been caused. With a view to assuming good faith, I'm aware that a lot of what I've written here involves refuting everything that you've said, and so it's important to mention that I am not accusing you of lying. You have had interactions like this with many different editors at this point, accusing us all of mistreating you, and I think you sincerely believe that. In that light, I think the hostility is understandable, but I don't think that makes it excusable. A final point I want to mention is the conspiratorial aspect. I've now been accused of editing on behalf of Stonewall, of being a man (and part of a patriarchal scheme to push women off wikipedia), and now of somehow teaming up with newimpartial to mistreat you. None of these conspiracies are real, but the belief in them gives rise to a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality which can be really harmful to the site. I really hope this sort of behaviour stops - the nature of false accusations is that it takes you no time or effort to post several of them, but is incredibly effortful and time-consuming for me to respond to.Wikiditm (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Newimpartial following me from article to article, but you did appear on the Sargeant page, where you have never edited before, to continue the same edit war that went on for months on the Linehan article over your characterization of the LGB Alliance. You edit war by simply deleting reliably-sourced information in order to make the changes you want in articles while discussions are ongoing or after a discussion has completed and a version agreed upon, reverting repeatedly and then dramatically declaring how deeply "disappointed" you are that I'm just so very difficult if I object. I didn't "canvas" on the Linehan RFC, either: you had tagged in only editors who agreed with you and the few of us who already knew about the RFC and had explicitly told you we were going to comment, while leaving out other editors of the article who did not agree with you. I tagged them in, as well, in a response to you but for some reason one of the 'pings' wouldn't go through so I posted a message on that user's Talk telling them I had pinged them and it wasn't going through. Your edit of the Linehan quote was egregiously biased. You removed the six words in a direct quote in which he said trans rights are human rights and claimed it was just to make the quote less "cumbersome", when all it did was make it seem like he was being anti-trans. As for Stonewall, you were repeatedly insisting that we could not include any description of the LGB Alliance that Stonewall disagrees with and removing sourced edits to keep their POV. I asked if you had a WP:COI with Stonewall and you went apoplectic in declaring how this victimized you (and never answered). Wikipedia policy explicitly state that there is nothing uncivil about asking if an editor has a COI.

You are anything but "welcoming" of my contributions, and whether or not you and Newimpartial are in private communication is not the point (and has never been alleged). You are in fact tag-teaming to keep articles biased against organizations and people who support the sex-based rights of women. I compromise and compromise to reach some kind of agreement with one of you, and when one is finally reached with, as on the Sargent article, the other one swoops in and undoes whatever scraps are left of my editing to make it 100% biased in favor of the transactivist viewpoint. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best in the last comment to cover as much of the accusations as possible, as calmly as possible, and this is the response. All the accusations here, that I have been edit warring, that I tag only editors who agree with me, that I insist we cannot include descriptions which Stonewall disagree with, that I have been dramatic, gone apoplectic, etc. All these allegations are false, and presented without any justification. Continually making false accusations about another editor is surely an issue. Even if you sincerely believe all of this, please focus on the content rather than the editor.Wikiditm (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote a lengthy attack full of allegations against me and when I defend myself against them, you go to the "I try so hard to be calm and reasonable, and just look at her, talking back!" response yet again. Lilipo25 (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not "talking back" but making repeated false accusations against me. You have continued to do this, making further accusations on other pages too, claiming that I ignore discussions and admin directions and edit war, hound, and bias articles. All of which is false, none of which was presented with any evidence or justification (because there is none). This behaviour is totally unacceptable and needs to stop. I have absolutely no interest in starting another ANI, but if you continue this barrage of personal attacks then I will have to.Wikiditm (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial reverted my edit again. The Independent is not a "better" source than The Telegraph, which Wikiditm and Newimpartial removed as a source. The Telegraph is a reliable source. This is the Graham Linehan page all over again and is nothing but retaliation for my editing there. Giving up in the RFC isn't enough for them, I have to be punished for disagreeing with them. I already compromised and gave in over and over, but it's never enough. And I am very, very tired of being slandered as an SPA. My 'recent edits' include the articles of authors, the article on the CILIP Carnegie medal, articles on the French and Indian War, gay rights activism, the Oscar Wilde Bookshop and more. Being dismissed as an SPA is false, and frankly, Newimpartial has no room at all to talk on that topic as their sole interest on Wikipedia is transactivism and RIGHTGREATWRONGS crusading against feminist POV in this controversy. Newimpartial has repeatedly been WP:UNCIVIL and this absolutely IS WP:HOUNDING. Neither Newimpartial nor Wikiditm ever edited the Fred Sargeant page before I challenged them in the Linehan RFC. Retaliating against me by following me to other pages I edit just to EDIT WAR is bullying. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I explained, in my edit summary and on the talk page, why The Independent is a better source than the Telegraph for this purpose, and that is the right place to discuss sources.

As far as your developing into a SPA, Lilipo, your last three months of activity on WP show something like a dozen edits that were unrelated to "gender critical" anti-trans activists, out of three hundred some. That counts as SPA AFAICT.

As far as your retaliatory accusation tht my sole interest on Wikipedia is transaction and RIGHTGREATWRONGS crusading against feminist POV in this controversy, I would say the following:

(1) my POV in this controversy agrees with most feminists and feminist organizations;

(2) I do not edit primarily from (much less to impose) any POV in these discussions, but try to include the best available sources and keep all statements in WP articles to NPOV;

(3) I edit in a number of other areas on WP, such as Conspiracy theory and White supremacy-related articles (including Fox News and OANN) during the last three months, and gaming-related areas (including deletion discussions) that have nothing to do with this controversy, over a much longer time frame.

So I wish Lilipo would stop making provably false and incendiary statements whenever they are feeling defensive; I still recall this discussion with Lilipo, in which - while I certainly expressed frustration on my part - Lilipo unleashed the longest series of unsubstantiated accusations to which I have ever been subject on WP. In that context, their accusations of slander and bullying on this occasion form a pattern that has much more to do with Lilipo than the specific situation here or the other editors with which they interact, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have BEEN discussing it on the Talk page, where Girth Summit explicitly told us to stop reverting and discuss to find a compromise. And you ignored that, continued to revert anyway, and just went ahead and rewrote the section to your liking.

You say frequently that your POV is the one "most feminists" have, which is unproven and simply meant to dismiss the POV of women and their allies and organizations which support women's sex-based rights.

I do hope you enjoyed combing through my contributions and counting exactly how many edits I make on various subjects and that you've found at least a few new places where you can continue HOUNDING me from article to article. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be snide, Lilipo. I have no interest in your editing, apart from your insertion of "gender-critical" POV and adjacent issues. Otherwise you can edit away as far as I am concerned.

Reliable sources have documented that most feminist organizations are trans-inclusionary; citing this fact (and I have provided the sources for it elsewhere on WP) is not "simply meant to dismiss the POV of women and their allies and organizations which support women's sex-based rights". Most feminist women and their organizations are allied with trans and LGBTQ people in the pursuit of women's rights; it is a small minority (and mostly in the UK) that take trans-exclusionary positions and pursue sex-based as opposed to gender-based mobilization. This is simply reality, and none of your IDONTHEARTHAT rhetoric on the "other side" will change reality. Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lists of state leaders by age on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Neil Oliver on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]