Open main menu

User talk:Arms & Hearts

Speedy deletion nomination of Patrick Lambert no disambiguationEdit

 

A tag has been placed on Patrick Lambert no disambiguation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

moved to make way for a roundabout move

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

RfAEdit

  Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

New edit interfaceEdit

Here is the discussion.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Race and crimeEdit

On a re-read, my response to your post there may seem intemperate; it's not intended that way. I (among others) have just been periodically dealing with both a) waves of racist and racialist trolling, socking, and meatpuppetry at pretty much all articles that touch on "race", plus b) continual slow "civil PoV-pushing" at them that's harder to detect and correct, just less intense. It's important to me, in the sense that I'm certain it's important to the project, to isolate "race" topics such that they can be editorially controlled better by the community for WP:CCPOL and WP:FRINGE compliance. This is already a huge job that we're kind of failing at, except at a few of the higher profile pages, and much of the difficulty is the amount of gaming enabled when genetic science and sociological topics are mashed together.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

No, your reply seemed perfectly even-handed and helped to clarify the issue for me. I've replied there. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

RfDEdit

Hi! At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017_September_14#Wikipedia:FAKENEWS you !voted for a redirect to WP:Zimdars' fake news list, but after you !voted I presented an argument against doing that, and none of the !votes after that were for that redirect. The MfD has been relisted. Would you be so kind as to re-examine the MfD and see if the arguments put forth after you !voted might cause you to reconsider? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Thanks for the heads-up, and thanks for your work on this, but I don't think I'll change my !vote. I still feel that, as I said a fortnight ago, "The question of the utility of that page or the accuracy of Zimdars' conclusions is separate from the question of the utility of [the] redirect", and while I understand and sympathise with your argument about that page, I agree with those who've argued that the shortcut pointing to the Zimdars page is a better option than deletion, and with you that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Questionable sources is a poor solution. (For what it's worth, I think a new MfD for Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list would be entirely appropriate in the wake of the RfD, and I'd be quite likely to support deleting the essay. The arguments you raised in the RfD [i.e. Zimdars' own repudiation of the list] are, I think, more convincing than those put forward in the MfD.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Refuse FascismEdit

Thank you very much for your guidance.

There are particular inaccuracies to this article that keep being reinstated -- like founded by Bob Avakian. I'm not sure why the other problems mean the whole thing gets reverted back to a whole previous version. I will try again soon & follow your tips.

The purpose of the word "determined" wasn't to provide a positive spin, but to emphasize that those protests were indefinite, only to end when the demands were met, which isn't a common type of protest in the U.S. and seemed worth emphasizing. Indefinite doesn't seem like a better word.

Again, thank you very much for your tips. Is it just the way that Wikipedia works that it isn't just links in text that is changed, but all of the changes, including those that improve accuracy and adhere to the guidelines?

There is a lot of mischaracterization of this organization going on in general, and my effort is not to use Wikipedia as a platform, but to give a true picture of who they are, what has really happened, and what is being called for. Sources that say this is "antifa" and a "nazi-punching movement" are just not working with facts by any standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothing Worth Preserving (talkcontribs) 06:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nothing Worth Preserving: Thanks for getting back to me on this. Thanks also for highlighting the point about Avakian – it was there because this Buzzfeed News article says he "called the ad hoc group together", but I think you're right to say that that's something different from having founded it, and I've removed that claim. To respond to a few of your points in turn:
  • I reverted all your edits because I felt that they went against certain of Wikipedia's core principles – verifiability and neutral point of view. That doesn't mean that the things you added were useless or ignored – you'll see that I subsequently restored the content about the 26 September road blockade and the Alex Jones conspiracy theory business, though in different language and with another source. Essentially, I thought it would be just as well (and much less work) to revert your edits wholesale and then restore the bits I thought were improvements rather than revert piece-by-piece and work around the improvements. (I see that one of your edits was previously reverted by a bot because it contained a link to Facebook – links to Facebook are automatically reverted because they're usually promotional in nature, and in that case any other changes that you've made at the same time are also automatically undone. But remember that you can access every previous version of the article in the article history, so restoring removed content can be just a matter of clicking the undo button or copy and pasting.)
  • You should also understand that the article isn't mine and I don't have any authority over it (nobody owns Wikipedia articles) – I'm a volunteer editor just trying to improve the article, same as you.
  • Although I used the word "determined" as an example, the question of neutral language is obviously much broader than any one word or phrase. While I'm sure that your intent wasn't to portray the group positively, editors' intents are not always apparent to readers. This is especially important in contentious political topics, in which I find it's best to make a determined effort to sound as disinterested as possible to pre-emptively counter inevitable claims of bias.
  • I'm concerned you haven't addressed my question about a possible conflict of interest. I know I'm throwing a lot of information at you, but I'd like to ask again whether you have a direct connection with Refuse Fascism – i.e., are you a member or do you work for them in some capacity? If so, as I said last night on your talk page, then you should avoid editing the article directly, and should instead post suggestions at Talk:Refuse Fascism. Even if you don't, then that might not be a bad way to proceed, though of course that's at your discretion.
(Also, when posting on talk pages, remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~ x4).) I hope that's clarified things a little bit; again, feel free to get back to me with any questions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Arms & Hearts. 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)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black MirrorEdit

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 05:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Thanks for starting this page. The amendment was made was because the opinion of a Telegraph journalist was presented as fact and was not the intention of the actual work. Hope that clarifies things, thanks for your help.LauraOF (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough to me – thanks for clarifying. You may already have seen it, but if you'd like to propose other changes or additions to the article then do have a look at Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations, which sums up Wikipedia's guidelines on how people should edit articles about themselves. The most important bit is probably that we encourage people not to edit articles about themselves directly, but instead to propose changes on the article talk page (in this case Talk:Laura Oldfield Ford). That way other editors who aren't associated with the subject can determine whether the proposed changes are appropriate or not. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest has more in-depth information. Let me know if you have any other questions about the guidelines or the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Train Songs: thanks for the thanksEdit

Hi, Arms & Hearts. That's the first thanks I've had on the List of Train Songs. Which is perfectly okay since the real payoff is the fact that over 100,000 people stumble on it each year. That and the opportunity it's given me to research the history of popular song. I'm a volunteer deejay with our local public radio station which is originally what led to my interest in the genre. So I often fantasize that many of article's visitors are fellow deejays looking for material for their shows. In any case, it's particularly gratifying to hear from somebody from within the Wikipedia community, and I'm pleased you found the article so interesting. Allreet (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No party preference listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect No party preference. Since you had some involvement with the No party preference redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

File:United Front Against Fascism.jpegEdit

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


AntifaEdit

This sentence is ambiguous, requires citation: "Modern antifa politics can be traced to resistance to waves of xenophobia."

Here is the revision of highly charged content: "Modern Antifa politics may stem from the resistance movement and perceived xenophobia."

@SDSU-Prepper: You should post this at Talk:Antifa (United States). That talk page, not my user talk page or yours, is the right place to discuss changes to the article. When doing so, you should probably also address the question raised by Acroterion in their edit summary, namely the ambiguity of the phrase "the resistance movement". Please also remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Best, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


Dear Arms & Hearts, Thank you for the addition of black bloc material. I kept your copy, but I prefer my copy and I don't see the need to change the work: “The Antifa activist look generally is a black characterized by black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks or goggles or black hoodies and sunglasses with accents of red. Some may carry makeshift shields, weapons or flags.”

I made a heading as a compromise. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your most recent revert. (Undid revision 854267969 by SDSU-Prepper (talk) i can't see why a single sentence should require its own section; you've also made "notable street protest and violence" a sub-header of "black bloc," presumably unintentionally)

Dear Arms & Heart, I thought the talk page is for working things out and for building consensus. You are burying a distinguishing part of antifa: black bloc. Please use this space for discussion so that you and I can build consensus. Below is my proposal.

"Antifa black block The Antifa activists generally wear black bloc, a look characterized by black hoodies black work or military boots, balaclavas, ski masks, gloves, gas masks, goggles, and gloves with the addition of red. Some activists bring red flags, shirts or shields to distinguish themselves from other kinds of black bloc activists, as well as to promote cohesion and unity with the other members. Wearing bandanas and hoodies also may allow members privacy." SDSU-Prepper (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is the link for citation https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html SDSU-Prepper (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Arms&Hearts, is there antifa in the UK and if so might you create a UK antifa Wikipedia page? Again, not to discredit your contributions to the article in any way, but election meddling is a serious problem in the United States. Antifa is part of my community and I would like an accurate portrayal for posterity. As mentioned previously, America is having a problem with foreign agents, not just Russia, infiltrating our elections and politics. While it is my constitutional right to defend the United States from foreign actors, rest assured that my aim is for complete neutrality. Having said the above, I think it's appropriate to open the dialog. I would like to ask that you discuss with me any concerns on antifa and black bloc, so as to avoid any back and forth. On the other hand, I'm an entrepreneur with plenty of time to work with you patiently and cooperatively. I extend an olive branch with the hopes that you will understand that I am a willing collaborator. I am interested in your viewpoints and concerns. Respectfully, SDSU-Prepper (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Black blocEdit

Dear Arms&Heart,

Regarding black bloc On Aug 9, 2018 I noticed you dismissed my research annd (Undid revision 854160643 by SDSU-Prepper (talk) this seems like a misrepresentation of the source -- it mentions black blocs in the broader context of the history of antifascism, but doesn't make any explicit connection with any events in berkeley in 2017) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)

You seem opposed to linking black bloc with antifa and I think it healthy to have a dialog since I believe we’ve had discussions in both arenas. Would you please cite your concerns? Black bloc is an identifying marker of antifa and I don’t see any controversy with inclusion of my research. I carefully crafted a neutral tone in a paragraph that discussed black blocs and media attention, and so the sentence is relevant in context. Mercury News is the citation, and it’s a valid source that makes the connection of antifa and black bloc. Black bloc activists identifying themselves as members of antifa surfaced in Berkeley, California in 2017, some wearing black gloves, in a demonstration that spurred more media coverage.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/03/antifa-berkeley-protest-trump-coulter/

As well I can cite several other news agencies: https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/style/black-bloc-fashion.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/05/in-portland-images-of-knives-brass-knuckles-bricks-show-viciousness-of-protests/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ff42b5d7d84a

While I’m new around here and while I don’t believe your intention is WP:POVRAILROAD I have noted that you’re following my contributions rather closely in other areas, such as biographies. Hoping to start anew! SDSU-Prepper (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I explained my concern quite clearly in my edit summary which you've reproduced above. The source you cited in that edit doesn't really make the claim you attribute to it. The only mention of the black bloc tactic in that source is the following sentence: "Members of Black Bloc — another term for the anarchist activists who make up antifa — have gone to battle over the issues of the day, from environmental issues to the economic inequity that sparked the Occupy movement, particularly in Oakland, Bray said." This paraphrasing of comments by Mark Bray draws a connection between black blocs and antifa, and gives a potted history of the two movements/tactics. It does not say what you wrote in your edit, namely that "Black bloc activists identifying themselves as members of antifa surfaced in Berkeley, California in 2017". (The photograph in the Mercury News article also can't be used to support that claim: as I mentioned at your talk page a few days ago, photographs are generally not acceptable sources per WP:PSTS.)
I think the New York Times article you've linked above would be a better source for a statement like that, since it specifically links the black bloc tactic to an antifascist mobilisation in Berkeley. (The CNN article makes several points that might be worth mentioning in the black bloc article, but can't really be used to support the claim you added. The Washington Post article doesn't use the phrase "black bloc" anywhere, so I don't know why you've pointed it out.) If you were to add a sentence summarising the relevant parts of that piece to the black bloc article (probably in the section titled "21st century," and having corrected the link to the antifa disambiguation page), I think that would be a useful improvement to the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Just curious are you from England? You used the word "mobilisation" (the key factor being "s" is the clue that you're not born in America). I'm an American who lives in close proximity to the actual conflicts in Berkeley and I feel that I am better able to characterize the antifa look that I've seen with my own eyes and that I've seen in newsprint, and on television and on YouTube.I really don't understand why you hesitate to to link the two and why you bring up unrealated issues.
Black bloc has an associated imagery of black bloc and so it naturally follows that the antifa cop should reference black bloc. I really don't understand why there is a controversy. It is obvious that antifa activists dress code is black bloc and for the most part activists partake in the look. End of story. There really shouldn't be a controversy. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Meant to say antifa has an associated imagery of black bloc.
SDSU-Prepper (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is uninterested in what you've "seen with your own eyes". See Wikipedia: No original research. What's important is not what you've seen but what's been published in reliable sources. (As my user page makes clear, I am from the UK. We also have access to Youtube and U.S. news media here.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Dear Hearts& Arms. The research I provided was not "from my own eyes," It was a notation made to you personally as we seem to differ on the Wikipedia page on the activist group and on Black bloc. Given that Antifa is an American group of activists, I don't think its appropriate for someone in the UK to provide the definitive summary about the group when you are on another continent. This is not to invalidate your contributions in any way, but I feel that it also doesn't entitle you to complete remove my research without an earnest attempt at coming to a resolution. My research was based on valid news organizations in the United States, including local news publications as well as CNN. I did not insert my own opinion in the copy. I've remained neutral and you've continued to object to making the connection between antifa and black bloc and I wondered why. Election meddling is a serious problem. As an aside, America is having a problem with foreign agents, not just Russia, infiltrating our elections and politics. You have not made clear to me the objection you have with linking antifa to black bloc and I feel you are edit warring my original research with valid citations.
SDSU-Prepper (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't have an objection with linking antifa to the black bloc tactic. That's why I added a sentence making precisely that connection to the Antifa (United States) article. I have an objection to misrepresenting sources, as I've explained above, and to granting a single sentence its own section in the article.
To respond briefly to your point above (at #Antifa) – in the interests of keeping discussion on the same topic in one place – the correct place to discuss changes to the Antifa (United States) article is at Talk:Antifa (United States). That way others who might have an interest in the article are able to offer their thoughts, which they're much less likely to do at a discussion at my talk page. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Dear Hearts&Arms, To be clear: I've not misrepresented sources. I have been specific and neutral with regards to the antifa look and have cited five valid news sources which specifically describe the look, since allegedly photos are not considered valid sources of the information it is up to the news sources to describe the crowd. I think that you and I need to resolve the issue regarding placement of the antifa look, which is now buried without a headline. The attire is significant in all aspects of antifa, since the black bloc provides a show of force/unity, and at every avenue you have been impassioned about minimizing this fact and I find it odd. I aim to resolve any concerns with you directly, so that we can resolve our personal disagreement. I believe this is the correct forum.
SDSU-Prepper (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I've explained that I don't think this is the right venue to discuss this issue in any depth. The right venue would be Talk:Antifa (United States)#Antifa and black bloc. You are of course also free to make whatever changes to the article you feel are appropriate, though your edits may be reverted by any other editor. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Dear Heart&Arms, It concerns me that you write "though your edits may be reverted by any other editor" because this has been a pattern. I am patient but I'm beginning to feel that this remark was a direct WP:BULLY threat and that my "initiation" isn't quite over. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but I'd like that you please work with me in the spirit of cooperation. Not a single editor owns the article. Again, I extend an olive branch with the sincere hopes that we can resolve any matters. You are also free to comment on the antifa and black bloc talk pages, but for now I think that you and I specifically have some unresolved issues. I believe we can work this out cooperatively. Cheers! SDSU-Prepper (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors don't practice any sort of "initiation" to my knowledge. It's a matter of objective fact that your edits may be reverted by another editor, as might mine and as might anyone else's. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay then, but we haven't come to an agreement because you've expired your view of the page: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/03/antifa-berkeley-protest-trump-coulter/

I invite you to look at the headline and the first copy. For your reference there is a permanent archive here: https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/03/antifa-berkeley-protest-trump-coulter/

Headline: Berkeley protests catapult black-clad ‘antifa’ to newfound fame and controversy Copy: BERKELEY — They wear black pants and sweatshirts, with either helmets or hoods over their heads, bandanas across their faces — and dark sunglasses, goggles or gas masks over their eyes. Many carry makeshift shields and flags, whose staffs can quickly become weapons. They call themselves “antifa,” short for anti-fascist, and they’re part of a loosely organized national network of anonymous anarchists. The movement during much of this decade has been a common sight at Bay Area protests spurred by police shootings, the Occupy Wall Street movement and Donald Trump’s election as president..."

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Occupied Oakland TribuneEdit

See the Occupy Oakland page for the newspaper section there. I really appreciate your edits :) Shushugah (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: See edits made for Occupy DC publications Occupy_D.C.#Occupy_media Shushugah (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Dino Bardot Article DeletionEdit

Hi Arms & Hearts, I put citations that state that Dino plays guitar for Franz Ferdinand and played guitar for The 1990s, which makes 2 notable bands he was a member of. Being in two notable bands makes a musician notable enough for their own Wikipedia page, according to Wikipedia’s standards. Can the article stay up? Thanks, Bxnzedrine (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that Bardot meets point #6 of WP:MUSICBIO. Note though that those criteria are not intended be absolutely binding in every case – as the top of the section says, "Musicians ... may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" (emphasis mine). We also have to be especially careful with articles like these because of Wikipedia's policy about biographies of living people – there could be a case where someone has been in two notable bands, but has never actually been mentioned by a reliable source, which would leave us in a bind. That being said, the article looks to be in quite good shape and (most importantly) is well-referenced, so I'm not personally going to nominate it for deletion (though another editor might). So, all in all, good work, and I hope you've not been discouraged by the experience – perhaps you might even look at some of our articles about related people and bands with an eye to bringing those up to the same standard? The 1990s article is pretty shoddy and The Yummy Fur's article is not much better. Let me know if you have any other questions or if there's anything I can help with. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Red blocEdit

This is a multimeaning term, and has good refs for each of the meanings .I'm adding them. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it. I'd considered the possibility that the article might be salvageable, but it seemed like any solution that would bring in other phenomena referred to by the same name would fall foul of WP:COATRACK or WP:CHIMERA or WP:FRANKENSTEIN. I also thought about redirecting it to Eastern Bloc, but thought that someone searching for the phrase would probably be just as likely to be looking for something else altogether. So I decided that deletion was the only viable option. But I'll of course wait and see what you make of it before proceeding any further along those lines. Best, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Black Women's Defense.jpg League logo.jpgEdit

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

PROD/redirectEdit

Thanks for this: I do wonder, though, if it's better for it to be deleted and then recreated as a redirect, just so we don't have a drive-by editor two years from now saying "I like this" and hitting "undo". Vanamonde (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It's always a possibility, but isn't it just as likely that someone will decide to revisit the history in order to add to or flesh out the section in the target? It's also the case that non-notability is not always permanent: a book published in 1931 probably won't suddenly become a bestseller, but a new body of scholarship on Guénon could emerge that would cause us to revisit the book's notability, in which case having the history on hand would be useful. If you feel strongly that the redirect ought to be deleted and recreated you'd have to make the case at RfD; I can't remember any similar cases coming up there, but my sense is that there would be little appetite for deletion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I think you may be misunderstanding me. If someone comes by with enough commitment to ask for an article to be undeleted and to then work on it, I'm fine with that. And I'm fine with the redirect existing. I'm saying the article should be deleted before it is redirected, so we're not back here in a few weeks (and I say this largely based on my experience with articles under ARBIPA, which attract a fair amount of clueless drive-by-editing. Vanamonde (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm fairly sure I understand your concern. I was just pointing out that other, more pleasing possibilities strike me as just as likely as the scenario you described. I could perhaps have been clearer that my final sentence above should be taken as a procedural point: redirects can't be PRODded, nor can articles that have been deprodded in the past, so the only way to achieve the result you have in mind would be RfD. Unless there's some other route you have in mind? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, there's an easier way; as the editor who removed the PROD, I don't think anyone would take issue procedurally if you restored it yourself (if uninvolved, I wouldn't, for instance). It's not too big a deal, though, and I certainly don't intend to take it to RFD, because an RFD is not the place to get rid of article history. I'll leave it up to you. Vanamonde (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to do that, for the reasons I've explained above. I've also just redirected Man and his Becoming according to the Vedanta for the same reason. Are you thinking of prodding other articles on books by Guénon? From a cursory inspection, The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times looks quite well sourced, but Introduction to the Study of the Hindu doctrines, The Multiple States of Being, Perspectives on initiation and Miscellanea (Guénon book) could have the same notability issues. If so, my perspective on each (with the possible exception of Miscellanea, which isn't currently discussed in the Guénon article) would be the same, i.e. that the benefits of redirecting while keeping the history outweigh the benefits of deleting the history and recreating each as a redirect. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I intended to review each of those, but I hadn't yet done so. If you intend to de-PROD and redirect them anyhow, perhaps you could do that anyway and save us both the time and trouble. I disagree with you about deleting first, but it's not significant enough for me to continue to argue. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Miljoenenjacht (disambiguation)Edit

Hello - I'm surprised you put a speedy delete tag (on top of my PROD tag) on Miljoenenjacht (disambiguation), because WP:G6 requires a page to disambiguate one or zero articles, and this page disambiguates two. I haven't removed it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's confusing. I was going by the description of the criterion in Twinkle, which says it applies to pages that disambiguate two existing articles and have "(disambiguation)" in their title. I've reverted myself and will raise the issue at WT:TW. Thanks for pointing this out. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
That explains why I've seen others do it too - a Twinkle amendment is required. Cheers, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
See this and this. I think there was a more recent discussion about the discrepancy but I cannot find it offhand. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for these. I'd found the 2014 changes to the template but hadn't come across the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

SignatureEdit

Hi! Can you replace the & in your signature with a real ampersand? It interferes with some templates and tools that parse wikitext in discussions. No big deal, of course. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think I can. When I try to I'm given a big red error message that says "Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags. I believe this means that the system expects an ampersand-coded character, and rejects an unaccompanied ampersand in the same way it would reject an unclosed HTML tag. This has been the case since I changed my username in May 2012 (see Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 May 29#My signature doesn't work). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
What about {{subst:&}}? Enterprisey (talk!) 14:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
That gives me the same error message. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
{{subst:Ampersand}}? Enterprisey (talk!) 18:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that works! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Nice, thanks for changing it! Enterprisey (talk!) 21:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Re: RREdit

Understood. I'll remember it for future references. Thank you for the polite response, and all the best to you too.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hasse RosbachEdit

Hi. Not a big fan of your edit summary on the above article when removing the BLPPROD. Did you bother to check when the first source was added? 9 h after its creation. So 25 minutes or 9h wouldn't have made any difference. All BLP must be sourced from their creation. When patrolling new pages I came across this one that read. "Hasse Rosbach (born 17 March 1985 in Sarpsborg, Norway) is a Norwegian musician and producer" I could have marked it as a speedy delete A7 and I guarantee that it would have been deleted or I could have draftified it. Tagging as unsourced tends to have no effect on article creators especially new ones but when a deletion notice pops up on their talk page they tend to do something about it. If you are interested in helping with the mass of shoddy articles or undeclared paid for articles feel free to ask for the patroller right and give us a hand. We are the last barrier to stop these kind of articles from being referenced on Google. It may also make you think twice before leaving snarky remarks when unprodding. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding dismissive, it's just an edit summary, don't worry too much about it. My problem is really much more with BLP prod as a policy than with anything you've done – while I generally think that trying to delete articles so soon after they're created is counterproductive (except for certain egregious cases of course), I'm not interested in trying to change others' views on this. (I used to patrol new pages for a time, I think in 2012, but found it a bit tedious and depressing. So nowadays I look at CAT:PROD and sometimes find articles that are salvageable or interesting.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
It's a thankless task but a very important one and it's always nice when it's appreciated and a bummer when it's not especially by experienced editors but that's the way it goes. I don't have a problem with trying to save interesting articles but maybe just avoid sarcastic edit summaries is good way of not making our work more tedious and depressing than it already is! Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my Cheesy bites pizza deletion proposalEdit

He Arms & Hearts, thanks for fixing my addition of Cheesy bites pizza to the redirect discussion. I wasn't sure how to add another item to an existing nomination. Leschnei (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries. For future reference: you just use {{subst:rfd2|redirect=|target=}}, with the redirect and target parameters filled in as appropriate, and the subst'd template provides all the links and so on. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Arms & Hearts. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Arms & Hearts. 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)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Arms & Hearts/Co-presidencyEdit

 

A tag has been placed on User:Arms & Hearts/Co-presidency requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: How did you even find that page? Why would you decide that tagging it for deletion was a good use of your time? Do you really think it consisted "of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals"? I hadn't looked at it in several years but I'm pretty sure it was a draft for a Wikipedia article. This strikes me as a very strange way to behave. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It was a little scrap without a reference. Part of a long term cleanup. Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts You would not believe the amount of spam and nonsense in userspace, and buried in there the occasional good article. Legacypac (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

How do you delete a redirect?Edit

OK, thanks for reverting my proposed deletion.

How DO you propose deleting a redirect page?

Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Geoffrey.landis: Redirects are deleted through the Redirects for discussion process. WP:RFD#HOWTO explains how to nominate a redirect there. The easiest way is to enable the Twinkle gadget (via Preferences → Gadgets), which does most of the work for you. Once you've enabled it, go to the "TW" drop-down menu on the redirect page, click "XFD" and enter your rationale. Hope that all makes sense, let me know if you have any questions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
that's insanely complicated. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Would you like me to make the nomination on your behalf? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Les Blancs, les Juifs et Nous.jpgEdit

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

A whoopie pie for you!Edit

  Whoopie Pie Award
I cannot believe that you happened to edit an article that I was reading, as well as author a page on a Mayoral election in my hometown! Evan Bovie (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Post-revisionismEdit

With regards to your request on my talk page. I did not see it until yesterday and I was busy. More to follow -- PBS (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The page Post-revisionism was created by User:Ludvikus at 15:21, 24 September 2009 Ludvikus who was blocked for disruption in October 2009. Post-revisionism and Revisionist historians (American) along with many others created chaos in this area of Wikipedia.

See User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 14#Mentorship. in April 2011 I proposed mentorship for Ludvikus, but the community decided not to unblock the account basically becase it was felt that Wikipedia is NOTTHERAPY (See for example Talk:Revisionist historians) and the archives of what is now called Talk:Historical negationism).

In the section "Talk:Historical revisionism/Archive 3#Revisionist historians vs. Historical revisionism" there is one of many discussions where the majority dissagreed with Ludvikus. I referenced that section in the section called "What to do next" in Talk:Revisionist historians.

So if you want to create "Post-revisionism" , which is currently salted, or a similar page, I suggest you hold an RfC on either Talk:Historical revisionism or Talk:Historical negationism (which ever you think more appropriate (but advertise in on the other talk page)) and see if there is a consensus for the page or pages you wish to create about revisionism. If there is then either I or another admin at WP:ANI can enable the page for editing. -- PBS (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

There are often movements that are called revisionism. For example the English Civil War has 3 broad aproaches to the histograhy of the time, Whig, which was replaced by Marxist intepretations (1940-1970) and Revisionist (1970-1980), so anything that come after that would be post-revisionism.
Here for example is an academic work entitled Revisionism and Post-revisionism in early Stuart History, so what makes you think that the redirect for this type of title should be to the Cold War any more than "revisionism" ought to redirect to the section called revisionism in the same article? -- PBS (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Could you summarise in a single paragraph why you don't think it should be unprotected? I'm having trouble following the thread of your argument – I can't see why you would think the details of disputes that occurred in 2009 are relevant or should require that editors in 2019 go through an RfC process in order to create a redirect. I'm also concerned that you're using admin tools as part of a content dispute: you are of course free to feel that a redirect would not be appropriate (and in the event of it being created, you're free to take it to RfD), but that doesn't even approach being a reason for the page to be protected. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

2010 United States House of Representatives elections in MississippiEdit

Hello, I believe that there should be an overview section for the article as all of the other Mississippi House articles have the section and almost every other state House election article has the section as well. It is a standard section found in every article of this sort. Jon698 (talk) 02:58, 02 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't find that a very convincing argument. The fact that something is very commonplace doesn't mean that it is useful, and the fact that something's useful in one context doesn't mean it's useful in another. I'm not entirely sure which other articles you're referring to as you haven't provided links, but looking at articles like 2012 United States House of Representatives elections in Mississippi and 2014 United States House of Representatives elections in Mississippi (both of which are much less substantial and detailed than the 2010 elections article) it strikes me that the overview table is useful there because the information isn't contained in the lead section, whereas in the 2010 elections article the same information appears in the lead in prose, and in the infobox. As I've said before, including the same information three times in three different formats really offers no benefit to the reader. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

the prodEdit

Normally, one cannot replace a prod once it has been removed for any reason, but in this case you are correct. There's no evidence she was in the primary either, and the ref given cannot be found. Thanks for fixing my careless error. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it seemed like an IAR sort of case. I did mean to add a {{prod2}} with a bit more info but never got round to it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Your help desk questionEdit

You didn't get a response to this question but it sounds like something that can be answered at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to get around to asking there. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

NationalityEdit

I didn't see your continued opposition to labeling Nancy Whittier as American until after I made my edit. If you revert, I won't fight it. I would only point out that "nationality" is not well-defined in MOS:BIO or WP:COP and at least in some cases (e.g., Mounira M. Charrad), "American sociologists" is used to mean "Sociologists at American institutions" in articles that don't mention the subject's birth or citizenship. Wikiacc () 21:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't have any particularly strong feelings on the subject at this point, for the reasons you mention and because (1) it seems like a problem that would need to be solved by some broader discussion, maybe at CfD, rather than piecemeal across multiple articles, and I don't intend to initiate such a discussion; (2) in this case it seems very likely that Whittier is American; and (3) I try for a few reasons not to edit articles about academics (though obviously my efforts to avoid them don't always succeed). Probably the best use of all our time in these cases is to look for sources we can actually use to source a claim about nationality, however we define nationality. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

My entry in WikipediaEdit

I noticed that my entry in Wikipedia was incomplete, and so added to my career information. I see now this has been removed. What constitutes, in this case, adequate substantiation? - Victor Suthren — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.206.79 (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Victor, thanks for getting in touch. I left a couple of messages yesterday at User talk:67.230.152.83 which you might not have received as your IP address has changed (these crossed wires can be avoided by creating an account, or, if you've made an account before, by logging in).
There are two vital things you need to know here and some policies and guidelines you ought to have a look at. The first is that information in Wikipedia articles should be verifiable: see Wikipedia:Verifiability. This means that any material that's likely to be challenged (when it comes to material about living people, that's almost everything) should have a citation. These citations should be to established published sources, usually journalistic or scholarly in nature: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. So while the information you added is probably true (obviously it's not impossible that you could be impersonating Victor Suthren, but it seems highly unlikely), it can't be included because it isn't supported by any published reliable sources.
The second vital bit of information is that Wikipedia strongly discourages people from editing articles about themselves: see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I know you've edited the article about you in the past without any difficulty, but strictly speaking you shouldn't have been doing so, and this is the reason most of the content you've added has been removed. This is because it's difficult to write in an encyclopaedic way about oneself – though your edits have been mostly fine, it's very common for people to write about themselves for promotional purposes and employing a promotional tone. So instead of editing the article yourself, you should propose any changes at the talk page: Talk:Victor Suthren. This connects up to the point above: when making a proposal, be sure to cite a source (or multiple sources), as we can't simply take your word for it.
I hope that's all reasonably clear. Let me know if you have any other questions. All the best, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Deleted my edit at John Brown Gun ClubEdit

You deleted my edit at John Brown Gun Club saying it wasn't supported by the source, but I quoted the source directly. Why was it deleted? ValentinesDay88 (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

See User talk:ValentinesDay88#Redneck Revolt. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I looked and it doesn't say why. I am confused. The webpage I cited was quoted. Why is that not right? ValentinesDay88 (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The change you made said "On July, 13 2019, a member of the John Brown Gun Club, and Antifa member, Willem Van Spronse, attacked the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington." The Seattle Times article you cited does not mention the John Brown Gun Club, or antifa, or describe Van Spronsen as a member of either. The edit you made did not include any quotations. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought it was on there. Some times I get confused when I'm reading and I get things mixed up :p I added a source and made sure to find the information you were looking for. I hope it's better now. ValentinesDay88 (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The revised text you added still made the claim that Van Spronsen was an "antifa member", which is not supported by either of the sources you cited. I strongly suggest you follow the advice I left at your talk page: "rather than deciding to add a claim to an article, and then looking for a source to justify it, read the source first and then try to summarise it in the article, without adding any commentary or anything you've read elsewhere." If you're not capable of doing that, or of editing articles without "getting things mixed up", then you should probably refrain from editing articles about contentious political topics. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Arms & Hearts".