Polling for the next United Kingdom general electionEdit

I did not create the chart; I just expanded it as new people voted. It is now hidden with a comment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Labor Right questionEdit

Hi, I was just wondering your opinion on the ideology of Labor Right. The page states that the faction is socially liberal, economically liberal, and is aligned with the liberal Third Way. I agree that the inclusion of the faction may be contentious, but the evidence on the page points towards the faction being liberal philosophically and economically. However, I feel like edge cases like the one you brought up will be a recurring issue with the infobox series. I'll create a discussion in the Australian politics Wikiproject so there can be a consensus on how to properly classify organisations that don't fit clearly into one specific subsection. Catiline52 (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Catiline52: I think the best way to categorise Labor Right specifically would be in a social democracy template, and then categorising Labor Left in a socialism template. I'm not sure how much use categorising the factions would be though, since there isn't much to divide them ideologically and since we do not have much information on them. Another issue that comes to mind is whether to categorise One Nation as far-right, and it may also be difficult to categorise the Greens. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019Edit

Hello, could you please try to avoid using deceptive edit summaries, as you did here? You changed some language in substantive ways and deleted some information outright. This cannot be accurately characterized as "Copyediting and cutting overciting." Scjessey seems to share my concern as well. R2 (bleep) 17:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I share this concern, among other concerns about Onetwothreeip's editing style, and I am aware others do as well. soibangla (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ahrtoodeetoo and Soibangla: Thank you for bringing this to my talk page. I have reviewed the edit being presented here and I find it to be very much an instance where the edit constituted copyediting and removing citations. It would be strongly appreciated if either of you could explain what was deceptive about this edit summary or what else this edit could be characterised as. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure, here's an example. You removed the fact that Trump falsely asserted that the birther rumors had been started by Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign. On what basis do you characterize that "copyediting and/or cutting overciting?" R2 (bleep) 23:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I would say that is a change to content rather than copyediting, although relatively minor. It seems that the overwhelming amount of changes I made in that edit comprised of copyediting and removing citations, so the edit summary can't be described as deceptive. As for the actual content, the section is about Donald Trump's racial views so it's not relevant that he has asserted Hillary Clinton originated those rumours. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Can you please not do that again? I don't care what percentage of your edit is copyediting or citekill removal. If you make substantive changes to an article, don't use an edit summary that suggests otherwise. It doesn't matter how minor you feel the changes were. R2 (bleep) 23:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't accept that edit summary was deceptive, even unintentionally. I can call this rewriting if you have an objection with these being called copyediting. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
That would be an improvement. Even better would be "copyediting, cutting overciting, and some deletions" or something like that. R2 (bleep) 00:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, that's enough reverting. You obviously haven't found consensus for this edit, and continuing to revert it back every day or two will likely result in some sort of sanction against you. Concision is a worthy goal, but what you need to do here is to better identify the objections people have with your edit, and then find a way to make the paragraph more concise while avoiding the problems that led to the objections. You might try making the edit sentence by sentence, one edit per day, beginning with the bits that are least likely to be objectionable. Start by re-reading the objections on the talk page and trying to understand the root cause. ~Awilley (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Awilley Can you look at this further? I started a talk page discussion and everybody there agreed with my proposal, except for the person who wrote the previous version. I waited a few days for the discussion to take place. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Who's "everybody"? The only person I see agreeing with your proposal is Markbasset, who if I'm being honest, is not a great person to listen to if you're interested in neutral editing. Starship.paint seemed fine with the status quo, and MelanieN commented once with a mixed reaction to a different proposal that you (AFAICT) didn't try to implement. ~Awilley (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Are you talking about a previous discussion? There is a much more recent discussion currently on the talk page at Talk:Donald Trump#Economic policy. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The best way to determine concensus is a Rfc on each major change. Its cumbersome but that's pretty much the only way a concensus can be reached on that particular article. With that in mind, I did agree much more with your version than the other one.--MONGO (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's major enough for RfC, and I don't think my version should be the final version. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Apparently. I was looking at #The economic expansion that began in June 2009. I'm going to bed now. I may have some time to look again tomorrow. ~Awilley (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
No problem, I was just surprised by your message. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Awilley It's time for me to restore my proposed paragraph to the article, per the discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see you have consensus. soibangla (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
You're clearly the only one who disagrees. The edit was reverted because I had inadvertently removed a sentence that I wasn't aware was added to the paragraph. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Undid revision 906456466 by Onetwothreeip (talk) - I do not see consensus for this version on talk soibangla (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
They would have been incorrect if they meant that the proposed paragraph didn't have consensus, which it clearly does. They would be correct to say that removing the last sentence did not have consensus, as that was not discussed there. They also could've done what Awilley did and looked at the wrong discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
My edit has overwhelming consensus by virtue of the fact it remained intact for weeks into months without any of the 2468 article watchers initiating a challenge against it. Not MONGO, not JFG — not even MarkHassett. The silent majority has spoken. soibangla (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
That's not how consensus works. Do you think it's only allowed to remove something from an article when 2000 editors agree? There is no WP:SILENT consensus when there is any disagreement, as myself and others have spoken. I don't feel this is really about you or the paragraph you've written, it's just a natural development of content where people prefer a newer version. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
An editor needs overwhelming consensus to significantly alter longstanding, unchallenged content in one of the most heavily-monitored articles, but you don't have it. And making flatly false assertions that the edit contains "factual errors which misrepresent economics" does not help you to establish overwhelming consensus. Ironically, you called my edit a "factual mischaracterization" while factually mischaracterizing it. And then you wonder how I could take any of this personally. Just unbelievable. soibangla (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@123, I think you'd do better, instead of just reinstating your edit again, to honestly try to understand the objections of Soibangla and look for a compromise that satisfies those objections. Looking at the edit I can see why people would have problems with it. While it removes some unnecessary trivia (like Trump predicting 3% and the economy only growing 2.9%) it also seems aimed at trying to validate Trump's talking point about this being the best economy ever. I also sympathize with Soibangla's argument that raw numbers without some point of reference aren't particularly helpful. (Is 25% mediocre? normal? good? really good?) So why don't you start with that, try to find out specifically what parts of the edit Soi disagrees with, and then implement the parts that you're in agreement with? ~Awilley (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Your comments are well taken, except it's not trivia, it's vital:

"Trump and GOP promised economic growth much better than Obama’s. That’s not what happened Throughout the 2016 campaign and since, the president and his party have vowed to kick-start tepid Obama-era economic growth. Specifically, they insisted tax cuts and deregulation would return growth to its post-World War II average of 3 percent — a level, candidate Trump said derisively, that President Barack Obama became “the first president in modern history” never to reach in a single year. New government data on Thursday morning show that Trump, too, has failed to reach the 3 percent promised land, according to one major metric. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis measured 2018 growth at 2.9 percent, matching the peak Obama enjoyed in 2015."

soibangla (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla There is no such special kind of consensus necessary to "overturn" something that was in the article without any consensus. The fact that it remained in the article for however long you are claiming it remained is immaterial since eventually it was challenged.
Awilley I'm wondering if you have certain personal opinions about me or if you have confused me with somebody else. I have consistently asked them very much what you think I should be asking them, and I can show you those instances if you want. As you can see, Soibangla is simply unmoved from their proposal. I was surprised that you thought I had reinstated my alternative paragraph after only the The economic expansion discussion, so if anybody has told you that I am not a constructive editor heavily involved in talk page discussions seeking to combine people's edits to reach as broad a consensus as possible, that's simply a malicious and easily disprovable lie. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Soibangla is simply unmoved. You made several dubious/false assertions to justify your edit, and I knocked them down one by one, as you pivoted from one to the next, ignoring them all, then made no effort whatsoever to incorporate any of it into your edit to reach consensus. And I'm the one being obstinate here? Awilley is suggesting you demonstrate a modicum of flexibility here, and you are resisting that as well. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. soibangla (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
This is really needlessly combative. Myself and the rest of the participants of that discussion obviously aren't swayed by what you have said, and don't agree that we have made dubious or false assertions. I have repeatedly asked you to suggest alterations but you simply have not. I can ask you again if you wish. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacksEdit

Your accusations of "bad faith" are inappropriate personal attacks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The only personal attack was you accusing me of personal attacks. If you actually were concerned about such a personal attack, you would not have publicised it further by posting that here, where more people can see. I did not name any individual or individuals. I correctly characterised what I identified as disruptive to the process which was still taking place. Please do not attempt to derail the conversation any further, and I am aware that you have attempted this in the past. I want to stay purely on the content of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Then stick to discussing content and don't accuse anyone, even in general, of editing in bad faith. If I had written what you wrote I could be blocked for an "extended period". Be more careful. Don't use those two words. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I am always willing to accept friendly advice but this is most decidedly unfriendly. You should not act as if you are a higher moral authority than others, and your demands are not appreciated. I hope, if you continue to participate in discussion, that it involves content rather than drama, and I invite you to fully participate nonetheless. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
BullRangifer, you have not been blocked in a long time so its highly unlikely unless you do something awful that you would face an "extended" block.--MONGO (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
MONGO, I wish that were the case, but I live under a custom-made sanction. See here: User_talk:BullRangifer#Actual_text_of_sanction.
My block log is really weird. The first, second, and last are the only real blocks. The first one (that admin is blocked) was given to me and another editor, and the admin couldn't even explain how we had violated 3rr. The second was an April Fool's joke. The last one was rather short, and that admin is also blocked. Most of the rest is just repairing the damage; there is apparently no way to remove a block from the log. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but there is only one block in last decade and that was removed after 2 days. No, block logs are permanent features sorry.--MONGO (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the relevance of that comment. Of course there are allegations in the article as that is content it must have per our rules and purpose, and they are labeled as allegations. We do not remove unproven allegations if they are properly sourced.

We're talking about the proper and improper use of the word. The thread is about a specific misuse of the term. We must not label proven facts as mere allegations. That's a policy violation. Those who refuse to accept what RS say should not allow their personal beliefs to influence their editing by adding content which undermines what RS say. We see that all the time at Wikipedia, and experienced editors waste a lot of time having to undo such disruptive editing. It's a perennial problem.

I don't know your position on the matter, but we actually have editors here who don't accept that Russia interfered in the election, but who are wise enough to keep those beliefs to themselves and not edit according to those beliefs. Even using talk pages to advocate those beliefs is forbidden as it's improper advocacy of fringe positions. ("Fringe" is here used in the sense of false opinions which are contrary to what RS say, even if 99% of the population holds those false opinions. At Wikipedia RS, not popularity, is the determinative factor we go by.) As editors, we should show a positive learning curve, IOW we change our opinions by bringing them into line with what RS say. That is sometimes a painful process.  -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer If you're looking for me to confirm again that the Russian government was involved in the 2016 election then that's what I'm doing right now. I have not come across any editors who believe otherwise. We should not be doing what they want, which is to include so many irrelevant details so that nobody reads most of the article, and that the serious events are overlooked. There is clearly far too much in this timeline, when each time that somebody is introduced to somebody else is given the same weight as the real actions that occurred to influence the election. If all these details really must be documented on Wikipedia, we can do so on other articles, particularly those of individuals where the events pertain largely to those individuals rather than more broadly.
As for the allegations, I am obviously very aware that the issue you raised is that an edit was made that seemed to suggest that the involvement of the Russian government was not factually established. Unfortunately, we are also including many mere allegations and unproven claims in the article. I am dispelling of this fiction that anything reliable sources say not only belongs on Wikipedia, but on this article especially.
Informing me that reliable sources and not popularity is what "we go by" and of other such basic principles is not welcome at all, especially given your previous conduct towards me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Copyeditor's Barnstar
I think your efforts to streamline articles deserves a commendation. Thank you. MONGO (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2019 Washington Nationals postseasonEdit

 

The article 2019 Washington Nationals postseason has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Too much information violating WP:NOTNEWS. Totally redundant to 2019 National League Wild Card Game, 2019 National League Division Series, 2019 National League Championship Series, and 2019 World Series.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Muboshgu, do you propose merging the content back into the original article, or simply deleting the content entirely from the main space? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, I think the content needs to be trimmed, not split out. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Muboshgu If you can sufficiently trim the content, I would let the proposed deletion happen. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, I'll merge it back and we can work on trimming together. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Muboshgu I don't think it's a good idea to merge it back. I won't be able to much trimming myself, if at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Electronic ArtsEdit

Hello. I was curious about your edit for List of Electronic Arts games. I put the regional releases on them because there are games on the list that were published and distributed by Electronic Arts in Europe only or in Japan only. Are you sure this edit is okay? Lacon432 (talk) 06:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lacon432, it's certainly reasonable that the articles for those games has information on when they were released in different regions, but it's a lot of information that the lists of video games don't need. They're incredibly large already. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I'll get back to you if the page split for the list comes to see if it's acceptable then or not, Onetwothreeip. Lacon432 (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

CitesEdit

Hi Onetwothreeip, I've noticed that over the past several months you have repeatedly removed citations from Donald Trump and have been reverted each time. The next time you are think that citations should be removed, would you please consult other editors on the talk page first? Every citation added to the article is there for a reason, so there needs to be an equally valid reason for removing them. At a minimum, you have to carefully read the remaining sources to ensure that they support all of the article text. - MrX 🖋 18:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me MrX. The only citations I removed were those that are there for no reason. I can confirm that the remaining sources supported the text as well. I intend to discuss this at the talk page but I invite you to respond with your thoughts here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks I will join the talk page discussion.- MrX 🖋 12:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019Edit

  Hello, I'm Kiwi128. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2020 United States House of Representatives elections without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kiwi128, I appreciate the concern. I explained the edits in this summary, which refers to the talk page where myself and others have discussed this further. The content hasn't been removed from Wikipedia, it has been moved to the state articles, such as with this edit. Cheers, Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Kia ora Onetwothreeip. Apologies for my misunderstanding; I have restored your changes. Perhaps in the future it would be a good idea to put a quick explanation in every edit summary, like "see article talk page"; I had to scroll down a fair way to see your explanation in the first edit of the series. Thank you for your work. Best regards Kiwi128 (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Your changes to "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker"Edit

You have split "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker into two separate pages ("Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" and "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker"). When doing this, you removed context from the new "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" that existed before your split.

You have also not created links to "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" from the main article ("Benjamin Banneker") and from other Wikipedia articles that link to "Mythology and Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". You have therefore made "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" into an orphan that few users will be able to access. In addition, you created "cite errors" within "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" that notices within the page's reference section identify as "Cite error: The named reference (citation) was invoked but never defined (see the help page)".

The lead to "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" states: "A United States postage stamp and the names of a number of recreational and cultural facilities, schools, streets and other facilities and institutions throughout the United States have commemorated Banneker's documented and mythical accomplishments throughout the years since he lived." However, because of the split that you created, "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" does not contain any information about these commemorations, and further, does not contain citations to reliable sources that support information about commemorations.

Further, you have not complied with Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure, which states:

If an article meets the criteria for splitting and no discussion is required, editors can be bold and carry out the split. If unsure, or with high-profile or sensitive articles, start a "Split" discussion on the article talk page, and consider informing any associated WikiProject(s). Additionally, adding one of the splitting templates will display a notice on the article and list it at Category:Articles to be split. This will help bring it to the attention of editors who may assist in establishing consensus, in deciding if a split is appropriate, or in carrying out the split. Templates used without an accompanying rationale, and where there is no obvious reason for the split request, may be removed at any time. Note: To conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which require that all content contributors receive attribution, the page receiving the split material must have an edit summary noting "split content from article name". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to article name". The "Copied" template can also be placed on the talk page of both articles. For further information, refer to the main Copying within Wikipedia guideline.

Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure describes the following six steps that editors need to take when considering and conducting a page split:

Step 1: Create a discussion
Step 2: Add notice
Step 3: Discuss
Step 4: Close the discussion and determine the consensus
Step 5: Perform the splitting
Step 6: Clean up

You performed Step 5, but did not perform any of the other five steps.

I therefore reverted the changes that you made to restore the original text of "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" to correct the errors that you made. However, you subsequently reverted my edits without an adequate explanation.

When preparing to move a Wikipedia page, a message entitled "Move Mythology and commemorations of (page)" appears. This message states: "This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding. Please read Wikipedia:Moving a page for more detailed instructions." The same is true for splitting a page into two or more pages.

You justified your reversions with statements such as "Blanking the article or merging the article into another article is most decidedly not an appropriate way to address the issues of context in the article" and "No need for commemorations to be in the same article as mythology. If one of the articles lacks context, context should be added, not the articles merged."

Editors that split or move pages bear the responsibility of appropriately addressing issues of context in the article that they have created and for adding context. They should not expect other editors to assume this responsibility.

Editors that make comments such as "split or move pages merging the article into another article is most decidedly not an appropriate way to address the issues of context in the article" need to provide an "appropriate way" for others to correct the errors that they have created. "Wikipedia:Moving a page" describes such "appropriate ways" to undo a move (or a split). However, it is difficult to undo a page move (or a split) when a subsequent edit has changed a page (see Wikipedia:Moving a page#Undoing a move). In some instances, only an administrator can resolve these difficulties.

Please therefore correct all of the errors that your changes have introduced. Add context to "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". Define the named references (citations) that the page now invokes. Provide links to "Commemorations of Benjamin Benneker" in other Wikipedia articles that now incorrectly link to "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker", rather to "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker".

Remove the sentence in the lead to "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" that states: "A United States postage stamp and the names of a number of recreational and cultural facilities, schools, streets and other facilities and institutions throughout the United States have commemorated Banneker's documented and mythical accomplishments throughout the years since he lived". If you do not wish to do this, add a link to "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" to the lead, or add citations to reliable sources that support this sentence.

If you do not wish to make these corrections, please revert the page split that you created from "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". If you do not do so, you will have failed to follow the steps in Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure and will have vandalized "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". Corker1 (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Corker1: What exactly would you like me to do? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: Thank you for responding to my message. I agree that Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker is too long and should be split. We are therefore in concurrence on this matter.
However, the editor performing the split needs to assure that the split does not result in the loss of relevant information, including wikilinks in other Wikipedia pages (such as those in Benjamin Banneker) that should direct users to either Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker or to Mythology of Benjamin Banneker, but not to both pages. In addition the editor performing the split needs to assure that Mythology of Benjamin Banneker and Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker contain complete references, as some references in Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker are now incomplete (as indicated in the red error messages in Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker#Notes).
The editor performing the split also needs to assure that lead paragraphs in both Mythology of Benjamin Banneker and Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker only contain information relevant to the page that contains the lead, and not to the other page. Further, the lead for each new page needs to contain some of the information that the lead paragraphs of Benjamin Banneker now contain. This will place each new page in its proper context.
If you can perform all of the above, please do this. If you cannot do this, please revert the split to restore Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. I will then perform the split and do the above, to the extent to which I am able.
Please place your response to this message in this page, in Talk:Mythology of Benjamin Banneker and in Talk:Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. Thank you. Corker1 (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@Corker1: It's not necessary to merge the articles back in order to split them in a different way. We can modify the current articles to address the issues that you raise. It's not true that the editor performing the split has to be the editor that does the things you mention. I'm happy to work with you on this but I'm not aware enough of Benjamin Banneker so I didn't feel it would be appropriate for me to create new paragraphs. I did my best to use the already existing content and shape them into new articles.
As for the procedure of splitting, the steps I took are those that I felt were appropriate, and may not completely align with all the steps that are listed on certain project pages. I'm only going to place this response here, but I have given you a notification about this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: Please do the following, which do not involve any specialized knowledge about Benjamin Banneker. These are editorial changes that are essential to adequately complete the split that you created:
To correct these errors, please copy the complete citations from Mythology of Benjamin Banneker into Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. For example, the red error message for reference 2 in Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker#Notes states: "Cite error: The named reference stamp2 was invoked but never defined". You can find the complete reference (identified as ref name=stamp2) by editing the text of Mythology of Benjamin Banneker and searching for the term "ref name=stamp2". You can then copy the complete reference from Mythology of Benjamin Banneker into Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. When doing this, replace "ref name=stamp2/" with "ref name=stamp2" in Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker.
Repeat this for each red "Cite error:" notification. Be sure that no red error notifications remain in Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker#Notes when you are done.
I will make all of the other changes that I identified in my previous message. Corker1 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: Onetwothreeip has also not adequately responded to my messages regarding Your changes to "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". In that instance, Onetwothreeip split a Wikipedia article without first discussing the proposed split on the article's Talk page and informing other editors about the proposal and without correcting errors that the split had created. As a result, both pages that Onetwothreeip created from the split are either inacessible from other Wikipedia pages or contain many error notices. As you can read on Onetwothreeip's talk page, Onetwothreeip has had many similar complaints from other editors. If Onetwothreeip does not adequately respond to our complaints within 24 hours, I will designate Onetwothreeip as a repeated vandal and will notify Wikipedia administrators about this. Corker1 (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm not surprised. In such a case, just revert back. A split must be done properly or not at all. Leaving an unfinished split leaves a mess similar to, and often worse than, vandalism. We can't have that. We have procedures, and they must be followed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
This is not true at all, I performed a complete split. I'm not responsible for maintaining the articles once they are split. Both fo you should read WP:VANDAL and understand that a vandal is not simply someone that you disagree with.
@Corker1: I can't see what questions you have asked me that I have not answered, but please feel free to put them to me again. Per the above section, you stated that would like to make certain changes to those articles, and I have no objection. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: @BullRangifer: It is not inherently vandalism when, as occurred in this instance:
  • An editor splits a Wikipedia article without prior discussion on the article's Talk page, and,
  • An editor does not notify the article's prior editors of the proposed split, and
  • An editor does not correct obvious new citation errors that the split created because they are marked in red in the "Notes" section of one of the new pages, and,
  • An editor does not revise existing wikilinks, thus creating orphan pages that few will access.
However, when an editor who has made such an incomplete split refuses requests by other editors to correct these errors in a timely manner, this does indeed constitute vandalism. Such refusals destroy the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and compel others to correct errors that the page splitter created.
Another editor can sometimes simply revert a split. However, this is often not possible when subsequent edits have occurred; only an admininistrator can then revert the split.
In this instance, I reverted the split. However, Onetwothreeip undid my reversion without providing an adequate justification for this action.
In the above response, Onetwothreeip stated: "I can't see what questions you have asked me that I have not answered, but please feel free to put them to me again."
I have therefore copied below from Your changes to "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" the most recent changes that I asked Onetwothreeip to make. In the spirit of collaboration, I expect Onetwothreeip to make the following changes within 24 hours:
Please do the following, which do not involve any specialized knowledge about Benjamin Banneker. These are editorial changes that are essential to adequately complete the split that you created:
* None of the wikilinks in Benjamin Banneker#Mythology and commemorations presently connect to Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. As a result, Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker is now an orphan that few will read. Therefore, edit Benjamin Banneker#Mythology and commemorations to change each relevant wikilink to enable each to directly connect to either Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker or to Mythology of Benjamin Banneker.
* Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker#Notes now contains several red "Cite error:" notifications. As a result of these errors, readers cannot access some of the citations in the text of Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. The complete citations are now present in the text of Mythology of Benjamin Banneker#Notes.
To correct these errors, please copy the complete citations from Mythology of Benjamin Banneker into Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. For example, the red error message for reference 2 in Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker#Notes states: "Cite error: The named reference stamp2 was invoked but never defined". You can find the complete reference (identified as ref name=stamp2) by editing the text of Mythology of Benjamin Banneker and searching for the term "ref name=stamp2". You can then copy the complete reference from Mythology of Benjamin Banneker into Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. When doing this, replace "ref name=stamp2/" with "ref name=stamp2" in Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker.
Repeat this for each red "Cite error:" notification. Be sure that no red error notifications remain in Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker#Notes when you are done. Corker1 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Corker1: An editor splits a Wikipedia article without prior discussion on the article's Talk page, and an editor does not notify the article's prior editors of the proposed split. I don't mind making bold edits, and Wikipedia must continue to encourage editors to act boldly.
An editor does not correct obvious new citation errors that the split created because they are marked in red in the "Notes" section of one of the new pages, and, an editor does not revise existing wikilinks, thus creating orphan pages that few will access. Since most of the article previously was incredibly hard to read due to its size, and the lack of readers there generally, it had much the same problems that an orphan article would. I linked to the split article from the article it was split out from, so it has at least the same amount of connection with the rest of Wikipedia as it did before.
However, when an editor who has made such an incomplete split refuses requests by other editors to correct these errors in a timely manner, this does indeed constitute vandalism. An incomplete split is simply not vandalism. I also performed a complete split, even though the articles still need work, but they needed work before the split anyway. This is plainly not vandalism and I would strongly recommend that you don't accuse anybody of vandalism who you are talking to. Not only is this not assuming good faith, it's simply not anything to do with vandalism.
Such refusals destroy the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and compel others to correct errors that the page splitter created. You're the one trying to compel me to make these edits that you clearly want done. I don't see why you don't them yourself, especially since you seem to know about them in more detail than I do, and you would also get to solve the issues in exactly the way that you wanted. It's not collaborative to make me do the edits that you want done.
None of these are actually questions you asked me, so I didn't feel a need to respond, but given that you feel very strongly that I should respond, I have done so. If you would like a direct response from me, it would be easier to question me. Unlike some other editors, I am completely open to working collaboratively and am completely willing to discuss these issues with you. Please do not take any delay in my responses as any personal reflection, as I believe you genuinely do have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate remarks.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I wrote "Leaving an unfinished split leaves a mess similar to, and often worse than, vandalism." I did not call you a "vandal", but I can understand if you are called that, because "When it quacks like a duck...". What you've done is worse than simple vandalism, and your uncollaborative responses everywhere at Wikipedia are worrying and downright pathological. You are a net negative to this project and deserve an indefinite ban. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to be baited by you calling me autistic on your talk page and I'm not going to be baited by this on my talk page either. This pointless arguing is worth neither your nor my time. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I did not call you autistic. I wrote: "I'm really beginning to wonder if you might have Asperger syndrome, like my son. That's not an insult, just a recognition that it would explain your untraditional way of dealing with this and with your uncollaborative, solo, editing patterns. I can AGF about that. Otherwise, you're just being uncollaborative and disruptive, and there's no AGF for that. It would also explain why you don't react normally to all the complaints about your behavior. Normal people try to mesh in and edit collaboratively, but you push on like a bull in a china shop."
If you are autistic or have Asperger syndrome, it would really be good for you to tell us so we know how to deal with you. If we understood you, we'd be better able to help.
As it is, your actions are extremely disruptive, uncollaborative, deceptive, and one of the worst cases of consistent and constant IDHT behavior I've seen since I started editing here in 2003. No matter what your diagnosis really is, the consequences of your being here are destructive, and you have shown no signs of a positive learning curve. Instead, you double down and get worse. AGF is not a suicide pact. Your intentions may seem good in your own eyes, but your actual actions are not good. Any good you ever do here is not worth the damage you do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: @BullRangifer:
Onetwothreeip: BullRangifer is correct. You need to recognize this.
  • When other editors point out errors that I have made or raise issues regarding my edits, I either correct the errors or resolve the issues in interactions with the other editors. In some instances, I request third-party assistance or decisions and then comply with the responses. You refuse do any of this.
  • You do not appear to recognize that a person that creates a mess bears the responsibility for cleaning up the mess. Instead, you tell others to clean up the messes that you have created.
  • You stated: "I don't mind making bold edits, and Wikipedia must continue to encourage editors to act boldly.". Wikipedia does not "encourage" editors to act boldly. Wikipedia rules permit editors to act boldly, but, more importantly, instruct editors to use caution when acting boldly and to work collaboratively to resolve issues that may have resulted from bold actions.
  • You stated: "Since most of the article previously was incredibly hard to read due to its size, and the lack of readers there generally, it had much the same problems that an orphan article would." That is not correct. The original article was long, but it was not difficult to read. Readers could easily access the sections in which they were interested by clicking on links in the table of contents.
  • You stated that the article had a lack general lack of readers. That is not correct. Look closely at the readership history of Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. If you make an effort to do this, you will find that readership reaches a peak each February and is low during school vacation periods. There are reasons for this pattern, which you may not understand.
  • You stated: "I linked to the split article from the article it was split out from". That is not correct. The lead paragraph of the new page Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker contains an ambiguous wikilink entitled Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. That wikilink presently directs users to Mythology of Benjamin Banneker. The wikilink does not direct users to Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. No other articles presently link directly to Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. As a result, that page is now an orphan.
  • You stated: "You're the one trying to compel me to make these edits that you clearly want done. I don't see why you don't them yourself, especially since you seem to know about them in more detail than I do, and you would also get to solve the issues in exactly the way that you wanted. It's not collaborative to make me do the edits that you want done." Please recognize that I know about the corrections that I asked you to make only because I searched for errors that the split may have produced. You apparently failed to do this, although it is an essential part of editing that Wikipedia:Splitting describes.
I have provided you with explicit instructions that describe the procedures that you can use to correct these errors. Although I can make these corrections myself in less time than I am spending in my communications with you, I consider it to be more productive for all concerned to convince you of the need for you to clean up the messes that you repeatedly create by your editing, which I consider to be irresponsible.
I advise you to make the corrections/edits that I and BullRangifer have requested at your earliest convenience. It is your choice as to whether you should affirmatively respond to these requests. Neither of us can compel you to make those changes.
I have attempted to make you aware of the consequences of not cleaning up the messes that you repeatedly create and of claiming to act collaboratively when you are actually are doing the opposite (whether you recognize it or not). Please therefore note: The 24-hour clock that I set in my previous message is ticking.
Thank you. Corker1 (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to be instructed to, or otherwise told what to do. That is decidedly uncollaborative. I have never said that anybody else should clean up some mess that I have made. I have not made a mess with regards to splitting that particular article. I won't go into much detail but the article did not have many readers. It was not easy to read the article, and the accessibility of sections through the contents does not make much difference if readers don't know what to be looking for.
I have fixed some of the linking that I thought was done when I made the split, and I can now confirm this is no longer an issue. I'm afraid I don't think I can help you with the references. Most importantly I just want to say that we certainly do encourage editors to act boldly, and not simply permit this, but yes we do encourage this with caution. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: @BullRangifer:
Onetwothreeip: The 24-hour clock that I set in my previous message is still ticking. Also, Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker is still an orphan. No Wikipedia articles (including the main article) presently link to the page. Further, the top of the page also still contains a message that states: "This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject." Corker1 (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
That's not true, Mythology of Benjamin Banneker links to Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: @BullRangifer:

Onetwothreeip: My previous message stated: "Also, Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker is still an orphan. No Wikipedia articles (including the main article) presently link to the page." Although you have linked "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" to "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" in response to my message, "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" is still an orphan.

The lead paragraph of WP:ORPH states: "In the Wikipedia glossary, an orphan is defined as "an article with no links from other pages in the main article namespace". However, "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" presently does not contain links to Wikipedia pages for either "Commemoration" or "Benjamin Banneker". Therefore, "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" is an "orphan" as defined by Wikipedia.

I therefore suggest that you de-orphan "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" by adding to the lead section of that article links to either Memorialization (a specific type of "Commemoration"), to Benjamin Banneker, or to both. Additionally, as BullRangifer has stated, "The split created at least 11 redlinked references/notes which you should fix."

Thank you. Corker1 (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not an orphan, the mythology article has a link to it, as I intended at the start. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2019 (U
I repeat: You are wrong. Read the first sentence in WP:ORPH. If you do this, ou will find that, an article is an orphan (according to the definition of "orphan") if the article has no links to a subject that is in its namespace (title). Mythology of Benjamin Banneker is not in the title of Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. Therefore, Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker is an orphan. Corker1 (talk)
@Onetwothreeip: @BullRangifer:
Onetwothreeip:
You are not correct. Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker is an orphan. The link to Mythology of Benjamin Banneker, while perhaps useful, does not de-orphan the article.
Please therefore please read my message again. Please also read Wikipedia's definition of "orphan" in the first sentence at WP:ORPH.
As I stated in my previous message to you, the lead paragraph of WP:ORPH states: "In the Wikipedia glossary, an orphan is defined as "an article with no links from other pages in the main article namespace". However, "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" presently does not contain links to the Wikipedia pages for either "Commemoration" or "Benjamin Banneker". Therefore, "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" is an "orphan" as defined by Wikipedia.
The only way to de-orphan Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker is to add to the lead section of that article links to either Memorialization (a specific type of "Commemoration"), to Benjamin Banneker, or to both. There are no other alternatives. One or both of those links must be in the article. I therefore again suggest that you add one or both of those links to the lead section of Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. Corker1 (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
An orphan article is one that has no links to it. Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker has links to it from other articles. This means that when you are on another article, you can use an internal link that will take you to that article. Please read the definition again, and you will find that this is not an orphan article. I have no objections to you adding further links. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: @BullRangifer:
Onetwothreeip: I repeat: You are not correct. Again, please read the first sentence in WP:ORPH. That sentence contains Wikipedia's definition of the word "orphan". If you read that definition, you will learn that an orphan article is not an article that has no links to it. According to the definition, an orphan article is one that contains no links to pages that are within its namespace.
Please recognize that the namespace of a Wikipedia article contains the article's title, and sometimes additional information. Neither the name of the page "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" nor the name of any other Wikipedia page (or synonym of any such page) that are linked within Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker are within the title of Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. Therefore, Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker is an orphan.
As I have previously informed you, the only procedure that can de-orphan Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker is to add a direct link to the page "Commemoration" or to a page with a similar but less ambiguous title (such as "Memorial"), to the page "Benjamin Banneker", or to both. There is no alternative to this procedure. Corker1 (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
"Article namespace" means every single article. A namespace refers to pages with a certain prefix, like "Talk:", "Category:" or "User:". Pages without these prefixes are articles, in the article namespace. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip:: WP:ARTICLESPACE states: "Articles" belong to the main namespace of Wikipedia pages (also called "article namespace" or simply "mainspace").
The main namespace, article namespace, or mainspace is the namespace of Wikipedia that contains the encyclopedia proper—that is, where "live" Wikipedia articles reside, as opposed to Sandbox pages."
None of this has any relevance to the definition of "orphan" in WP:ORPH, which states: "In the Wikipedia glossary, an orphan is defined as "an article with no links from other pages in the main article namespace". The main article namespace of the article that we are discussing contains the title of Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. This title (which is within the main article namespace) has four words: "Commemorations", "of", "Benjamin" and "Banneker". Direct links from pages containing only one of these words except "Banneker" would need to be disambiguated. "Banneker" would be redirected to "Benjamin Banneker".
Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker is presently "an article with no links from other pages in the main article namespace". The article is therefore an orphan. Because links from the pages ""Commemorations", "of", "Benjamin" and "Banneker" would need to be disambiguated or to be redirected, the only procedure that can adequately de-orphan Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker is to add to Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker links to the pages entitled Memorialization, Benjamin Banneker, or both.
It is preferable to add links to one or both of those two pages to the lead section of Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker, rather than to later sections in the article. This procedure would add context to Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker and perhaps justify the removal of the following tag that is now at the top of the article:
An editor added that tag to the article soon after you split Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker into two articles. One of those two articles (Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker) is now an orphan that has insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. Please therefore perform this simple procedure. Corker1 (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
This is far too much for me to read, honestly. You keep making these comments that are more than 2,000 characters each time and I can't be expected to read them all completely. Please keep your comments shorter going forward, and avoid repetition.
This is indeed the definition of an orphan: an article with no links from other pages in the main article namespace. Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker is not an orphan, because it has articles that link to it. In other words, there are articles where Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker are linked from. Go to the "What links here" link in the Tools section of the sidebar, on whatever article you think may be an orphan.
If you want anything more done regarding this, please Wikipedia:Do it yourself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: Wikipedia:Do it yourself applies to all editors. It especially applies to editors such as yourself that boldly split articles.
If you believe that Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker is not an orphan, please identify one or more "links from other pages in the main article namespace". If you do not wish to do this, add links to Memorialization, Benjamin Banneker, or both, to the lead section of Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. Do it yourself. Corker1 (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I already told you how you can identify for yourself the pages that have links to that article. Orphan articles regard a lack of links that go to the particular article from other articles, not links on the article going to other articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: You are wrong. However, even if you were correct, you have not correctly de-orphaned Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. To see what you have done, go to: Benjamin Banneker#Mythology and commemorations. Click on the wikilink in:

You will find that this wikilink directs to Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker.

Then click on the wikilink in the phrase (see Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker) at the end of the first sentence of the second paragraph of Benjamin Banneker#Mythology and commemorations. You will find that this wikilink does not direct to Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker. The wikilink redirects to Mythology of Benjamin Banneker.

You have created an ambiguity within Benjamin Banneker#Mythology and commemorations. You need to correct this ambiguity. Don't ask or expect others to do this. Do it yourself. Corker1 (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Please respondEdit

I pinged you, but you haven't responded yet. Please respond and self-revert before real damage occurs at the talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you BullRangifer. I have been busy recently. I am currently in transit but I will respond to you there in hopefully less than two hours. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Differential K theoryEdit

A previous AfD discussion closed as no consensus. Please start another AfD if you still think this article should be deleted. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@JalenFolf: I don't think the article should be deleted though. It should be merged. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019Edit

You are correct - Unused references should be removed from the article as a result - of your removal of content and list defined references. The article - American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War uses list defined references where the reference is defined in the References section. When removing content, the reference must be removed from the reference list or commented out. After editing content, please check the Reference section for possible cite error messages. You can see the hundreds of cite errors you created in the Reference section (scroll down), from the removal of content and list defined references. Unused list defined references must be removed from the reference section or commented out. This page will help you to fix the multiple cite error message you made. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Ditto. If you want to split article, make sure that you haven't generated citation errors before you click submit. You can do this in your sandbox for convenience. Leaving citation errors is disruptive. You have to stop doing this. - MrX 🖋 19:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

First of all, it's not true that I created any errors with the references. They were automatically generated as a result of those references becoming unused in the article. There isn't any problem for readers when these errors are displayed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
This seems to be an acute case of WP:IDHT. I didn't come to to your talk page to play semantic games. If you continue making edits that result in citation errors, I will bring the issue to ANI and request administrative action. - MrX 🖋 21:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
This isn't semantic, my edits are not errors. What is the problem, to you, with these errors being displayed in the references section? All that this means is there are defined references which aren't used in the article. This doesn't actually affect the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@MrX: Please review the comments that other editors have left on this page. He's been making edits like these for months, and has consistently refused to acknowledge that there's a long-term problem with his behavior. Quite a few editors have agreed this pattern of behavior needs some sort of administrative action. 2600:1004:B142:875B:5D89:909A:D062:FE61 (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I did review them. That's why I gave a final warning. Obstinance of this magnitude does not work well on a collaborative editing project. - MrX 🖋 21:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
This is ridiculous hysteria. Even though you've been trying to preserve fringe scientific racialism in our articles on race and intelligence, I have been very patient in discussing the issues. As for the references imbroglio, I'm in the process of getting the automated scripts to resolve them. To put it bluntly, concurring with concerns over editing processes is not a reasonable way to get a certain editorial outcome on a particular article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
MrX Please answer my question on why you think the references errors are a problem. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The word "error" and the color red should speak for themselves. Wikipedia articles exist in a live, published medium. Our credibility as a serious educational work rests on the quality and integrity of our articles. The red citation errors scream that something is amiss and erode readers' confidence. This is such a basic concept, that I'm stunned that I have to even explain it. While Wikipedia is a work that anyone can edit, there is an expectation that editors will familiarize themselves with the community's norms and that they have the competence to edit in manner that improves, not damages, the encyclopedia. In other words, WP:BEBOLD not WP:RECKLESS. You have been given similar advice about your edits by soibangla, BullRangifer, Akld guy, Corker1, Isaidnoway and others, but for some reason, you're WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I have to be honest with you, that does not bode well. - MrX 🖋 22:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer but I am stunned at how hostile you and others are being here. I agree with your answer that the errors make it look like a rather serious problem to readers who would not be aware what the issues are. This is a very significant departure from the civility that I am used to experiencing here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to be hostile, and I apologize if that's how it was received. I was, however, trying to be blunt because when someone doesn't seem to understand or accept what they have been told more collegially by several other experienced editors, a direct approach is sometimes a better way to communicate. - MrX 🖋 23:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
These last few days are genuinely unprecedented in terms of the incivility I've experienced on Wikipedia, which I generally thought was far better than what can happen in real life. So much condescension, anger, insult and presumptions, as well as refusing to acknowledge what I am saying, and at the worst possible time of year as well. Do you understand and accept what I have told you, at least? Maybe people are just more stressed at this time. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
When everyone else tells you that you're screwing things up, maybe they are right. How about acting collegially and collaboratively for once and see things from our POV. You need to accept and act on all the criticisms. You need to correct the errors you have left behind. You need to stop doing what irritates others. Your failures to do those things are extreme IDHT behavior, and it's very disruptive. You are a net negative to the project. We no longer want you here because you are not showing a positive learning curve. You just dig deeper. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
What you are observing recently is a long-simmering frustration with various aspects of your editing style now reaching a rapid boil. Several editors have expressed serious misgivings about your editing for many months now, but you do not appear to have taken any of it into consideration, but rather appear to blithely brush it all aside and continue as you please. And now you act oblivious to all the feedback you've received for months, as though we're all being unfair to you now. If I were now in your position, being confronted by a good number of other editors, I would take it as a signal that I need to take a time out and engage in some introspection, lest a time out be imposed upon me. soibangla (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I am always grateful for good faith feedback that I have received, but I can't be expected to genuinely accept criticism from people who have insulted me personally. None of these issues are so intractable that they can't be discussed, without commenting on the editors themselves. Rather than simply look at the process, I much prefer to look upon the results of my edits throughout my years on Wikipedia, for which I take great pride. I'm not surprised that people who make edits that I disagree with also disagree with me, but what I am surprised by is the level of incivility that editors are permitting themselves. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I can't speak to a long-simmering frustration with various aspects of your editing style now reaching a rapid boil. I know little of that situation. But if that's the case, I think editors should be more direct in addressing the various aspects of your editing style, rather than expressing that frustration by overstating what is a relatively minor, short-term problem (readers rarely look at the References section and Wikipedia's reputation will not suffer irreparable damage if a few readers see those errors).
You have inquired at WP:HD about an automated method for removing those 226 LDRs, which demonstrates good faith in addressing the problem (and it might have helped a little if you had conveyed that here). I would propose that you pursue that for another 48 hours and then, if there is no automated method, just bite the bullet and do it manually. I would put the errors in one window/tab and an edit session in another, and toggle between them. If you want to avoid the possibility of an edit conflict when you hit Publish, copy the References section to a personal sandbox first and edit that; then edit the article's References section and copy the result back. At HD BullRangifer suggested 30 minutes, but that's eight seconds per LDR and seems low. Perhaps one hour, and the LDR issue goes away, freeing you to respond to a long-simmering frustration with various aspects of your editing style. ―Mandruss  09:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification - Race and IntelligenceEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

I see that you've received past notifications:

As mentioned in the template, these notices are just for your information based on your apparent areas of interest on Wikipedia. They do not imply wrongdoing per se. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about NATO involvement in the Yemeni Civil WarEdit

Hello, Onetwothreeip

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, NATO involvement in the Yemeni Civil War, should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NATO involvement in the Yemeni Civil War.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slatersteven}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Your splitEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. SharabSalam (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Teen Wolf minor characters for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Teen Wolf minor characters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Teen Wolf minor characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – sgeureka tc 10:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)