User talk:Onetwothreeip/2019 I

• 2018
• January–June 2019
• July–December 2019

“Dobass timeliness”

Hope that you can understand that splitting these articles the way U do, "kills" all the references that cover both the last day of the previous month and the first day of this month (e.g., data on 31 Dec will be published today);
in case of 12 articles there are 24 last and first days, where all the links must be corrected;
plus, in case of 12 articles instead of 4 one should add all these links (populated places, weaponry, etc.,) in 12 articles, not in 4, etc.—Pietadè (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Pietadè I'm not entirely sure what you mean, can you expand on that? If I am understanding you, then we can just have the same references on both articles, i.e. the same reference can be used for October 31 and November 1, even if they are on different articles. Again, it would otherwise be the second largest Wikipedia article, so this splitting is important. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip The war itself has entered into the 5th year of existence, Oct–Dec has had total 13,245 pageviews so far;
and, not only the last/first day of every month and their respective references, but there are other items in the articles to be linked too (like Donetsk is now linked ~4 times, after splitting there should be at least 12 of this link); plus, quite more time consuming would be to write 12 articles instead of 4...—Pietadè (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. It is three times the articles but they are one third the size. The whole point is that the articles are smaller when there are more of them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

These 3 articles would be summa summarum bigger in size than 1 article that covers 3 months (e.g., instead of linking 1–2 times to, say, DPR, UNIAN, RFE/RL, Minsk, etc., etc., all the localities/locations, weapons, Ukraine, et cetera, in 51 articles (your suggestion), instead of 19/20, by now), plus, I have thought on making a table (like this), years either vertically or horizontally (in this article), though, haven't asked DagosNavy yet.—Pietadè (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Three individual articles would only be bigger than one big article because of three times the categories and external links, and I am very willing to handle that. Even if I wasn't the burden of slightly more work cannot get in the way of improving the articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Not quite true, you see, the policies, that have started from the very beginning of Wikipedia («body of works» consisting of HTML texts), is to link (at least) the first instance on linkable article (be it different weaponry, people, locations (there can be, and, usually are, different locations with the same name (e.g., X, Y Raion; X, Y1 Raion; X, Y2 Raion; etc., have started up to 100 articles for these locations)), admin units, etc.); as for almost only contributors to this text, me and DagosNavy have agreed to start 2-month timelines this year (no monopoly on division of a year?!?);
this is an ongoing war (covered by both parties as they deem it necessary), and, if, e.g., stabbing of some person somewhere (tragedy), flooding of some land somewhere else (tragedy), people jumping inches/meters higher/deeper, running faster (Olympic Games, essentially sequence of events, can be reduced to weekly summarys) (statistics)..., so what, shall we make (only) summarising articles (e.g., 2 nations are disputing land, average rate of kKIAs (i.e., kiloKIAs) 2,5+ per year) — summarising: do you want to leverage the coverage of ongoing war into monthly/yearly statistics?—Pietadè (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

So, do please consider this as a pre-notice — I'm going to rearrange all these data collections into 2-months entities (despite the «another world» streaming into Big Data era, deeper and deeper every day), and, at the same time (bearing in mind that all this type of sequences, on daily/monthly basis, are based on real life), where did U acquire this kind of knowledge, that segmentation of Yours' would be better, for readers, etc., this takes a special kind of knowledge, no offence meant, as for me, I would be glad to make, say, tomorrow's last entry, like, no one, killed, wounded, and the war is caput;
yet, if this lasts for much longer, another time intervals could be introduced (articles are not written (and donated to W) to satisfy writers'/admins' expectations, etc., some other, more important, “summa summarum” might be involved, haven't U considered?))—Pietadè (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

In addition, did not see any work on your side — e.g., you split, but U do not make any changes in the months' articles to make them W articles (links, etc.), in other words, for the sake of readers (who may want to find out in the limits of 1 article info on constituents — this is called vandalism), your actions are bordering vandalism, just, from which side, we'll see; all the best.—Pietadè (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Besides, did not see U following the instructions concerning how to split articles (by the way, to preserve history ets., U have to have admin tools), that were given to U on this same page, besides stealing authorship U are creating plenty of work to others, are U happy?—Pietadè (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

And, let me explain what I meant if speaking about stealing: we have create(ed) 3months articles (since 2019, if the war shall not cease tomorrow, there'll be 2months arts) as entities (meaning, all inter/outer-links added), disrupting the sequence (clever, one might say, depends on the other side of the pay roll) constitutes... (who reads, do, please, fill in)—Pietadè (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pietadè: You are not speaking clearly at all and I cannot find any meaning in any of what you're saying. If you think I am vandalising any articles, or anything similar to that, you should report me immediately. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Timeline of the war in Donbass (October–December 2018)

Wikipedia:Splitting#How to properly split an article says:

• Paste into the new article with edit summary "Contents [[WP:SPLIT]] from [[Source article name]]; please see its history for attribution." and save the new article.

This is required by our license to give attribution to editors of the original article. I have made dummy edits with similar edit summaries now. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't it had been easier to correct at first mistakes and then split; just had a look on Dec 2018: more than 300 instances of double empty spaces and “floating” mm-s (meaning, calibre not connected to measure, like 122nbsp,mm).—Pietadè (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

It should be easier to correct mistakes on the split articles because they are smaller than if the three articles were one article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Do not agree (who are these "helpers" (editors), on some 100+ million articles?).—Pietadè (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. Smaller articles are easier to edit than larger articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Besides that, some call this sequence of ceasefires a war, and, when I start an article, I cannot know in advance for how long the "topic" shall last; and, now it appears that I have started very² few articles on the subject (the split articles do not appear in my "created articles" count), and all the topic is covered by others, so, happy covering, one could say...
and, did it indeed take only some 4+ years to understand the mechanics of this war, so that we can now predict with 99.999% certainty the future course of events, worth of Nobel prize..., congrats!—Pietadè (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying you're upset that you won't get credit for starting the new articles? Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

---

We (two main contributors) have agreed to start this year with 2-months timelines (that doesn't mean, that we are waiting for the war to continue).—Pietadè (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

List of presidential proclamations by George W. Bush

Thanks for creating List of presidential proclamations by George W. Bush.

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

Good idea to do this!

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

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

Britishfinance (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Restoring list of 2017 albums

Just informing you that after failing to reach a consensus, and a lack of interest on the talk page of Wikipedia:Article size, I disagree that you had a mandate to split List of 2017 albums, and if it is eventually split, I would expect a way for the history of the page to be carried over to the new pages. So, because I think there was not a consensus or a need, and because the history was not transferred, I am restoring the page. I do not view this as edit warring, but if you do view it to be so, lets find a way to involve the administrators, because taking it the the talk page of Article Size failed to do so. Mburrell (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mburrell: What do you mean by transferring the history? The edit summaries when I created the split articles clearly indicate that the history traces back to List of 2017 albums, as laid out in WP:PROPERSPLIT. That is entirely the reason why I stated that in the edit summary. There is no means by which the page history information can be transferred like that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the article on how to properly split an article. I was unaware of that one. If I am reading that correctly, you would split out the portion that will be a split into a new article. In the case of List of 2017 albums, that would probably be the July to December section. You would then move that into the new article. But not both portions. The first half, in order to keep the history, you would rename from the original title to List of 2017 albums (January to June). That would keep the history attached to the active article instead of the signpost article. This way, one half would have all the history and the other half would start from scratch on history. There might be a way of taking the history to both halves, but if that is possible, that is an administrative tool. I know administrators have the ability to merge histories when two articles are joined. Mburrell (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I would create two new articles and the original article would remain with its name. The history would remain on that page while the content would only be links to the two other articles. The edit summaries would link back to the original article. Do you object to splitting the article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not object to splitting the article if there is a reason to do so. I just think that splitting the article using Wikipedia:Article size as a justification is incorrect, and if I supported that, I would create a bad precedent for others who do not see that any of the list articles need splitting. I will support splitting the article once the citation limit of 1284 or so references is hit and the reference listing below the article blows up again. If the programmers have changed the citation limit in the meantime, I am not wedded to the 1284 or so references, just when the references disappear from the article view page. Mburrell (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Article title

When a section is titled "Works in Bach's catalogues and collections:", don't you think it should show these works? Or at least have a different article, Works in Bach's catalogues and collections:that are not by Bach? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt We can realistically only give details and descriptions of his works. It would be impossible to actually show the works on the article, but that may be possible for articles about the particular works. I agree the title is confusing though, and should be modified to fit our titles conventions relating to lists of this nature. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Your recent editing history at 2017 in American television shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Fradio71 (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fradio71: This is nonsense. You keep reverting edits against consensus and are exceedingly uncivil on the article talk pages. If you take this to the attention of administrators this is very likely to boomerang back onto you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

You were uncivil first. There is nothing in the rules that says I'm not allowed to express frustration as I run out of patience with you. You've been warned about 3RR before and you definitely weren't reverting vandalism. Consensus doesn't mean anything when you break the rules repeatedly to get your way. You can't just walk all over someone just because you disagree with them. You are relentless at wanting to destroy the individual years in American television pages. You said so yourself. Nothing is ever enough for you and you refuse to compromise. And yet you feel so privileged to do such destruction--Fradio71 (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

If you think I've broken a rule then report me, or withdraw the accusation. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Kennerley-Stynes

Please go to relevant talk page and discuss this issue re inclusion of this comment in entry about Stynes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.109.84 (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Hi again, I have set up the above Section in Stynes' Talk page for a reason, and that is not just to let you ignore me and keep your edits including removal of my content unchallenged. Let's try to reach consensus on Talk page instead of just undoing each other. I AM WAITING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.105.101 (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Hi Onetwothreeip, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! GAB^gab 10:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

List of cult films

You are wasting a lot of your and other editors' time. Rethink your use of WP:AFD. Cheers 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

7%266%3Dthirteen I have endeavoured to save time by deleting the article and starting over, rather than trying to fix what it has become. I intend to withdraw the proposal shortly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Well done. To be sure, the article needs better guidelines and serious editing. Cumbersome and too long, IMO. But AFD is not the right tool for this. FWIW, I AGF, and was questioning your choice of weapons, not your underlying concerns. Three Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I initiated an AfD on the same terms last year about a list of box office bombs which had the exact same problem and was successful, but the main contributor to that article chose not to recreate it. I do find it very disagreeable to describe my actions as wasting the time of myself or others. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Your recent editing history at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. TedEdwards 00:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: Hi, thank you for your concern. I have only reverted twice, with one of my restoring of content edits only being to hide the content that was removed by another editor, rather than the content being removed entirely from the page, since it's strongly likely to be restored permanently or unhidden. This warning seems to be very premature but I do appreciate concerns about edit warring. Because I take the 3RR rule seriously I would have self-reverted that restore-and-hide edit if anybody found that to be contentious as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I never said you violated 3RR, I only said you are edit warring, and you need to stop. Edit warring and 3RR are not the same; you can edit war (as you are), and not breach 3RR. --TedEdwards 00:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying I have not engaged in an edit war. I reverted one edit, that revert was reverted, and then I hid the information rather than reverting it back to the visible page, as detailed in my edit summary. I am not "repeatedly changing content back to how [I] think it should be", as you claimed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Then why did a mysterious column entitled "TIG" appear on the article after you edited it, if it was "hidden"? You partially undid Impru20's edit, hence it counted as a revert, and hence you are/were edit warring. --TedEdwards 00:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The column itself wasn't hidden but the participants on the talk page agree that there will be a column. If that's contentious too then we can hide the entire column as well, even if it shows no data and has no impact on anything else. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Merphee (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I think those diffs make me look pretty good. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox discretionary sanctions alert

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 discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. How do you think this would apply to the discussion happening at Talk:The Australian? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any debate over whether to use an infobox, but the discretionary sanctions also include "removing verifiable information from infoboxes". There seem to have been some reverts recently related to this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Do you know what implications there are for someone who is repeatedly removing a parameter of the infobox? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

If someone repeatedly made disruptive edits to infoboxes, they get be blocked or topic banned. But the best solution, I would think, is to hold an RFC. That way, there'd hopefully be a clear consensus that could be enforced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: There has already been an RFC Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Political_alignment_of_Aus_newspapers and it did not go their way. The response has been to reinsert it and, of course, claim that others are breaking sanctions by removing it. I have removed it, more than once, pending an agreement to add it, and am in accord with the "furious agreement" that inclusion is unhelpful. So much time invested over a deviation from proper content, this is what the sanctions need to address. cygnis insignis 07:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to look into what actually is a Request for Consensus. This ain't it chief. You and Merphee seem to be under the illusion that any time where someone agrees, that's an RfC. I started that particular discussion, and it was not about the infobox. It was about the entire article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to describe this, 'the objectors are not doing what we demand of them?'. Somebody made a [Request [f] Comment] at [Notice Board], I deployed that decision and freely admit I agree with it—IAR, if it improves the encyclopaedia—If there is recourse to the opinion of me and others (as I see it) then actualise that and stop dancing around process. cygnis insignis 18:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

your contributions

not, as yet, productive, as I far as I see. Do you have content or discourse to contribute? Your are lonely, join the fucking club, interfere with useful outcomes at your peril [as a user account, if you value it, I value my unique acc and contribs and fancy that outweighs your harrying, don't imagine it is without consequences and a burnable part of of your overall contribution to this document] cygnis insignis 18:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Splitting the 'Fatal dog attacks in the United States' page again?

@Onetwothreeip: Why did you split off the 2000-2009 fatalities from the main article Fatal dog attacks in the United States? I can understand taking out the "pre-2000" ones (which you did a month ago) because the page had gotten VERY lengthy. But why pop out the 2000-2009 ones? Nomopbs (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nomopbs: Hi Nomopbs, essentially for the same reason as the pre-2000 list. The article would otherwise be very large. It's still quite a large article, but the latest split I performed moved it well down the list of largest articles, from about third to 286th per Special:LongPages. In truth, the first split I did wasn't enough at the time. I hope this clarifies things and I hope this hasn't been disruptive. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip:Well, it DOES make it hard to look for a specific victim by name, because now you have to search THREE wiki pages. Is there some sort of wiki policy/guideline for NOT having long pages? Nomopbs (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nomopbs: Wikipedia:Article size. I'm not sure what you mean by searching for a specific victim. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Control-F then type in a name. Sometimes I'm searching for one. I'm sure other people do the same thing. Now we'll have to check three different pages. Not a problem if you KNOW there are three pages, but may cause a 'false negative' if you only search the one page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomopbs (talk • contribs) 00:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. oknazevad (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Really? I reverted you once, and that was reverting what you reverted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Fraser Anning

No, it's still not good enough. All the references you added are for Anning himself. Can you find one that refers to the party? (I couldn't.) StAnselm (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

StAnselm Not good enough according to you. He is the sole politician of the party and the party is named after him. He is the party, and I'm not sure why you're pretending that you want to describe the party as far-right but for some lack of references. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you possibly support my last edit to the page? I simply went back to Bacondrum's last one this morning, removed the inverted commas around CM and give it a wikilink. The discussion is all getting rather silly, but there is a consensus of sorts around it? Peace. Boscaswell talk 00:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC) ...and I believe that WP:OWN may be an issue on the page. And the talk page. Boscaswell talk 00:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. StAnselm (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@StAnselm: You made four reverts though! Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the initial edit is usually counted, so we're both up to three reverts. Let's discuss this on the talk page! I honestly don't know why you want it in when you acknowledge it's unrelated. StAnselm (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

StAnselm Of course the "initial" edit counts, it was a revert. You made four reverts of the same content. Can you self-revert in good faith then? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

What on earth were you thinking with this edit? After all the talk discussion, after all the hard work reaching a compromise, why would you add back that material? StAnselm (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Some of the reverts you made were correct, but there was no such compromise reached and you've shown before that you aren't good at judging what the talk page has agreed on. The only hard work has been arguing against your obstruction on the talk page, and it seems like "compromise" to you means something you happen to agree with. As I've said before, you don't have a veto on the article, and it is not a condition for consensus that StAnselm or anybody particular is happy with the edits. It's obvious to everybody that you don't let anything you disagree with, and you continuously claim that anything you disagree with is a violation of WP:BLP. There is no final version of the article and when your edits are reverted by two or more editors, that means it's time to take it to the talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

2019 PEI general election

Howdy. Will you please stop deleting Dennis King as PEI's premier-designate? It's what his been called since the election results came in. I watched the thing. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, thanks for your edits to the election article. I was watching, I didn't hear anyone calling him the premier-designate. A few minutes after the second time I removed it from the article, CTV was the first to edit an existing article to say that he is the premier-designate. I don't know if any other sources have done so since then, I haven't checked. Please take this to the talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Katter an agrarian socialist

!!! Yes, I saw it in the citation you added. The wiki article on it says: “The emphasis of agrarian socialists is therefore on control, ownership and utilisation of land rather than other means of production.” I’d read that Katter himself is in favour of collective bargaining for the agricultural workforce. But common ownership of land? How does that fit in as far as he’s concerned? Does his farmer fanbase know?  ;) Boscaswell talk 01:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Boscaswell You're assuming that agrarian socialism is about common ownership of land. It may or may not be, and it would not be surprising to me if Katter was, but this is not the basis for describing anyone or any party that way. There are many sources which attribute agrarian socialism to him. It's more to do with government intervention in agriculture, and not really about collective bargaining either. Yes, this is generally known by his constituents. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

For Britain Movement

Hi, why was my edit on the above article reverted? I changed 'antisemitic' to the more common 'anti-Semitic'. Regards JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 10:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi JackintheBox, it's certainly nothing personal. "Antisemitic" is the standard spelling and what we use on Wikipedia. Essentially this comes from the history of the term not meaning exactly the same thing as anti-Jewish, since there aren't actually such people as "Semites". Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks for the explanation. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 00:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Your recent editing history at Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Can you show me where I've made two or more edits within a 24 hour period? Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

What you're doing is called slow edit warring and it still violates the spirit of collaborative editing. We are not supposed to make edits when other editors keep protesting them. We stop and try to figure out what's up, and then we seek a mutually satisfactory solution. Solo editing in such situations ignores that we are part of a community and that we work together, not against each other. This often means that we must seek a compromise and be satisfied with that.

You were warned not to repeat your bold deletions, and yet you did it. That's edit warring. Edit warring is not just a counting of disputed edits, it's an attitude. You need to stop the confrontational attitude and attempts to force your will on the article. You don't own it, but you're acting as if you did by ignoring the protestations of other editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer We are not supposed to make edits when other editors keep protesting them. That is exactly my point. The edits of adding content for events before 2015 are being protested by other editors. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You keep evading the obvious actions which started this situation. The article was basically quiet until you made huge, extremely bold, deletions. Those deletions are the only Bold actions in the BRD of this situation.

Your Bold edits were Reverted, and the next step in BRD is....wait for it....DISCUSSION ONLY. No repetition of any attempts at your Bold edits. Only DISCUSSION. Your repetitions and refusal to heed advice are super classic edit warring. BRD is an essay to which I have made heavy contributions many years ago. I understand the idea behind it. It happens to be the best, and often only, way to determine who started an edit war.

In this case, there is no doubt you started it and are openly planning to continue it. That's blockable, especially on a DS article where you have been notified and warned. I'm amazed you don't realize the peril you are in for an indef block from any editing here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Is this all because I didn't show diffs for the original content being added? I said if you really wanted them I could show you some but surely the existence of that content on the article proves that there is a diff wherein that content was added.

I don't see how you can argue the addition of the content for pre-2015 events wasn't bold. If you can show me a talk page consensus for it, that would be very helpful. Silent consensus doesn't apply since myself and others have objected on the talk page and have reverted the bold edits.

As for all this 3RR warnings and Administrator's Noticeboard and indefinite blocking stuff that is constantly being alluded to, I think that's all just immature. Continuing to claim that my reverting of bold edits are the bold edits, and the edits I reverted weren't bold, that seems immature also. I've already tried to bring about discussion on this matter several times, with the latest being a proposal to make a new article about Donald Trump's connections to Russian entities, but you give no attention to that.

I really don't know why you keep carrying on about this. The bold edits have been reverted, now let's talk about them if you would like to. It's BRD, not BRRD. I have not received any advice from you on this matter. If not taking your threats seriously is somehow "classic edit warring", then I really ought to place a warning on your own talk page then. I'd rather not since I'm sure you're aware of the edit warring policies, but I can try to be condescending too if you think that will help somehow. Although on that matter, yes if you do continue to restore what myself and others have removed, you would be risking sanctions.

How about both of us stay away from editing the article for now, and just take it to the talk page of the article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• @O. You need to know that BR started a discussion about you here. You are welcome to respond if you wish. I would recommend you to self-revert on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Re

To this. I am just saying that the book by Harding is an RS and it tells what it tells. Also note that it was not me who included this info to the page. Given that, I would rather take a break from commenting about it for a while and let others to discuss. That is assuming that text of the page is stable and discussion continue. So far, looking at the discussion and actual editing of the page, I do not see a consensus to remove a lot of materials. Perhaps an RfC is needed. Happy editing. My very best wishes (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Harding may very well be reliable but we don't just include everything that a reliable source says. To present this as a fact, it needs to be acceptable among reliable sources. There's no point in including it in the article if it's not to present facts but only to present what reliable people say are facts. I encourage you to remove content from the article that you believe would likely not be controversial to remove. This article isn't going to be fixed by debating every single sentence. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No one tells that the "collusion" is a fact. Harding finds various information and present it in his writings in a manner that does suggest the collusion (as the title of the book tells). This is basically the same facts and same information as in the report bu Mueller, excluding the history. My very best wishes (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Well the article isn't about the collusion, it's about what the Russian government and Russian entities did. As for people involved in Donald Trump's campaign and his businesses, we can only include what they have done relevant to those activities. We can still take a broad view of it, but so much is just background information that is irrelevant in detailing the interference. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You should stop removing content without consensus. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey My very best wishes, please self-revert your latest edit. I have taken great care in what I have removed and I urge you to review the recent edits I made. There simply aren't going to be debates about every single sentence in the article. Editors are not going to waste their time going back and forth on every single thing. I'm only selectively removing entries in the article that clearly do not belong. It would take far too long for everybody if we had to discuss everything, and for what it's worth this is not unilateral, my edits have been given thanks and there has been support on the talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"I'm only selectively removing entries in the article that clearly do not belong." That's not true. You blanket reverted a whole lot of edits. That's not "selective" at all. If a single edit is wrong, then delete it with an edit summary that explains why. Such deletions may have legitimacy. Blanket deletions cannot be analyzed and are normally reverted to protect the encyclopedia since they tend to be gross violations of WP:PRESERVE, which is not a guideline, but a policy. We try not to delete material when at all possible. Instead, we try to improve it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi BullRangifer, these were non-blanket removals and very selective. I decided based on the merits of each entry after reading the entire entry whether they should be removed. I explained why they were removed in the edit summaries. Please actually read WP:PRESERVE, and not just the redirect link. Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The very first sentence says that if they can't be fixed, they should be removed. The matter of Ivanka Trump sitting in "Putin's chair" isn't something that can or needs to be fixed, it's something that either belongs in the article or it doesn't, and it doesn't. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If so, you should make a few small edits and wait if there will be any objections. But instead you remove a lot. For example here, I think the removal of the piece which mentioned Felix Sater is especially objectionable. My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, your first edit undoing 36 intermediate versions was ... unhelpful. My very best wishes (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Felix Sater accompanying Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr on a trip to Russia in 2006 is not relevant to the article. I removed only a few entries that mention Sater, and there remains many more in the article. Again, please self-revert. I have not really removed a lot in the context of how large this entire article is, and most of the bytes removed are just references. I am being very careful and erring on the side of caution in what I am removing from the article. It's also possible to restore information to the article without reverting the rest of my constructive editing, even if it isn't as quick and easy to do. Please, we owe it to our readers to provide only the relevant information about Russian interference. Just as they won't read the entire Mueller Report, they won't read half a megabyte of prose either. This article would easily be hundreds of pages long if it was printed out on A4 paper, and it's very easy to see that a lot of information is just background context. As for those 36 intermediate edits, they were all individually medium-sized bold additions and obviously I'm not going to revert them one at a time. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"we owe it to our readers". Yes, absolutely. We owe to have it. Most of the included info, starting from 1986, is actually very helpful and interesting. The list is fine and easily readable and understandable. If you want to remove something, please start from a few most obvious items and wait for a day to see that no one objects.My very best wishes (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Then please self-revert and we will see if anybody objects and I won't make any more removals for a day. We don't include information based on being interesting, especially when they can be included elsewhere. I think you're looking at this from the perspective that it's important to detail the dishonesty of Donald Trump, but this is not the place for that. If you want an article about Trump's connections to Russia, we can make another article for that. It seems like you're forgetting that this is an article about Russian interference in 2016 elections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Look, here is your edit. You remove several correct disambigs. You remove sourced info that " FBI warns Trump aide Hope Hicks at least twice that she might be approached by Russian government operatives using fake identities". You remove sourced info that " Dmitriev reaches out to Nader expressing the desire to build closer relationships with the U.S. and the Trump team". And so on, and so on. How is that an improvement of the page? My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes Didn't you read the edit summary? That edit was reverting recent bold editions. The other edits were selective removals that don't fit the article, but you reverted every edit I had made. Please rectify this issue. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You had the same problem on this page long before I came [[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6]. Just do not do it. Instead, if you want to remove something, please start from a couple of most obvious items (which you are sure should not cause anyone's objection) and wait for a day to see if no one objects. Not sure though if this is going to work because I did just that a few days ago, but X1 restored. My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Those were actually recent additions though and I removed them since they were bold and recent. Would you rather we kept those edits but removed the rest then? Apart from reverting the recent bold additions I only removed obviously not fitting entries. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, but "I removed them since [just because] they were bold and recent" (yes, that is what you did) is a destructive approach and probably a WP:POINT. If you really want to improve the page (as you just said above), you should try to keep good content and remove something that indisputably does not belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

[7] - no, there is no consensus to remove. If you are sure there is one, please ask an uninvolved admin to comment or close. Besides, even if there was a consensus, removing well sourced and relevant content from pages contradicts our core policies, and these policies override WP:Consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I'm surprised you would disagree with that but let's wait to see what others have to say then. If there isn't a consensus, that would become very clear. It does not require an administrator to give an editor permission to make edits based on a talk page consensus. Let's not abuse process here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it was against the policy. If this continue, I will ask for community input on one of noticeboards. My very best wishes (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

What policy? You're clearly judging whatever arguments you think support your reasons as having more weight than every other person who has weighed in on the matter regarding the items I have removed today. I think JFG and The Four Deuces should be aware of this, but this should be discussed on the talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that My Very Best Wishes can be persuaded. As a university professor with a PhD, he is certainly able to determine what is relevant to an article and to read and interpret policies. TFD (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am not professor. Now, here Onetwothreeip openly invites you and JFG to support him with reverts... My very best wishes (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Research scientist. In any case, you have very strong view on the Russian government and no amount of argument will persuade you that Trump is not one of their agents. TFD (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• No, I do NOT think he is "one of their agents". Please do not put to my mouth something I never said. BTW, what you said is offensive. This is like saying "you believe the Earth is flat". My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

If he is not a Russian agent, then what relevance do any of his contacts with them have? TFD (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I already explained this several times [8]. If something was described in multiple RS in relation to the subject of the page, this should be included to the page, simply because this is something a reader of the page needs to know about (personally, I have learned enough after looking at the page). This is reference work, and I think that multiple participants of the project did a very good work on this page, much better than on many others. Yes, a few items can be removed and a lot can be improved, but mass removals I think should be out of question. This has little to do with my political views, whatever they are. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

In your link, you refer to Collusion by Luke Harding. Harding documents Russian attempts to recruit Trump, although he says Trump is "not necessarily" a Russian agent. But since we agree that theory is on a par with the flat earth theory, then it has no relevance to the article and we can remove all mention of Trump's contacts with Russians.

From a tactical standpoint, if the article appears to be pushing a flat earth theory about collusion, then readers may discount the findings of Russian interference.

TFD (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

No, this timeline (essentially a list) does not push Flat Earth or any other fringe theory (the "interference" did happen, essentially as a matter of fact). And no, we should not remove any content sourced to the book by Harding and other RS. What they say, exactly, may be debatable, but looking at the upper portion of the list, I can see only factual and well sourced information (mostly facts) that sources say was relevant to the subject. And I think this is actually simple. Would I, as a reader of the time line, be interested to look at the earlier events related to the story? Yes, obviously. Could they be placed to a separate sub-list? Yes, possibly, but I do not see any benefits because the list is well organized. My very best wishes (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Eugenic feminism

Unfortunately, the only thing I ever did to the article was tag it for not being categorized, using automated tools that don't really let me review the content of the article at all. I really don't have any brilliant insight on the content, because I'm not an expert in the subject matter. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Elliott

I think it's reasonable to include notable views for someone like Elliott. Although he's a long-standing and well-known conservative commentator, he's not prominent on the level of say, Andrew Bolt, such that anything he ever says would be an ongoing media story unless it was something significant enough to actually end his media career. These kinds of sourceable evidence of his views (and I'm sure there's a lot more than that one) give the reader insight into where in the scale of conservative opinion he sits, and it's not surprising that the very unusual views are the first to get included into the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife If we're going to represent his views, we should do it in a purposeful way. Some remark about a benign dictatorship does very little to represent Elliott's views. The source here is just himself, not a secondary source. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the appropriate scope of our timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — JFG ^talk 21:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

User talk pages

I got a notification from yet another user asking you to stay off their page, one I had given a heads up about your pattern of behaviour. Will you do that, or use a drama board process that 'allows' you to start templating them instead? cygnis insignis 03:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis What are you talking about? Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Currently? what your next fifty edits are going to be concerned with, an improvement to content and discussion or more of the same. cygnis insignis 05:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis I don't know who you are or what you're talking about. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I am one of what I imagine to be a long list of users who see your contributions to discussion as a net negative to the project, especially for the drama mongering, battleground behaviour, and harrying of other users that I have observed. If you are having blackouts about your recent interactions with other people, exhausted by your tendentious pursuits of a trivial change, then the project is better off without you. cygnis insignis 06:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you recognise that what you did next is provocative, pitiable trolling, and that trying to feign ignorance of your impact leads to the same result? Have you ever met another editor in the real world? If you have they should speak up now, not when this progresses to the next stage. cygnis insignis 07:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You will have to describe what you're talking about if you want me to comment. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Paradoxically, it is me preferring that you did not comment again that prompted the emphasis on what you were going to do next. Again, direct question, have you met another editor in the real world? Yes/No/decline to answer, your silence will make me assume the second or third option, but that is my current concern. cygnis insignis 08:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't met another Wikipedia editor knowingly. I wasn't aware that was a requirement. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not a requirement, but real world confirmation goes some way to providing verifiability. I use a single account and have met users who can confirm that this is that account. I might have others, but they would lack that real world verification and I would be lying. Not having that verification is merely circumstantial, and not a barrier to acceptable contributions. So know you know something about me, or what I claim is factual, and this is why I ask about it. Now, about you. How can you claim to be ignorant of what I was talking about above in the midst of edit warring on that user's talk page. You've painted me as an adversary, does that mean you can pretend to be stupid and lie to another user? cygnis insignis 12:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks to me like the only "drama mongering" here is coming from cygnis insignis. If you have a problem with Onetwothreeip's editing, please state it clearly, and with diffs. — JFG ^talk 11:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

JFG Do you have any idea what I can do about people like this? I think their behaviour is bad for Wikipedia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend ignoring them per WP:DENY. — JFG ^talk 11:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Not for my own sake but I don't want them bothering other people either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't planned to assemble diffs, but if it is demanded that I support my allegation of "drama mongering", would the 'no u r' response also require diffs showing that? Is inviting me to assemble diffs a good strategy in this white-washing attempt. How many users told this user not to post on another user's talk, with reverts by this user at the same, a blatant attempt at harrying someone over a trivial matter they could not let go, the pattern of repeated single issues against consensus that stretch over months and months at other talk pages, drama boards, templating on some assumed right because they KNOW they are right. cygnis insignis 11:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Language

Can you suggest alternative language or text that you think would resolve the problems with the reverts on the Kay Ivey article? Thanks much. Activist (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Activist Sure, I'll get onto it shortly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I had dropped the quote from the minority leader, but that wasn't enough to satisfy StAnselm. Activist (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Page splitting

You really shouldn't be splitting big lists like this if you aren't going to do it properly. It's a slightly complicated task and this is the second time I've found you did it only half way or incorrectly. I'm working to clean it up now. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Ferret What was improper about it? Of course though, I don't have to do all of it. Wikipedia is collaborative. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Links to the Nintendo Switch lists, list was named M-Z but was L-Z, etc. This is one of those kinds of things that's not so much collaborative but that if you start it you should finish it, because otherwise things are left broken and affect readers. -- ferret (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually I inadvertently moved the L section, while the M-Z title was supposed to be correct. I'm glad that minor errors like with links are corrected, and I correct those all the time as well, but we don't need to exaggerate the severity. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Russian interference

Hi there. It has been explained to you repeatedly that the first sentence of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is supported by consensus. If you re-write it again without consensus, as you did here, then I will report you to WP:AE. R2 (bleep) 02:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo Can you show me the consensus you're referring to? For what reason would you report me? Why do you disagree with the sentence I created? The issue with the first sentence is that the subject of the sentence is the Russian government, which is not the subject of the article. The subject of the article is the actions by the Russian government, so it's a simple grammatical and manual of style issue. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The consensus is in the discussion titled "First sentence." R2 (bleep) 06:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo I'll try and find that discussion but I have to insist on answers for the other two questions which are equally important, if not more. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I would report you for repeatedly editing against consensus. I'm not going to get into the merits of your argument; that belongs on the article talk page. R2 (bleep) 07:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo You have my permission to outline why you disagree with the sentence on my talk page, but you can do so on the article talk page as well. I'm already aware of your previous comments there, so what I'm asking is something new. If you meant to refer to another section, please do tell me.

I've also had the opportunity to read the section you claim contains consensus for the existing sentence. Plainly, it does not contain such consensus. At the most there was a consensus against what I originally proposed, and absolutely no consensus for the current sentence. I have not taken any action to include that original proposal into the article, instead I included what other editors said they believe should be included. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 174, you may be blocked from editing. Do not edit a closed talk page archive. That dispute should have been left alone weeks ago. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, can you please remove that paragraph from the archive? I never put it there, and I never wanted it to be put there. I made it very clear that I did not want my words taken out of context and placed somewhere that I never wanted or intended for them to be. It's quite distressing since the way it looks now it makes completely no sense and I do not like how that that looks at all, and I never would have done anything like that there. I removed it from there repeatedly and I hadn't realised it was restored there before it was archived, and I wasn't aware at what time it would be archived. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Onetwothreeip - Are those your words? If not, how did they get there? No, I do not plan to get involved in resolving a dispute about editing or altering what is in an archive. If you want the archive edited, gired o to WP:ANI. I am tired of these disputes about the archive of a case that I didn't moderate anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon They are my words but I did not place them there and never would have done so, and they have nothing to do with summarising the dispute. They were moved there by another editor. I had removed it from there as soon as I saw it but they kept putting it back in and the final version had it there when it got archived. I'm about as tired as you are, and all I'd like is to just remove that paragraph and not have to ever bother anybody at all about this. Since other editors have been linking to the archive, it feels quite awful that I'm being portrayed like that when I would never have put that comment there since it's simply irrelevant to the topic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I have courtesy blanked the entire discussion of that case, that did not result in a dispute being mediated. Any further editing of the archive or requests about the archive will be reported to Arbitration Enforcement with a request for a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You really need to get away from your one-track obsession with "too long" and "too many", etc. Try to edit in a non-controversial manner. Try to actually build up, rather than tear down. You're a blind bull in a china closet. Get a firm and solid consensus before deleting anything. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: This is remarkably uncivil. I recommend you remove yourself from Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections if you can't constructively contribute and behave properly. I've never had a problem anywhere else in removing excessive citations, and in fact it is called in numerous policies such as WP:OVERCITE. I spent time deciding which citations were most appropriate to substantiate the facts, since we don't need multiple citations to support the same thing, especially on an article as large as this. Your personal views on my editing are simply rude and and welcome at this point. Seriously, if you can't maturely deal with the size of the article being reduced, even from perfectly legitimate and reasonable means, then you shouldn't be monitoring that article at all. There's obviously something bizarre going on since editing that article has prompted such unusual behaviours. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not that article, but your behavior on many articles, that's the problem. You seem to have an obsession with deciding, all on your own, and usually without any previous consensus, that an article is "too large" and must be cut back quite severely. When it comes to that, you have a one-track mind.

It's the "without previous consensus" part that is the problem. If you had an unquestionable consensus behind you, there would be no problem, but many different editors are always having to tell you to get a consensus first. That should tell you something. Why don't you just do that and avoid problems? The times you have a consensus, I say nothing because you're doing it the right way.

The act that inspired this thread was your mass deletions of numerous RS, something we rarely do, and you had to be reverted by X1\, who left a good edit summary: "Why these? Also, yet again, per previous History ESs and Discussions; no mass deletions. And, yet again, Discuss BEFORE." That edit summary refers to your numerous controversial deletions without previous consensus, and the many complaints that have been made about this disturbing and disruptive practice of yours. Just get a solid and irrefutable consensus first. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding multiple citations, there may be an angle to this you haven't thought of. If they accompany any type of allegation or accusation, or anything related to BLP, then WP:PUBLICFIGURE may apply, and that requires multiple RS. I usually try to have three or more, so there is no question that the content is adequately sourced. Rather too many than too few. If there are even more, a good way to deal with it is to group them under one ref tag. That cleans up the appearance in the article, while providing our readers with plenty of source material to read and research. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest you read WP:BRD and WP:BOLD then, and so should X1\ per those edit summaries. I don't have a problem with my bold edits being reverted, and I sometimes revert bold edits myself as well. Bold comes first, then reverting and discussing if necessary.

What's been happening with editors concerned with Russian interference has been the subject of reverting bold edits, and reverting edits that have the explicit support of consensus too, for the sake of resisting reduction in article size and in obstructing myself personally. You have in the past mistaken a very orderly discussion and alteration process, such as on an article with Nintendo Switch video games, as some situation that you think affirms your beliefs about me.

For example with my trimming of references, there has been no attempt made at explaining why they oppose it. All that's happened is the absurd claim that I am supposed to get agreement for any edit that I wish to implement beforehand, while the same people claiming this are not holding themselves to that standard. "Per previous history edit summaries and discussions; no mass deletions" is also grossly inaccurate. Your phrase of "unquestionable consensus" is very telling, since all that takes is any editor for any reason, such as yourself or X1\, to question any edit. I knew this was happening but I was genuinely surprised that the very uncontroversial act of trimming excessive citations was reverted, even if it was for no reason.

If there are cases where you believe something really needs multiple citations, please raise that in the talk page and I would be more than happy to accommodate that. It would just be absurd to discuss every single entry given that there are over 600 references. Nobody should have to devote their time to discussing the merits of every single citation of this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

In reply to your comment at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections:

For most editors, being BOLD isn't something which gets them numerous warnings. Your disruptive application of being BOLD (usually of the large deletions type) nearly always creates disruption, and when other editors complain about it you are supposed to be COLLEGIAL, and not only listen to them, but to actually follow their advice, even if you don't agree or like it. Just do it.

Creating disruption isn't cool. This is a COLLABORATIVE project, and if you follow that principle you won't keep getting warnings and complaints. The fact that you do get lots of complaints from many editors indicates that you aren't abiding by that principle, and that's a problem you need to face and deal with by not objecting and getting defensive. Try to avoid conflicts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I am proud to have taken a collaborative approach to editing throughout my time on Wikipedia. I don't think I've come across someone as unwilling to collaborate as you have been, but I strongly suggest we collaborate on the article, do you agree? It seems like all you want to do is block my edits and nothing more. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip. You are engaged to sustained edit warring on this page for months, and you do it against consensus:

June 25

June 14

May 22

May 19

May 14

May 8

May 6

May 3

May 2

Earlier: [9],[10],[11],[12].

It's time to stop. You was notified about the discretionary sanctions in this area. My very best wishes (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes Do you even know what an edit war is? Bold edits are made all the time to this article and to many articles, without the need for consensus to be formed beforehand. On the contrary, you have been editing against consensus, such as by restoring content about Maria Butina as the talk page agreed to remove almost all of that content from the article. I'm not a new editor so I actually happen to know what edit warring and vandalism is, so calling me these things just isn't going to work. I'm not intimidated by stunts like teaming up to challenge my edits on unrelated articles either. You need to raise actual objections to the edits I've made. I'm also willing to talk to you privately if that would help. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course I explained objections, and of course what you are doing is NOT vandalism. But you are going to achieve nothing by making highly questionable edits that cause objections by others, as obvious after looking at a couple of previous threads on your talk page and elsewhere. I hope that helps. My very best wishes (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, many of those edits were reverting your edits, which I explained in the edit summaries. I look forward to working collaboratively with you as I have worked with many other editors, if you are willing to do so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)