User talk:NomdeA

NomdeA, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi NomdeA! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Mz7 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of information

Please don't remove information which is obviously relevant and easily sourced just because it currently sports an RT.com reference. Look for another reference (very easy in this case) or something. Nemo 21:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Why? Editors should not be using these sources for anything. They devalue Wikipedia. NomdeA (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philip Cross, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. NSH001 (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

A word of advice

If you are Philip Cross, you should go to the SPI page linked above, and say so. As the message above explains, leniency may be extended to those who confess their offence.

If you are not Philip Cross, then please go to the SPI page and present evidence that you are not the said Philip Cross. If you fail to do so, then people are likely to draw the obvious conclusion.

--NSH001 (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Your complaint was rejected. NomdeA (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed so. I note also that you failed to defend yourself, from which fact others may draw the obvious conclusion, as noted above. --NSH001 (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

They didn’t though, did they? NomdeA (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

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

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be 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. 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. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I've already warned (and had an extensive discussion with) the other user in this dispute. You need to either discuss this on the article talk page, make use of dispute resolution, or file an edit warring report at WP:EW(be advised that your own conduct will be examined if you make such a report). 331dot (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

May 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Piers Robinson, you may be blocked from editing. Ed6767 (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You need to justify your comment wrt WP:RS. If you wish to describe the subject of an article it must be based on a source that is line with this policy, it cannot be original research which “political commentator” is in this case whereas “conspiracy theorist” is taken from sources cited in the article. NomdeA (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Huldra made the same decision I did. Your edits were disruptive. Ed6767 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You have ignored the requirement to justify your comment wrt WP:RS. You are the one engaged in disruptive editing and with irrefutable evidence of meat puppetry. I have constructively invited you on Piers Robinson talk page to provide a WP:RS for your edit. Without it, your behavior is vandalism. Please read up on Wikipedia policy before doing this again. NomdeA (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Before acusing me of meatpuppetry

Read up WP:MEAT. I could not give a flying toss about this guy or his opinions I don't agree with, I care about the quality of this site and WP:BLP policies. I made the decision out of my own judgement and if I did not think anything was wrong with your edit (noting your history of edit waring and the fact another editor had also reverted the change) I would not have done it. Ed6767 (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

There is irrefutable evidence that you reverted a good faith edit based on WP:RS because you were told to by a banned user. That is against Wikipedia policy as set out under WP:MEAT. Now if you want to contribute you MUST do it properly by seeking consensus on the talk page not by vandalism and meat puppetry. NomdeA (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is irrefutable evidence, then where is that evidence? Please note that BLP violations may be subject to discretionary sanctions. And, in general, I will take a dim view of any claims made which are unsupported by evidence. Thank you. El_C 10:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The evidence is offwiki I can produce it if it is needed. NomdeA (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@El C: If anything, these accusations bring up more questions - tldr I scroll Twitter with the term "wikipedia" to check for any vandalism, BLP or POV issues that have slipped past recent changes patrol and filters ext. Quite simply - the aim of the revert was simply due to BLP issues (judging by the series of tweets, the change was clearly controversial), and the fact that it had been reverted before, along with the history of edit warring and all the rest of it. I would've made the same decision if I saw this change myself. I saw this thread (which is also the "evidence"). While imo, yes, @leftworks1 is totally biased towards Piers (and likely a disruptive editor too, hence the block), with all neutrality aside I don't agree with Piers at all on most things, nor had I even heard of him until these tweets. But like all BLP issues there are multiple issues with the change, especially without consensus, and as the edit had been reverted before, I reverted it again (esp as the past decision was made by a more experienced editor). I think NomdeA quite likely has severe neutrality issues. To note this "evidence" he would've had to be monitoring either leftworks or Piers Robinsons twitter (he retweeted), so who knows. Quite frankly, this whole rabbit hole is a bunch of rubbish I don't want to get involved in. Ed6767 (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, per this diff, do you think it would be worth reopening the SPI, or that this is just mere coincidence? Ed6767 (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is offwiki evidence, it should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee (via email), who may also run any CUs, they deem fitting. No, I would refrain from any SPIs, for the moment. El_C 15:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree. It’s been done already but if there is offwiki evidence it should be submitted to Arbitration Committee. NomdeA (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

El_C 10:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Notification.

Please be aware that I have made comments at WP:BLPN about your edits on the Piers Robinson article here.     ←   ZScarpia   04:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

So? What’s your point? NomdeA (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy required that I notify you that I'd mentioned you on a noticeboard. That's all.     ←   ZScarpia   19:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

OK.Thanks. NomdeA (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Oliver Kamm

Hi. I've reverted two of your edits to the Oliver Kamm article as both assertions are easily sourced to his own blog.

Henry Jackson's legacy & The "Islamophobia" scam Thanks. --DSQ (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

David Ray Griffin

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Max Keiser. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please be careful. Your edits to Max Keiser, Tim Hayward, Piers Robinson and Oliver Kamm can be easily seen as indicative of bias and POV-pushing. Please read WP:N. Regards, — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:N. You need to be careful about sticking to a strictly neutral approach free of bias. NomdeA (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Your recent editing history at Craig Murray 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I’ve already warned you that you need to acquaint yourself with WP:RS and WP:N. Please do so. Your editing is unconstrutive. NomdeA (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Piers Robinson, you may be blocked from editing. Your latest batch of edits to this article have all, but one, been reverted by three different editors. I will be reverting the one that currently stands, as it adds nothing to the article. Particularly troubling was your attempt to link two pieces of information together in order to give a false impression. (As reverted by Burrobert). Even after applying a ton of good faith, it's clear to me that you are intent of squeezing as much negative information into this article as you can. You've done the same on other articles. Your edits are unhelpful and unconstructive. DSQ (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

All my edits, on all subjects, are based on sources that Wikipedia treats as reliable. If you think The Times should be a deprecated source, you can propose it. Good luck with that. NomdeA (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that the problem isn't so much the source you're using, shallow and tabloidish though it is (but then, it's not, after all, from The Times of Harold Evans), as the use you're putting it to. Shoehorning damning phrases such as "Holocaust denial" into articles on people who obviously aren't liked looks like an attempt to shit on them rather than write an encyclopaedic article. How often do you insert similar content into articles on people you admire?     ←   ZScarpia   23:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You don’t seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia. It isn’t to reward people you like or damn people you don’t but to give a reliable account based on reliable secondary sources. If you don’t think The Times should be used then you are to able to propose a change in its status under WP:RS. NomdeA (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

"It isn’t to reward people you like or damn people you don’t." Exactly!     ←   ZScarpia   07:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Correct! Censoring material from WP:RS just because you subjectively think it shows someone in a bad light is not how Wikipedia works. NomdeA (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, inserting material amounting to slogans just because you're trying to show someone in a bad light (poisoning the well), isn't the way Wikipedia is supposed to work either. As I asked before, do you behave the same way in articles on people you admire?     ←   ZScarpia   09:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, it’s not ok to censor material from WP:RS just because you don’t like it. That’s all Wikipedia has got, as original research is not acceptable. You’ve got to remove your own biases here.NomdeA (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

But, what have you done to counter your own biases? In the post-Cold War era, we've been going through a period when, to make the world more congenial for the west, regime change has been encouraged, or actively pushed, in various parts of the world, including Syria. At times such as that, news organisations tend to become polarised, few remainining neutral, the rest falling back, in various degrees, on advocacy. In my opinion, The Times falls very much among the group which is strongly in favour of Syrian regime change, but of course, people tend to see bias accoding to where they are themselves on the political spectrum. Editors are obliged to edit neutrally. What does that mean? Well, I'd say that it's not achieved by lifting phrases which are abused in order to praise or damn from handy sources, reliable as they may be judged. In the case of Piers Robinson, he and his supporters have printed detailed rebuttals of the kind of accusations made in newspaper or magazine articles such as The Times's. Do you think it might be part of your job as an editor obliged to edit neutrally to actually include material from the defence as well as from the prosecution? As far as "debased" phrases whose intent is to praise, damn, deceive or mislead goes, I think that it's worth reading Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language":

"Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality. ... In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright,’ I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’."

    ←   ZScarpia   16:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

It’s the job of an editor to use sources that meet WP:RS and avoid ones that don’t. If Robinson or anyone else (David Icke? David Duke?) doesn’t have anything admiring in a source that is WP:RS then it’s not legitimate to quote other sources instead. NomdeA (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

- Here's the David Icke article. Notice how many citations to the works of David Icke there are. The works of David Icke are a reliable source for what David Icke has said.

- Here's the David Duke article. Notice how many citations to the works of David Duke there are. The works of David Duke are a reliable source for what David Duke has said.

- Here's the Piers Robinson article. Notice that there are citations to the works of Piers Robinson there, including two artices for The Guardian, a book published by Springer, a book published by Routledge and Robinson's own PhD thesis. Do you really think that it's a clever idea to compare Piers Robinson to David Icke and David Duke? Have you been editing the articles on Piers Robinson and his colleagues without reading anything they wrote? You should probably stop trying to lecture other editors on how Wikipedia works.

    ←   ZScarpia   23:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a pointless exchange because you don’t seem to understand why it’s important to cite secondary sources that are WP:RS and avoid them otherwise. Please read the policy and follow it. I’ve got nothing to add. NomdeA (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Biographies of living people MUST be balanced. Your insistence only on negative coverage violates one of the core Wikipedia policies. No, we don't need to stick more negative statements in an article that is already far from balanced. In addition, the article you linked belongs to the tabloid journalism genre (as already evident from its title) and must not be used in a BLP. Stubbornly waving the RS acronym as a justification for just any nonsensical editing shows that you don't have an idea about what an encyclopaedia should be: a neutral, balanced publication and NOT your folder with sensational press clippings. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Please acquaint yourself with WP:BLP instead of making up your own version. It says: “All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion”. If you believe The Times shouldn’t be included as a reliable, published source, you can propose this to the Wikipedia community. Being abusive to editors who unlike you take its policies seriously makes you look ridiculous. NomdeA (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Have you understood that what a person writes themselves is a reliable souce for what that person has written, which has particular significance in biographical articles?     ←   ZScarpia   18:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yawn. Have you understood that The Times is WP:RS? NomdeA (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

See where I wrote: "I think that the problem isn't so much the source you're using, shallow and tabloidish though it is (but then, it's not, after all, from The Times of Harold Evans), as the use you're putting it to." There are more policies on Wikipedia than Verifiability (WP:V). And, note, just because you can source something, doesn't actually serve as a complete justification for including it in an article.

Kashmiri and I have both previously brought up your editing of the Piers Robinson article. I particated in a BPLN discussion about the article where I listed diffs to a number of edits, the majority of which were by you, including two where you changed Robinson's occupation from "political commentator" to "conspiracy theorist".

    ←   ZScarpia   18:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Look, it doesn’t matter what you or I think of a particular source. If it’s treated as WP:RS then it’s permissible to source to it, and if it isn’t it isn’t. If there is a WP:RS describing Robinson or David Icke as a highly-respected genius and scholar then it belongs in Wikipedia. NomdeA (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You've shown no attempt to either understand or engage with anything anyone else has written, a form of disruptive editing, which DSQ posted a warning about at the top of this section.

You also keep on writing comments, including the immediately preceding one, which show a highly questionable understanding of the rules. Looking at your previous comment:

• "Look, it doesn’t matter what you or I think of a particular source." Not necessarily, source reliability can be effected by context.
• "If it’s treated as WP:RS then it’s permissible to source to it, and if it isn’t it isn’t." Permissible, but not necessarily desirable.
• "If there is a WP:RS describing Robinson or David Icke as a highly-respected genius and scholar then it belongs in Wikipedia." Again, not necessarily. That would depend, for instance, on editorial consensus, which would take account of policies as a whole. Your comment won't do anything to diminish the impression that you're editing the Piers Robinson article disruptively.

    ←   ZScarpia   22:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

If there is a WP:RS describing Robinson or David Icke as a highly-respected genius and scholar then it belongs in Wikipedia You again fail to understand that Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. In Vanessa Beeley, you have been trying to add not objective facts but a subjective opinion of a journalist – a deliberately slanderous, tabloid-type sentence that offers the reader no deeper understanding of the subject's views but just another handful of epithets. It makes virtually zero difference whether it was written by a Times journalist or a Daily Mail journalist: the sentence had zero encyclopaedic value and violated several policies of this project. For once, try to understand that a good Wikipedia article is not a collection of indiscriminate (or, here, cherrypicked) quotes. An encyclopaedic article is an independent work based on quality sources, with information presented in an objective, balanced, informative and easy to comprehend manner.

If you continue sticking slanderous material to BLPs, I assure you I'll keep reverting irrespective of where you took the material from and of the number of allowed reverts – because WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are Wikipedia policies which take precedence over the WP:RS content guideline. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You need to take a step back, calm down, and take a look at your biases. You are failing to adhere to WP:NPOV and other policies and are obviously pushing an agenda. That’s not what Wikipedia is for. It’s an encyclopaedia not a Reddit board. NomdeA (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Others have pointed out your biased editing of Vanessa Beeley in removing properly sourced material and I advise you to step back from editing it. NomdeA (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Given the string of your POV-pushing edits to articles dedicated to UK politics, including Craig Murray, Tim Hayward (political scientist), Oliver Kamm, Piers Robinson, Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, and others, it is obvious that you are editing Wikipedia with a specific agenda in mind and that, despite having barely 200 edits in your account history, you are not at all new here. Consider this a warning. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF and then either support your comment with evidence or apologize. NomdeA (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri, you should see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philip Cross/Archive which did not find User:NomdeA is my sockpuppet account. For the avoidance of any doubt, since speculation has resurfaced on Twitter in the last few days, I have the one account as Philip Cross and no other. Philip Cross (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Philip Cross, For the avoidance of doubt, I did not mean you – your editing pattern is quite different to NomedA's as is the spelling in edit summaries. However, it is clear that whoever is behind NomdeA account, had been editing Wikipedia for considerable time and started editing through a registered account in order to promote certain political narrative right from their first registered edit. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Kashmiri, in that case, you only have circumstantial evidence to say of NomdeA: "you are not at all new here". Philip Cross (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but my 10+ years' experience, including at SPI, tells that no new editor starts their Wikipedia adventure with skilled, consistent removal of RT sourcing from political articles (i.e., expunging Russia-aligned perspective). It just so happens that I am familiar with this type of operations, albeit, funnily, coming mostly from other parts of the global political spectrum so as to say, and am determined to keep this project as free from (any) such influence as humanely possible. By the way, you worked in a similar though more subtle way, and that's why I voted for your TBAN. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

By the way, interesting to see that you have this usertalk page on your watchlist ;) — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

As if RT citations belong here following the consensus that the website "should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail". Philip Cross (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree, absolutely. But the account's purpose here is also clear. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Really, you have just objected to "skilled, consistent removal of RT sourcing from political articles (i.e., expunging Russia-aligned perspective)". Philip Cross (talk) 07:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope. I objected to tendentious editing, as well articulated by DSQ below, by an editor who registered their account to push a specific agenda. But enough of this discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You are objecting to implementing WP:DEPRECATED. Maybe you just haven’t understand it properly. NomdeA (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

A disingenuous and patronising response from you, as anticipated. I have neither the time nor inclination to repeat myself or repeat the comments of others - but the bottom line is that adhering to the WP:BLP policy overrides that of WP:RS. The RS policy is not a vehicle for you to justify the addition of every negative comment you can find. I note that the two articles you edit the most are that of Piers Robinson and Oliver Kamm; I've had a quick perusal of your edits to those two articles. Bar a couple of minor edits, every contribution you made to the biography of Robinson was reverted, your edit history is riddled with personal commentary & the cherry-picking of loaded terms - you even edit warred to have his occupation listed as "Conspiracy Theorist". You changed the wording in relation to his leaving his University post from "where" to "after", distorting the reasons for his departure. You repeatedly refer to WP:NPOV, yet your edits are anything but. Your edits to Kamm's biography work in reverse and consist of you removing great swathes of information that could be construed as controversial, including the repeated removal of Kamm's views on Islamophobia taken from his own blog. When you failed to get that removed on the basis of "misrepresentation", you simply removed it as "no source", along with the cited info mentioning his links to the Henry Jackson Society. You could have rewritten the information if you felt Kamm was being misrepresented, you could have fixed the link to the source - you did neither, you were clearly adamant that it should be removed altogether. Why is that?......... Finally, your snarky & condescending replies to concerns raised are also unhelpful.--DSQ (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Please acquaint yourselves with WP:AGF, WP:NOV, WP:DEPRECATED and WP:RS. Tge edits to all articles are clearly sourced or to remove deprecated sources. I don’t know why you find it necessary to scream, shout and make unsupported accusations but it doesn’t help anyone. NomdeA (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

But I adopt WP:AGF myself and so will take your comments on fixing links as constructive. NomdeA (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm acquainted with WP:AGF, WP:NOV, WP:DEPRECATED & WP:RS ta, I'm also acquainted with WP:BLP & I suggest you revisit it. I'm not screaming, shouting, or making unsupported accusations - I'm highlighting what I found when perusing the edits you've made to the two articles you've edited the most. You don't need individual diffs - they're your edits & you're quite aware what I'm referring to. I've been WP:AGF since July of last year when I reverted your edits to Kamm's article; you've had two warnings since then, your latest batch of edits to Robinson's BLP are unhelpful & clearly disruptive and your edit summaries/replies to comments are condescending. WP:AGF only goes so far.--DSQ (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

No, WP:AGF is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia so you should read it and heed it. NomdeA (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary." Do you think yourself that your editing of the example articles given was impartial and consistent? Note that WG:AGF also says: "Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively." You might like to think about that particularly in the light of your "scream and shout" comment.     ←   ZScarpia   07:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Numerous editors have attempted to address with you your problematic editing, i.e removing information from an article without an attempt to replace the source, where it would've been easy to do so; persistent edit-warring to remove info you don't like (i.e Kamm & his views on Islamophobia); disruptive editing (i.e attempting to have Robinson described as a conspiracy theorist as his occupation); inserting personal commentary based on your own POV, for example at Max Keiser & Craig Murray. Your reaction to these editors - most of whom have been around for years - is often to abruptly & vaguely wave them towards some policy or other, instructing them to acquaint themselves with it, you've done it multiple times in this very thread. Your edit summaries, such as "explain how wiki works", "explain purpose of Wikipedia", "explain WP:RS YET AGAIN" are, again, directed at highly experienced editors with tens of thousands of edits - whereas you have 181 edits to mainspace over a 3 year period. From this it would appear that you are unwilling to engage in constructive discussion & the necessity to WP:AGF isn't limitless. Anyway, the level 3 warning stands. --DSQ (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. The page which you recently edited and which comes under this rule is Eva Bartlett. Burrobert (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)