Pinchme123

This user is a scientist.

This user is a social scientist.

This user supports diversity and inclusion in all research fields.

This user is an advocate of open research and open access.

sw-3Mtumiaji huyu ni mwongeaji wa Kiswahili Kiwango Cha Juu.

js-2This user is an intermediate JavaScript programmer.

This user has been a member of Wikipedia since September 2009.

This user has been actively editing since February 2015.

2k+

This user has made over 2,000 contributions to Wikipedia and knows this is a meaningless statistic.

This user has IP block exemption rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This user is an academic.

(first-ever comment)

For what it's worth: you can sign your talk page notes by typing a series of four tildes (~~~~) at the end, which will be converted into a link to your user page when the page is saved. - Nunh-huh 06:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

DS Violation

Hi, you just violated DS, specifically, "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit." I suggest you revert or you might face being reported. In addition, there is no consensus on the talk page that I can see for this to be included. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I have not violated any discretionary sanctions. I "challenged" your edit via reversion with my one revert. The material you chose to delete has been established via editing consensus a few weeks ago.

If you would like to argue for its deletion, feel free to make a case on the talk page.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No, you reinstated an edit.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

List of concentration and internment camps

You have violated 1RR on the article. Please take the opportunity to self-revert. El_C 04:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah so I have. I for some reason thought the 1RR was for the same content. I've reverted. How do I go about getting this editor to respect the outcome of the RfC, which clearly states that the section in question should be discussed prior to major edits like the ones they've carried out? I've already asked them on their talk page to do so. --Pinchme123 (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure which RfC outcome you refer to because you failed to link to it. El_C 04:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I am referring to this one: Talk:List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps#RFC_about_U.S.-Mexico_border_camps. Further discussion should take place to address any inconsistencies in the article's scope, and to ensure that coverage is appropriately weighted.

My request for discussion was in my bad revert, as well as here: [[1]]

--Pinchme123 (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that excerpt clearly states that the section in question should be discussed prior to major edits. El_C 05:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I've been holding off on cleaning up the section because others didn't seem willing to discuss what was already there. It seems your opinion on the matter then is that there's nothing keeping me from making substantive changes then, correct? --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Correct. I'm not sure an RfC closure can even mandate such a limit on bold edits by fiat (unless it's integral to the RfC question) — not to mention that I remain unsure that this is what the closer had in mind, though you may wish to seek further clarification from him directly. El_C 05:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The RFC was on whether or not to include that section. You can't mandate that any edit need an RFC, and even if you can (which you can't) I reverted an IP (or I think it was an IP) editor's insertion of a poorly worded paragraph of a recent NEWS event, which doesn't belong and I don't think we need a 1 News Item event in there. I understand you want the detention center in the article, but that doesn't mean you own the article and one time events don't get inserted into encyclopedias. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

El_C has already clarified the content of the RfC summary for me. I haven't claimed ownership over anything; I've only asked for collaboration and reliable sources.

Regarding the material I reverted, I specifically left deleted the paragraph noting the proposed rule change because it doesn't fit with the entry. I only (improperly) reverted your large pare-down because I was under the mistaken impression it should be discussed first. Given that I was wrong about that, I first reverted my mistake and now have gone ahead and further streamlined the paragraph to pare down excessive focus on a minority opinion, added additional sources, and clarified the descriptions of academics in one sentence.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

By totally POVing the entire section? You know you can't do that, right? I suggest you revert. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

And calling the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum a minority opinion, while inserting your own opinion to suit your own opinion is disgusting, and shows your bias. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I undid your edit. Calling Yad Vashem or USHMMM a minority opinion just shows that you should not be editing in this area. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You provided two sources of statements claiming that the "concentration camp" label shouldn't be applied to anything other than the Holocaust; hundreds of scholars responded to that specific claim by demanding a retraction. The literal existence of the Wikipedia article in question refutes the claim that the "concentration camp" label can't be anything beyond the Holocaust. So, to respect those minority opinions, I left them referenced along with their sources, while accurately giving weight to the literal hundreds of scholars who disagreed. That isn't POV, that's rational description. And yes, even respected authorities sometimes express minority opinions. --Pinchme123 (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Listen, we all know deep down in our hears that people only call them concentration camps because AOC tweeted about it and because Trump is President. When Clinton was President or Obama was saying the same stuff about illegal immigration, nobody complained. So I don't really care about the sources because they are politicizing something that is clear that it's not a concentration camp. People don't cross a border to walk into a concentration camp that Congress can appropriate funds if they want to increase funding if they want to. That's not a concentration camp. Anyone who says it is has lost their moral values. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Trump administration migrant detentions

If you feel like reading this. starship.paint (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Pinchme123, I would like to take the time to sincerely apologise for my comments at the School bus talkpage as well as for the edit summary,
My heart was in the right place but I could've and should've been much calmer and a lot less confrontational - I simply felt like I wasn't being listened too and then to be told "Discuss it on the talkpage" was the icing on the cake for me,
Regardless of that I shouldn't of said what I did on the talkpage and again sincerely apologise for my comments,
I hope we can work together in the future and under much better circumstances too,
I wish you all the very best and hope you enjoy editing here :),
Take care, Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 20:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC),

Hi @Davey2010: no worries. We all get frustrated from time to time and sometimes that spills over, so I understand. I also get that we disagree on this specific subject and that my position was frustrating to you. I hope we can continue to work towards a mutually acceptable solution! So you have no worries from me, it's in our past. All the best. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Move some trucks?

I am trying to move some trucks here. I wonder if I could get you to take a look. I believe I am clear but it's just the same old people and positions. I can't get any "new eyes" to look at it objectively. I would really appreciate it if you would. No answer needed. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your "new eyes". Of course I like your post, but the important thing is just that you looked to start with. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Spliting discussion for [[ Member state of the European Union ]]

An article that you have been involved with ( Member state of the European Union ) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article ( Member states of the European Union ). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:Member state of the European Union#Splitting proposal . Thank you. Doug Mehus T·C 23:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Anthropology reverts

I should have left an edit summary. HKongbott is indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. Using this User name, added content (images and text) to dozens of articles, for many of which not really relevant or unduly excessive content. Much has been reverted under WP:BANREVERT. I leave to you to reassess what I deleted and decide whether appropriate for the article or not. David notMD (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah ok, thank you for letting me know. Given this, I'll give the images a second look. --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong with the ref?

Your undo here. Please explain. 2001:14BA:984A:F200:0:0:0:8EA (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP. The reference is for page 29 of that particular book. Consulting that specific page, there is nothing to support your added claim, "Internment of large groups is a fairly new phenomenon beginning in the 19th century." I think my disagreement with this lies in what you perceive to be a similarity between what that reference is used for - the statement "Although the first example of civilian internment may date as far back as the 1830s" - and your inserted statement. Your statement is broadly declarative; it is an assertion that this particular practice is traced precisely to the early 19th century. The statement that the source is supporting is narrowly declarative and qualified; it is supporting a given example of internment from around the 1830s, but does not then assert that this is for-sure the earliest example (hence the word "may"). The source supports the narrow and qualified declaration, but not the broad declaration. Do I make sense? --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I suppose you kinda sorta do. I think my statement is good and correct but needs some other reference. 2001:14BA:984A:F200:0:0:0:8EA (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes exactly. --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

BLP Problems at Seattle Liberation Front

I could use some help cleaning up some problems at Seattle Liberation Front. I don't have rollback privileges and an IP keeps adding material sourced to one of the article subject's personal website. It's especially thorny because it's in relation to the criminal trial for seven defendants (I am not aware that any of them have passed away, so the entire section about the criminal trial is presumably under BLP Guidelines). I've gone through twice ([1] and [2]) to remove offending content changes, and left a Welcome template on one of their IP pages to encourage them to get more info about editing in general and Reliable Sources specifically. They've re--added the offending source once again.

I am new to BLP issues and so I don't know where to go to quickly have this cleaned up. They keep adding content spread out over a ton of edits, I don't have rollback privileges, so I don't really want to have to go through so many edits each time they violate BLP.

Thank you in advance!

--Pinchme123 (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Minor addendum, they also apparently have cited content shared via personal document cloud service? --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Pinchme123 - I may be the person you are complaining about. Since my first edits, I now think I understand that your concern was proper citation, which I believe I have adhered to since then. I have made numerous edits because there was incorrect information, and I have provided proper references (including newspaper articles and trial transcript citations) for everything I have changed. There is still more work to be done, because the original writing (as I found it) was a mess, with wrong information and things out of order. Please state your specific concerns here, and I'll try to work with you. BTW, two of the seven have died, one over 40 years ago and the other recently. 66.62.91.36 (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP. The BLP-violating sources are still included in the article and need to be removed immediately. That two of the individuals who are subjects of the section have died does not change this and the source needs to be removed completely. I was really hoping someone could have come by to clean this up quickly, because BLP violations fall on the more serious side of Wikipedia concerns, but no matter, I will be reverting your edits today.

The sources in question needs to be removed entirely. First, it is against BLP policy to use self-published sources (see WP:BLPSPS).

Secondly, your edits using something published via One Drive as a citation are also a major problem. I think what you've done is self-published an alleged court transcript. Even if the transcript were authentic - which cannot be verified if it is self-published - this not only constitutes Original Research, which is disallowed on Wikipedia articles (see WP:OR), but is also a direct violation of the BLP policies on using court transcripts as citations for any assertions (WP:BLPPRIMARY).

--Pinchme123 (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the page for two weeks based on the number of anon editors involved here. I'm also going to grant you rollback, though Twinkle also has a rollback-type functionality. I think you're handling this just fine. If the disruption continues after the two weeks, let us know at WP:RFPP. Katie^talk 16:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Well thank you Katie! And thank you for giving me a heads-up about RFPP. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

How to deal with forum-shopping

Where does one go to get help with Forum-shopping (ongoing DRN; and newly-opened RFC)? Is it to the already-existing forum, or does it need to be taken to a specific noticeboard? I've already noted the issue in the RFC, but want to make sure it is seen by the right people.

If your issue involves editor conduct, and is unable to be resolved, it may be brought to WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Internment

Your recent editing history at Internment 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.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

With due respect, Astral Leap, I did not "repeatedly [change] content back to how [I] think it should be," I protected premature editing to content that was currently under an RFC that was not properly ended. And no edit-warring occurred. If you think I was edit-warring, why didn't you take me to the proper noticeboard? Further, it takes two to edit-war; did you post this notice on the other user's page as well? If not, I'll assume this was an innocent mistake on your part and disregard the unintentional insult.

Regarding WP:RFC, one who opens an RFC can only close it themselves by withdrawing it. It takes another editor, usually an uninvolved neutral third party, to determine the closure of an RFC, even without a formal close declaration. I'm glad someone finally came and did just that.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder to myself, not only was I not edit-warring, this user was globally banned for truly despicable off-wiki behavior. This was one of their socks, recently banned. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

MOSLQ at Immigration detention in the United States

WP:MOSLQ says

If the quotation is a single word or a sentence fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside the closing quotation mark. When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark.

FYI. I don't see any ambiguity. (bold added) --Jeremyb (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

And yet, the sentence is an entirely rewritten sentence from the article, with only parts of it properly quoted, and with the final of multiple fragments also being the final quoted fragment, thus bringing the period into play. There is nothing in the policy you're citing that deals with such cases, nor is there anything in the literature cited in the WP policy page that deals with such cases. Definitely ambiguous.

Also, looking further into it, the sentence as written on WP is falsely quoting the lawyer by attributing paraphrases from the article to her as if she said them in court. Instead of quibbling with me over whether or not there's ambiguity, perhaps we should instead focus our efforts on fixing mis-attributed quotes?

--Pinchme123 (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Work the tables of Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election splits

BIG THANKS for making the tables on the articles I split out better! I would of done them myself but as I'm a bit new of a Wikipedian I'm still learning how to do some things. Coming from Excel these tables work completely different. TheBigRedTank (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

TheBigRedTank: Sure thing. To be honest, I just looked at the difference in the code between the tables you made and the main on the page where the data came from and just added the bits that weren't there. I didn't add the color though because it seems like, in these smaller tables, the color isn't as crucial. --Pinchme123 (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinchme123: Still thanks, I'm invariably going to make the mistakes on the Wisconsin and Georgia splits so if you could keep an eye out for those it would be much appreciated! I would agree on the color comment as well. TheBigRedTank (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

(Case for Georgia lawsuits page)

Hello, You wrote "it will need to be covered by a reputable source with confirmation in that source that the case has indeed been filed before it is added". The reference to publicrecordsaccess.fultoncountyga.gov does show the receipt of the case by the court, if you look on the page at NOTICE OF FILING showing that the case was filed and fees paid as of 12/23/2020 4:21 PM. I do not understand why this is not sufficient. Viktorikona (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Hello Viktorikona. The webpage you have linked to would at-best be considered a primary source indicating a fee was submitted to the court and that documents were sent to the court for filing. This does not confirm that the court case was accepted and added to the court's docket. I have looked at docket trackers and cannot find a record of this case, nor can I find any reputable publication that has written about it. The one other source you provided appears to be a less-than-reputable outlet that publishes press release claims without any additional verification (and then reposts those same articles verbatim on other websites branded in a similar fashion, e.g. The Michigan Star, The Tennessee Star, The Ohio Star, etc.).

If this court case is accepted and gains enough attention to receive reporting in reputable publications, then it might be notable enough to include in the Georgia article. But to be honest, that reputable coverage would need to clearly indicate the connection to the ongoing legal activities of Trump admin and allies because, even if the case has already been accepted, right now it's just a few local citizens suing a few other local citizens, which is hardly notable. --Pinchme123 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I found the docket number at both the Superior Court site and at www.docketalarm.com which is 2020CV343938. Are you saying that is not a docket? I need to understand this for future use. Viktorikona (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

First, thank you so much for this docket tracker! I didn't know about it before and am glad to add it to the list I can check.

Second, please use the indenting feature when engaging in discussion on my talk page, so that things stay nice and orderly. It's very easy: just add a number of colons (":") before your comment, to indent it. Use the number of colons that the previous comment in the section used, plus one. So, when replying to this comment, you'll use four colons. If creating multiple paragraphs, put the same number of colons before each paragraph to line them all up.

Ok, about your response. You seem to be stuck on the docket tracker specifically, but please read the rest of my previous comment as well. Just because some random case is listed in a docket doesn't make it notable enough to include on Wikipedia. And us Wikipedia editors only decide what stuff to include based upon what other reputable sources deem worthy enough to cover extensively. Right now, all of the lawsuits included on all of the various pages about the post-election legal challenges by Trump and his allies have been covered extensively enough by reputable sources, which demonstrates that they're both linked to the effort and notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia (at least for now). No sources have even confirmed that the case you and I are discussing has even been accepted by the court; no reputable sources have even, as far as I can tell, written about the existence of the case at all. So please don't focus all of your effort on whether or not a docket tracker lists a particular case. What is far more important is whether or not reputable sources have written about the case.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand all of that, and an not planning on posting on it now. However, I would like an answer to my question: "Are you saying that is not a docket? I need to understand this for future use." Viktorikona (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Specific questions about specific sources are best asked at the reliable sources noticeboard. My gut is that a discussion there will find that this site is a primary source of all types of public records from the court; a docket tracker is a secondary source that reports a subset of the kinds of records found on such sites. --Pinchme123 (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that when you wrote "This does not confirm that the court case was accepted and added to the court's docket." was incorrect, so I want to be sure, especially since my source was the court record search and showed all of the associated documents with Case Number 2020CV34393 and showing Open status. I believe that it shows that the court case was accepted and added to the court's docket. Viktorikona (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

What you "believe" has no bearing on whether or not a source supports a statement of fact or not. Which is why Wikipedia is built primarily with reliable secondary sources; the experts who write secondary sources based upon primary sources (like the court records website) tell the public what their expert evaluation is, and then us Wikipedia editors rely on that expertise to determine what can and cannot be reported on Wikipedia.

At this point I have no other advice to offer you. If you want to productively contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest you carefully read WP:RS (as I suggested on your own talk page) and then proceed from there.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. The only unresolved question is that you said "This does not confirm that the court case was accepted and added to the court's docket." However it does show the docket number, so I asked you why you said it was not. Viktorikona (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

At this point I have no other advice to offer you. If you want to productively contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest you carefully read WP:RS (as I suggested on your own talk page) and then proceed from there. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Gohmert et al. v. Pence Re: judicial quote

You wrote on January 3 "Undid revision 998126070 by Viktorikona (talk) this content has already been removed twice before". This is incorrect for it was removed once by 82.20.240.157 with the stated personal judgement "all reality-based commentators agree that if the standing issue were rectified it would also fail on the merits", not even providing any neutral sources for the consensus. The actual quote I added was that of the judicial decision as given in the cited article: "We express no view on the underlying merits or on what putative party, if any, might have standing." Viktorikona (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a matter for discussion on the article's talk page, which I already stated in the part of my edit summary that you've neglected to quote back at me. But I strongly suggest you consult the page's full edit history, because this quote was indeed removed twice before the reversion you're here complaining about. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

References

April 2021

Your recent editing history at Chad 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. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: If you think I've violated 3rr, feel free to take me to ANI. "Conquered" and "colonized" are not synonyms and you haven't produced any evidence to support removing the word "colonised" from this article. --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Chad is a featured article. If you believe your proposal qualifies as "engaging and of a professional standard", ok then. And seeing your edit history, it won't be long when you get blocked for edit-warring because you don't understand the meaning of WP:BRD. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: Please point to the portion of my edit history showing I don't understand WP:BRD.

Or instead, please point to the part of the Cambridge Dictionary definition you used as an edit summary as justification for excluding "colonise" from the article on Chad. You should probably do it on the article's Talk page.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"Please point to the portion of my edit history showing I don't understand BRD". Immediately after: "You [editor that reverted me] should probably do it on the article's Talk page [rather than me, the editor who avoided discussing it first at Talk:Chad and instead continued edit-warring in the article once I got reverted]". Yep, you don't understand what BRD or consensus means. Anyway, stop pinging me. I've been editing for 11 years and I already know the outcome of discussing with people that edit-war and avoid discussing their changes when reverted. Chad was conquered. If you dislike it, it's not my problem. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

If someone else wants to revert my language that makes clear Chad was colonized via conquest, I'll be happy to discuss it with them on Talk. But you? You're just upset you read a dictionary wrong, in addition to posting a 3RR warning when I hadn't done so (it was one edit and two reverts). There's nothing to discuss with you. --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. CMD (talk) 05:44, 16 April 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) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Question for advice about recent edit summary

I'm looking for advice from a more experienced editor. This diff has an edit summary which makes it pretty clear this IP has decided to make the issue over this content personal. The reason I'm asking someone for advice about this is because, while it doesn't bother me, I've never seen such a summary directed at a specific editor before, so I don't know if there's a common approach by the community to it. I'm fine with continuing to ignore it, or take it to a noticeboard, or request page protection, or whatever is commonplace; I just don't know what is commonplace to begin with. Given that several IPs and new accounts have been low-level vandalizing the page since the last time I personally objected to this specific content (or very similar), I'm thinking something should be done, I just don't know what that something is.

Feel free to look at the recent history at List of concentration and internment camps and any of my other recent edits to see how I've handled this content/situation for the last 8 or 9 days.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries aren't rare, but they aren't commonplace either; they are generally made when someone is either frustrated, a troll, or just not a nice person (folks in this third category rarely stay unblocked for long). If it's a one-off incident, and (as you say) you don't mind it terribly, then I would ignore it and move on. If it becomes a repeated issue, and they make it clear they do not want to discuss the matter with you, the editor can potentially be sanctioned, generally following a discussion at WP:ANI. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much Primefac! This is plenty thanks. Of course I've seen attacks on Talk pages plenty of times, but just never in an edit summary. I'll ignore, but if things escalate I'll try reaching out to the IP, or take it to ANI. --Pinchme123 (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Your recent editing history at Sacheen Littlefeather 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; read about 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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: BLP is very clear: "Contentious material about living, recently deceased, or possibly deceased persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page". RS is very clear: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." And WP:BLPREMOVE describes the BLP exemption to 3RR: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: (1) is unsourced or poorly sourced;"

Removing unsourced or poorly sourced material in BLP space is not a violation of 3RR. I reverted twice and made the reasoning clear at Talk. My next move was to take this to the BLP noticeboard rather than edit war, which I'll be doing when I have time later today.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Your first removal counts as a revert too. When I see someone at 3RR I tend to warn them, and this falls into the grayer area of WP:3RRNO's BLP exemption. I'm glad you'll be taking this to BLPN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Please explain to me how this is a part of the "grayer area" of the exemption, because an opinion piece in the outlet's "Open Forum" is about as far from RS as a new outlet can be (see expansion on this at Talk:Sacheen Littlefeather and feel free to verify the quote from CF Chronicle yourself). I now see it's already been raised at BLPN by others, so no need to open a second conversation there. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP in Sacheen Littlefeather

Hi Pinchme123,

I see you have been wielding the BLP policy a lot in this context, both in your edit-warring (see thread above) and on the talk page. But your actions give the impression that you might not be fully aware that

• BLP applies to all living persons, not just the subject of the article
• BLP also applies to talk page comments.

In this edit you added a clearly false statement which appeared to be designed to cast aspersions on Jacqueline Keeler's credibility (by saying that Littlefeather's sisters had disputed a claim of Keeler's, whereas the cited source said no such thing - by the way, you should also take a look at WP:CLAIM). While another editor has since reverted what they (IMO correctly) called your "multiple insertions of aspersions on Keeler", you still seem very invested in attacking Keeler's credibility by other means, e.g. by quoting non-RS Twitter threads on the talk page (whose reasoning falls apart on closer scrutiny anyway, by the way).

Of course, WP:BLP does not mean that criticism or negative information has to be excluded. So if you find reliable sources concluding that it was Keeler or the sisters who published false information (and that Sacheen Littlefeather's claims were true after all), feel free bring them up.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@HaeB: That edit does not cast aspersions on Keeler, it properly credits the the statements of an opinion article she wrote to her. This is not false, nor is it an aspersion, but required disclosure of the opinion article's content. --Pinchme123 (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. Your edit changed the wording to In an opinion piece following her death, writer Jacqueline Keeler claimed and Littlefeather's sisters disputed that their father had been abusive [...], which implies that 1. Keeler made a statement (about the father) and 2. the sisters disputed that statement. That would obviously impugn Keeler's credibility a great deal if it were true (but it is not).

Also, regarding your insertion of the term "claimed", I'm not sure whether you had a chance to look at the WP:CLAIM link I recommended above, so let me quote the relevant part for you directly:

To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence.

Lastly, your assertion about "required disclosure" make me doubt whether you are aware of the relevant policy at WP:WIKIVOICE:

Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

Not to go too much into content discussions (for which we should use the talk page), but to make clear what the BLP-related problem with your assertion is: All of the five reliable sources I happened to look at yesterday [2] reported it as a fact that the sisters had made these statements (i.e. while they of course credited Keeler and/or the SF Chronicle for the report overall, they did not insert qualifiers such as "according to Keeler, the sisters said"). You however appear to be insisting that Wikipedia has to alert readers to the possibility that Keeler may have fabricated her interviews with the sisters or misquoted them, in contrast to these RS.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

That isn't how any of this works. At the time of my edit 3 days ago, there was only one piece, a non-RS opinion article written by Keeler, from which to draw any information. Whatever you think you may have verified from five sources two and a half days later was not available to me at the time of my edit and is thus irrelevant to this discussion; you would have been wise to follow your own caution. At the time of my edit, none of the Keeler opinion piece was verified at all. And BLP regs are quite clear, opinion pieces are not to be used as the source of facts; neither that matter are primary source quotations like the ones from Littlefeather's sisters. The statements needed to make clear all of the information was derived from Keeler.

The part of MOS you've quoted has one very important word: can. "Can" does not mean "does".

I did not break BLP

--Pinchme123 (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC) (reinstated)

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) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Karachay

You undid an edit that was sourced. It's been reverted. See the Karachay page for citations. Realblueberry (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Please provide sources for edits. Please use the article Talk page for any content-based discussions. I've removed the unsourced material again. --Pinchme123 (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30022425 JOURNAL ARTICLE

A Brief Index of Indigenous Peoples and Languages of Asiatic Russia

Andrew L. Szczśniak

Vol. 5, No. 6 (Jun., 1963), pp. 1-29 (29 pages)

This is the citation. Where should it be placed? There are no citations listed next to any listed group. Thanks. Realblueberry (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The very first section of the article in which indigenous peoples are listed has citations for nearly every entry. If you are unsure of how to add a citation, you could create a new section on the Talk page requesting the addition and linking the source there, for others to review and then add the entry. I would do it, however I am not in a position to evaluate your source at this time and so am not equipped to add it myself.

However, it appears you might be a new user? I'm going to leave a welcome message on your Talk and I'd encourage you to read through the various pages linked in that message, to learn a bit more about Wikipedia's policies, including about the importance of providing reliable sources.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I am familiar with RS. However, looking at the Caucasus section, no group has any citations next to their name. Why the discrepancy? Realblueberry (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If you are familiar with RS, then please do include an RS citation if you decide to re-add this content again (since you know that content on Wikipedia should have sources). If you read the Talk page and its archives, you'll see that this article has been dealing with the trouble of a lack of citations for quite some time. (By the way, if you are in a position to do some research to add RS citations for any entries, it would be greatly appreciated!) Editors who keep an eye on it have been trying to make sure any additions include RS, so as to not further exacerbate the article's current citation problems.

But if what you're hung up on is how to add a citation in this article, it's the same process as for any other article. If you need an example from this specific article, look in the "Africa" section for several entries with citations.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Archaeology

FYI, archeology (American) vs archaeology (British etc) is a clear WP:ENGVAR difference, as the article explains. It's not a case of "more common". Please check the article to see if your edit was correct, and confirm this. If I don't see this, I will revert (unless someone else beats me to it). Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod: So this isn't an American/British variation difference. To be clear, the Archaeology article has a note attached to the "archeology" bolded spelling, which says: archaeology is the standard spelling across the English-speaking world, including the United States. I don't see any other discussion of the variation in that article outside of this note.

The reason "archeology" spelling happens slightly more in the US is because, for a short period of time, a specific few people got the US federal government to standardize that spelling via the GPO by eliminating the diphthong (even though the word was at the time a very prominent exception to the no-diphthong rule at that time), and a few prominent schools used it in the US for a while. But those non-governmental uses have fallen out of favor.

Here's the Society for American Archaeology's publication on the subject: [3]

The three most prominent schools, mentioned in that piece as once having used "archeology" variant, no longer name themselves that way and as far as I know do not use them in publications or releases:

Yale: [4]

Chicago: [5]

Columbia: [6]

And as an anecdote: no archaeologists I know in the US, who do not work for a government office use "archeology", and I know a lot of archaeologists in the US. Of the one who I know who do work for a government office, and who I recall having conversations with, hate having to use the "archeology" variant in their official work, but have no recourse for getting it changed.

If this were a case where the articles using "archeology" were in British English (and that note said it was the British spelling) then I wouldn't be making these spelling changes. But "archeology" is so clearly not the US spelling, and is so clearly at this point used almost exclusively in government contexts, that I think it's fine to make this change.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by all this - "archeology" is just wrong in British English, and always has been, so you should change it in BE articles. But it is not wrong in American English, and large numbers of our articles in AE use it, as do vast numbers of American sources, and in my experience most American editors. Try finding reputable British sources using "archeology". Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if I wasn't clear. "Archeology", without "ae" is not British English. It is also not the most common version in American English (it is an accepted minor variation). The note I quoted, from the Wikipedia article agrees with me. "Archaeology", with "ae", is the most common version the world over, including in the United States. I'm not aware of any article on Wikipedia where someone can defend using the "e" version - "archeology" - by pointing to WP:ENGVAR because "archeology", the "e" version, is not most common to any regional English variation (maybe there's a less common variation I don't know about, but it certainly isn't in either British or American English).

(What do you mean in your previous comment by, and large numbers of our articles in AE use it? What's your meaning of "AE" here, I genuinely don't know what you are referring to.)

And to be thorough, I also don't think anyone can point to WP:COMMONNAME to argue for article-wide use of "archeology", the "e" version, because it isn't the most common version in most contexts.

Can you please provide an article example where "archeology", the "e" version, is most common throughout the article (you'll run into my edits for the last several hours, please feel free to look at the versions before my edits to see their state prior to my changes)? I've been looking through all cases of "archeology", the "e" version, I can find "archeology", the "e" version, used in Wikipedia articles, but I haven't found one where it was dominant. I have found a couple with more than 5 of these variants (Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, Indigenous archaeology), but "archaeology", the "ae" version, were far more common. In many instances, someone used the short "e" version in an organization or journal title or wikilink that was incorrect; in one case the typo in a wikilink broke the link entirely because there isn't an "e" version redirect. This is a sitewide search of "en.wiki.x.io" by the way; the cases where "archeology", the "e" version, shows up were mostly archaeology articles of some kind. The only article I've seen so far with instances of "archeology", the "e" version, that wasn't an archaeology article was Technology; it had a single section with the "e" version used exclusively; but given that the "ae" version is more common in every variety of English I know of, I changed them.

I don't see any evidence that "archeology", the "e" version, is used as widespread on Wikipedia as I think you're asserting. While it is an accepted variant, it is neither a regionally dominant version, nor is it the most common version except in limited circumstances. I know you said your experience says most American editors use the "e" version; my experience, with American archaeologists and in surveying Wikipedia's articles, is the opposite. But please, if you have evidence of widespread use on Wikipedia, I genuinely want to see it and know how to find it; it will make me a better editor.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

So you're now saying the opposite to "If this were a case where the articles using "archeology" were in British English (and that note said it was the British spelling) then I wouldn't be making these spelling changes"? WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles only. It's too late at night to do a site-wide search, especially if you have been going round changing them. I'm perfectly happy if every one uses my local "archaeology", but I think many of your compatriots won't be! AE = American English. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod: That statement was a hypothetical/counterfactual, and meant to acknowledge that I do not know British English well enough to evaluate whether or not a variant spelling is common in British English. I do know enough about American English to be confident in making the evaluation in this real situation, hence why I already started implementing it.

But honestly, at this point, I'd like your opinion regarding MOS:COMMONALITY as it relates here. I quoted it below. The note at Archaeology makes clear (as do the sources linked in that note, if you want more sources I will provide them), "ae" variant archaeology is the most common variant in American English. Therefore, per MOS, it would be the preferred version on American English pages.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I again apologize, for having this after-the-fact addendum. But MOS:ENGVAR actually does cover this. From the section MOS:COMMONALITY: When more than one variant spelling exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred, except where the less common spelling has a specific usage in a specialized context. At the very best, someone can say "e" version "archeology" does exist in American English. However, the "most commonly used current variant" is "ae" version archaeology. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC) (Update: minor typo fix, and added a ping because I 100% do not want to be on your bad side on this, but don't want to move forward and potentially piss you off --Pinchme123 (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC))

@Johnbod:@Pinchme123: I have reviewed the arguments regarding usage of the spelling archaeology and it alternative, including the sources cited here, and concur with the conclusion drawn by Pinchme123—that this stated spelling is the most widely used and accepted, apart from within government communications and a period of dated U.S. sources. I think the basis for standardising around the currently most widely accepted academic usage is sound (and that the U.S. government might, akin to its very slow adoption of Système international d'unités, be hoped within the millenmium to follow suit). The only further thing to add is that alongside the effort to make the spellings uniformly "archaeology", in articles which feature a significant proportion of dated U.S. literature and government sources, a standard footnote might be uniformly added that explains, briefly, what is said in the "The reason [for the variant] spelling... in the US is [that] for a short period of time..." paragraph above. That is, I encourage uniformly changing the spelling, but also adding the explanatory footnote at a point where the clarification makes most sense in each article. With regard, a retired academic. 2601:246:C700:F5:18B0:5EF:D03:EBA0 (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Confusing structure of User page space

Good afternoon, Pinchme. I am writing to suggest you would do other regular editors a service, by adding at least one statement to your User (main) page, and then perhaps the Userboxes from the head of this Talk page if you would wish. That is to say, it would benefit other editors to know at a glance that you are most likely a substantive and dedicated editor, a reality that is obfuscated by your name appearing in red—as many other such red names are fly-by-night editors that log in only once or a few times, and often to cause trouble.

Then, more personally, as a fellow academic, I would express sympathy with the quandry in which you are somewhat regularly finding yourself, with regard to reverts and rule following. I eventually found (on the road to my own cessation of logged editing) that there is not a uniform understanding of the meaning of the rules here, a conclusion which includes the most important rules regarding the need to source all non-sky-is-blue content (BLP or otherwise). (I have heard it strongly argued, recently, by a local consensus from which I eventually disengaged for lack of recourse, that sourcing is not needed for such statements, if no one disagrees with them. And if a disagreement arises, the local consensus is seen as trump the individual, rigorous rule-follower.)

That reality, alongside the structure of WP decision-making (with no ultimate, authoritative arbitor of rule, policy, or content disputes)—such that there is no guarantee of either justice when personal or policy disputes arise, or of ultimate, factually supported correct decisions with regard to content disagreements—have led me to devote my substantive volunteer time elsewhere, including in high level actions engaging the Foundation. All this to say, I encourage your continued great probity, but also your discretion, even wisdom, in dealing with this context. I am concerned that your clear-thinking and forthrightness in your actions and discussions will end in yet another we-perceive-they-don't-play-well perpetual bans of a sound, principled academic editor.

With regard, I am (a former Big Ten faculty member, and former longstanding logging editor)... 2601:246:C700:F5:18B0:5EF:D03:EBA0 (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP. I appreciate your thoughtful comment here. I'm not quite sure though, was there some specific action on my part recently that brought you here?

I will just point out for the above (because you contributed), Johnbod did not revert my edits nor challenge them anywhere other than bringing this discussion to my talk page. During our back and forth, they stopped responding, basically after I pointed out that (previously unbeknownst to me) the MOS actually does directly speak to the case where more than one accepted spelling exists in a particular national English variety. No other editors noted my changes, nor did I receive any notifications of having had any of them reverted, which so far I've seen as a pretty good indication that these edits were also basically uncontroversial.

I became quite busy and have been unable to return to shifting "archeology" to "archaeology" here on project, but my cessation of doing so was not long-paused by Johnbod. Wikipedia's MOS is pretty clear on the subject and so I'm guessing it won't be too much of a discussion once I go back to doing it (though I suppose I could be wrong). If I were to guess (and guessing is usually bad, so please Johnbod, if you read this, correct my error if necessary), the conversation didn't require anything more from them because of the MOS language I identified.

As for other discussions you may see above, many of them come from the specific frustrations you've pointed out, but I'm not at all interested in hashing them out again. If Wikipedia wishes to be a place where they malign people on shoddy sourcing based on local incorrect readings of their own policies, there's nothing I can do with that, so I just disengage. The only time I came close to a ban was over a specific (still-shitty) word choice that's particularly dehumanizing for an entire nationality and their history.

Finally, as for my username, I have purposely kept my user page as non-existent for personal, identity-based reasons. I agree with you that users believe those with blue signatures are somehow more seasoned (and less of the drive-by-and-wreak-havoc type); I however don't think this assertion stands up to scrutiny. Or, more specifically, plenty of nefarious editors figure out quite quickly that they may get the slightest of more favorable treatment by having a blue username in their signature. I keep mine the way it is (rather than creating a user page, or creating a custom signature) to push back in my own infinitesimally small way against this belief, sometimes to my own detriment. But honestly, at the end of the day, I like it being a "red link" because I like the ambiguity it represents.

At any rate, thanks for the note.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page List of Indigenous peoples, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Donald Albury 19:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Donald Albury Hello, if you would have reviewed the article in question, you would have noticed that the majority of it is written with American English ("colonized", "recognized", "centered", ect.), and has been for most of its history. I would suggest you self-revert this and bring your concerns to the Talk page. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't look quite that simple to me. I see four instances of "ise" and four instances of "ize" in the text (not counting WP page names, proper nouns, citations, and quotes). I will start a discussion on the article's talk page (which, I will admit, I should have dome to start with). Donald Albury 23:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Donald Albury Please do start that discussion, and in the mean-time please do revert your edit. I don't know which count you're using, but it appears you're relying on the recent edit by another editor that prompted me to fix the errors. Restricting your counting to "ize"/"ise" also ignores the use of "centered" and -"ization" outside of wikilinks (at quick glance). Taking these into account, the count is 7 American to 2 British on the most-recent version prior to that addition of two cases. --Pinchme123 (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Hi, I see you're a member of WP:Anthropology, would you be interested in joining a sub project on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: apologies for my delayed response. It's been challenging devoting any significant time to Wikipedia recently, so I'm afraid I'm not in a position to be helpful in any meaningful way with a new project or task force. But I'll keep an eye out occasionally and help wherever I can. I do think the task force route is a good idea. As you by now can tell, much of the Anthropology WikiProject people aren't as engaged as many other WikiProjects; but they do show up to help out from time to time and so putting a concerted effort into oral tradition material on their radar is likely a net positive for your goals. Best of luck! --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, have a great day! Kowal2701 (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)