PrimaPrime

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

OSM trivia 2

So I was trying to remove |title= from that infobox (using Show preview), so as to avoid the need for edits like this. I believe that's one of the infobox templates where omission of |title= automatically uses the article title as the infobox title.

I couldn't get this to work. Everything I tried completely broke the rendering, apparently due to some weird quirky coding interaction with {{OSM Location map}}. Syntactically, is {{OSM Location map}} required to be coded as part of the |title= value or something? I don't see anything implying that in the template doc.

Can you perchance provide any insight about this? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It should work if you nest {{OSM Location map}} inside |module=, although then the map will default to the bottom of the infobox. PrimaPrime (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that's going to be viable. So I gather that the infobox title can't be defaulted with the map at the top. Like I said, weird and quirky. Oh well. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

This is to inform you that I have opened a dispute resolution concerning the Kamala Harris Talk page "Attendance" item. You have commented there. I believe that the "2019" section of the article should reflect the well-documented fact that Senator Harris missed 62 percent of Senate votes in 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Kamala_Harris Jab73 (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2020 (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) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

October 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Lost Cause of the Confederacy, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing? Commentary and personal analysis? I tightened up the lede section, preserving the exact same sourcing and POV as before (I would know, I wrote a good amount of it a couple of years ago). PrimaPrime (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I jumped the gun. I'm always in favor of tighter writing. However, your new version removed some interesting summaries of article text discussing Reconstruction and the sense of noble and chivalrous sentiments claimed by the South. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 6 October 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) 00:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

September 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Lost Cause of the Confederacy, you may be blocked from editing. If you can show the source says “supposed” I’ll retract this. Use the article talk page, not this page. Doug Weller talk 07:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

No RS would dispute that the South seceded and fired the first shot. The cited source at pages 18 and 96 notes the false claims by Confederate partisans of "Northern aggression". Thus the term should be qualified as euphemistic or propagandistic in nature. Hardly disruptive.

Thank you for the unrelated DS reminders though, I've only been on Wikipedia for 8 years and sometimes I forget why this site has terrible editor retention. PrimaPrime (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey guys, I found several sources that clearly spell out the framing of the Civil War by revisionists as at least partially justified because of "supposed northern aggression". The wording made sense to me, and I felt it was important enough to add that to ensure readers don't mistake that facet of the "Lost Cause" narrative for historical fact. I added two of the sources; I could've added more but I felt like that would've been overkill. I hope this helps resolve the issue. Wes sideman (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice

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

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 07:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice

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

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 07:49, 7 September 2022 (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) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. If you have questions, please request help at the Teahouse.  // Timothy :: talk  03:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. If you have questions, please request help at the Teahouse.  // Timothy :: talk  03:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

1RR: 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Hi, it seems you've violated 1RR with these two reverts: 1 and 2. I would encourage you to self-RV and seek consensus on the talk page. Per this arbitration decision, I am bringing this to your attention before escalating further. Thanks! WillowCity^(talk) 02:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I had mentally counted that second diff as my one revert while waiting for anyone else to weigh in on the talk page section. PrimaPrime (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Appreciated! It's a bit of a silly rule since you can just put it back in in 24 hours anyway (in theory, although I think this is frowned upon), but rules are rules as they say. I'll weigh in on the talk page if no one else responds. WillowCity^(talk) 03:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

"Frowned upon" indeed, which is why we should just move to a "know it when you see it" standard for edit warring, but hey, they never said the rules themselves have to assume good faith :) PrimaPrime (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)