User talk:Coldtrack

Welcome!

Hello, Coldtrack, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quis separabit? 23:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Lotfi A. Zadeh

Your edits to this article have been contested. Per WP:BRD, please get a consensus on the article's talk page before restoring them. Thank you, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Please

Please slap me with a trout on my talk page, due to my silliness on this page. You can find it here, or on the red part of this: GermanGamer77 20:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

1RR on White Helmets

The article is under a 1RR restriction. With these edits [1] [2], you've broken the one revert restriction. Please revert to the previous version (this one)

The notification for discretionary sanctions is on the talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. But doing so reverted you in the process. Manual "undo" failed due to later contributions and I could not see clearly everything that had to be switched back and forth. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. Thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Note

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I am aware of the restrictions. Have I at this time violated something of which I was unaware? --Coldtrack (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

No, but this particular discretionary sanctions area says you're not "officially" aware unless you get the above message. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Relevant information and policy

In noticed you recent edit to White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). I conducted a random revision search, and it is clear from my findings that the first sentence of the article is the status quo. Your addition of new content into said sentence may well be correct and warranted, but other editors have contested it by way of their revisions. Under normal circumstances I would encourage following the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle but as I am sure you are aware, the article is bogged down at the moment and different parties have decided to contest each-other's edits outright; it seems to be an all-or-nothing approach to edits of any side. Thus, policy dictates that we as editors conform to WP:NOCON, which outright states that content reverts to what it was before the new edits (be they adding, removing, or modifying content) were made. Such is the condition of the White Helmets article now, as I see it. I would encourage you to start talk page discussions to discuss changes to the article, though I admittedly do not know how successful this approach will be given the subject. Best of luck.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

SamHolt6. I thank you for the information, can you show me the exact edit you are referring to so I can better understand the violation I committed? BTW yes I am involved in discussions but at the moment it is a "make your vote known" so there is little genuine dialogue (but there is the normal harassment of comments by some where people have voted against their viewpoint). I'll see what best I can do to fix the problem in my case. Thanks. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Coldtrack. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Swarm ♠ 20:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sincerest thanks! --Coldtrack (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2018 (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. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Acknowledged. --Coldtrack (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Removed links to unauthorized videos on YouTube

The page on Modern Marvels had links to content on Youtube that was not authorized to be there. The videos were pirated content, the Youtube accounts were deleted, the links are no longer valid. Please undo your revision. Also, please pay more attention to your edits in the future. --William Zwicky (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Coldtrack. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Avers

Hi. Appreciate the random "correction" but really? "avers" instead of argues? Moreover, checking the dictionary (to my shame I must admit it's the first time I encounter this term...) it means "to state positively ", "to assert". I really don't see why you'd use such an obscure term instead of the more commonly used "argues".

Please tell me what the rationale is.

Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Cealicuca, thanks for admitting you didn't know the word. I'm all for changing it if you believe it is obscure. The issue I had with "argues" is that one normally uses this word as a type of response in which case we should put the other point first - or likewise - just have something like "they say", "they state", "they claim", etc. If we can at least agree between the two of us what term to use then at we'll avoid falling into WP:LAME which sadly affects all disagreeing parties. Respond here if you like. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Coldtrack Yeah, I apologize for the revert, I really thought It was bogus. I am an above average non-native English speaker but... yes, I admit I've never heard of this term before. In any case, while I do understand what you're trying to underline (and the "no argument before dispute"... interesting, didn't think of it from this angle), you have me at a loss. Now that you pointed out this - I find it hard to accept "argue". Rationalize? Maintain?Cealicuca (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Cealicuca. Yeah I like "rationalize", nobody can find fault with it and it gives impact to a technical viewpoint. Go for it! :) --Coldtrack (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Coldtrack Thank you for a most civilized interaction, and please excuse my abrupt revert on grounds of lack of knowledge as well as recent... events regarding this article. Should you wish to contribute more to the article, you'd be more than welcome. Maybe a new voice might bring balance to the force. Cheers.Cealicuca (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem, and thanks for the warm responses and discussion. That is one article to which I have no background knowledge hence the reason I was reading it. But as you know, sometimes as you read, you feel the urge to hammer the "edit" button because one assumes "this word sounds better" and so on! :) Keep up your good efforts! --Coldtrack (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I just had a talk with a native English speaker friend and he pointed me towards the Oxford English Dictionary, saying that "avers" is quite antique, but also pointing out that "rationalize" has negative connotation :(. In the end, after having a more or less lengthy talk about it, it seems that "argues" fits best. Cealicuca (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Cealicuca. After so much discussion and having explored all options, I don't think "argues" really hurts. So let it be what it was before we both experimented. "Aver" is used a lot in legal jargon, but a glance across Wikipedia and in particular Google, it is definitely a living word not on its way to abandonment just yet, but as you said originally, there is an "obscure" aspect to it. Google dictionary describes "rationalize" as "attempt to explain or justify (behaviour or an attitude) with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.", so I can see where the slightly negative connotation comes in which we would inadvertently be accusing one party of doing. So let it remain "argues", I am fine with it. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Coldtrack. Again, I very much appreciate your rational approach. I would not insist any longer on this, but you being unfamiliar with the subject of the article would actually be an asset, since I believe that passion (among other things) is simply overwhelming any fact-based (sourced of course) debate on the associated Talk page. On the other hand, I completely understand not wanting to go head first into a hornet's nest. So... your choice obviously, but I could promise you an "exciting" experience should you wish to contribute more to the article. Cheers.Cealicuca (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

If I can I will, I promise! Thanks Cealicuca! :) --Coldtrack (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Additionally

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 recently shown interest in the Balkans. 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 any 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.

While I'm glad it got resolved above, please be aware you violated the page level sanction and if you had been warned, you would be blocked now. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

DeltaQuad. Yes I'm surprised Romanian articles are classed by Wikipedia as Balkans as normally one thinks of this as former Yugoslavia plus Albania and maybe Greece but nothing more. Can you tell me what precisely the rule was that I violated, and where you see I violated it. This is purely for future reference so I don't fall into any traps. Thank you. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not complicated. Specifically, this edit where you reverted for a second time. Don't do that on articles covered by discretionary sanctions. MPS1992 (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy to explain it. MPS1992 is right about the answer. This explains it more. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Got it, this is 1RR per day basically. Sorry to be a pain and ask, but where am I supposed to look when editing? --Coldtrack (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yazidis

Hello. I reverted your edit on Yazidis since the dispute is whether they are an ethnic group or a Kurdish minority. --Semsûrî (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

I am leaving this message on your talk page as a way to say thank you for the contributions that you made on the Dimitar Apasiev article. Dikaiosyni (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Dikaiosyni, no problem. I saw you were developing the article so I thought I'd help where I could. BTW - when you removed the "uncategorised" tag, you also removed the categories in the process, please see. Thx. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Coldtrack, thank you for the heads up, I have fixed it. Dikaiosyni (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Violation of editing restrictions on White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)

The page is covered by the following rule, "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)", which you have violated. You should self-revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

1RR restriction

The article White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) is under 1RR restriction. You broke it [3] [4]. Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 18:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

As you now know I hold up my hands over this one. The reply came on your own talk[5]. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

National Endowment for Democracy

Can I get your opinion on my recent edits there? I don't think I did anything wrong. Think maybe I should put the citations at the end each sentence instead of the paragraph I added? Seems like one admin is exerting page ownership. "Consensus" is being invokes to remove well-sourced content but keep churnalism content dependent entirely on primary sources.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

PlanespotterA320, if you are referring to this edit then yes I stand by your tags. The article is problematic but then anything representing the US government and its foreign interests is slanted heavily that way and yes admins will abuse their powers as will many other editors. I've seen it many times: policy pushed to one side as the stronger factions relies heavily on shit-talk and post hoc rationalisation to support its tendentious viewpoint. --Coldtrack (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexei Navalny

Welcome to Wikipedia.

You are on WP:3RR so you better not make another revert.

I have also reverted three times, yes, but mine is current and you've got no consensus comrade. --Free Belarus Now (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Free Belarus Now. Another western establishment lackey I see. That's the reason WP is a global failure. Are you going to comment on Talk:Alexei Navalny or not? --Coldtrack (talk) 18:25, 23 September 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) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: Yugoslavia–European Communities relations

I am fine with your phrasing. Actually, as far as I am concerned the important part of the statement is that Yugoslav crisis directly influenced development of the common policy. The current phrasing (feeling of guilt etc) is just the phrasing similar to the cited reliable source.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mirko. I guess we have a mini-consensus now. I'm now waiting for Juicy Oranges to respond with his thoughts and not just revert to no mention of the common policy which came about as a result of the matter at hand. Judging by his editing patterns he appears "sem-retired" though that's not for me to say, either way his reply could come in the next minute or the next month. Nonetheless, you and I have reached an agreement and that's a great step. Cheers! --Coldtrack (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Your edit

Please explain this edit. --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

As on your talk page when you were posting the above. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:45, 1 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) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo

I ask you to review your recent posts in the RfC there and strike, hat, remove, or otherwise fix your personal attacks, bludgeoning, "forum"-ing, or otherwise disruptive comments. If it is still there tomorrow, I will probably join in the pending ANI thread against you and ask for sanctions. As I said earlier, I am not going to ignore any further disruptive behavior in this RfC, but I want to give you a chance to avoid having to respond to yet another noticeboard complaint. Levivich 15:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Levivich. I have work and do not get the opportunity to go online seven days a week. Tuesday is my hardest day of the week as I work late into the evening. Can you cite where I have personally attacked you, and where I have committed other violations (by summarising the message in three or four words) and I will see about striking or removing them. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that when I looked at your contributions history after posting my message, so please forget what I said about "tomorrow" and I apologize me for rushing. You are under no obligation to edit every day (or even every week); there is WP:NORUSH and I shouldn't have imposed a specific deadline.

The specifics are already listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Update request, which I hadn't noticed when I initially posted my message to you here (which is why I rewrote the message, sorry also for the multiple pings). I would highlight:

• "I have never in my life seen such a one-sided and flagrantly loaded misrepresentation of the matter at hand anywhere ... loaded overture ... totally disingenuous to pretend reliable sources are the be-all-and-end-all ... flat out mendacious" Special:Diff/1077267863, in which you're repeatedly calling me a liar (misrepresentation, loaded, disingenuous, mendacious) for the way I framed the RFC. It's funny you also wrote in that same post, "If the wording is problematic, then help find better wording", since that's what the RFC is about.
• "... you can do no more that parrot the "RS" mantra ... a stable version (albeit one that did not satisfy the narratives of pro-Kosovo independence narratives) ... does not greenlight biased editors to covertly erect an Aunt Sally that is contrived to deliberately afford primacy to their POV under the auspices of how it gets written in "reliable" sources ..." Special:Diff/1078165420
• "RS is a tired argument and if it the one and only response you have for every challenge made to it, then you'd best go read WP:ONUS. In other words, you don't get to foreclose suggestions that frustrate your unrelenting standpoint by yammering the same old policy over and over." Special:Diff/1078165945
• "... Battleground editors, not just here but across the site, hide behind "reliable sources" merely as a way of building a fortress around statements which are downright controversial at best, and flat out wrong at worst. I've had these discussions elsewhere. When the sources a challenging editor presents all come from publishers and other media with pre-existing "NON-RS" status, the gatekeepers of the controversial viewpoint have no other argument than to cling to RS which might then (as in my case once) send the challenging editor/s down the pathway to reviewing which sources really are and are not RS. After that? There is no more argument for anyone to claim that the current batches are what they say they are unless they are nakedly invoking circular fallacies. What happens next? As the "keep RS what it is" foot soldiers jump up and down and blow a gasket, some other "higher up" admin comes along and collapses the discussion with a "NOTAFORUM" tag." Special:Diff/1078167996

Those aren't only uncivil, but you're also basically saying "damn the RS, I know what's right!" which is just going to get you kicked off this website eventually. Wikipedia is about summarizing RS, so yeah, the RS kind of is the be-all-and-end-all-of-content disputes.

By the way, Special:Diff/1078445055 is a message I removed from my talk page, which is the same exact thing, except from the opposite side of the political divide. I don't tolerate that kind of nonsense from any side, but if we don't all nip it in the bud, it will spiral out of control like this.

So, this message is my way of saying, "I'm going to ask for you to be sanctioned if you don't stop it." But--and I really mean this--don't feel like you have to respond on any sort of timeline imposed by me. For my part, I'll see how you respond to the ANI thread and this message, whenever that may be. Thanks for reading this and being open to striking/removing/modifying/whatever your remarks. Levivich 22:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is about summarizing RS, so yeah, the RS kind of is the be-all-and-end-all-of-content disputes." No it's not Levivich. In the first place, there is WP:ONUS. In the second place, it begs the question (fallacy of circular reasoning), and in the third place, this is a wording matter rather than a debate over "I know what's right", so no opponent of Option B advocates a choice of words that is "unsourced". I resolve to strike out any offending remark but we must get to the bottom of this one first, and at the moment with regards your "reliable sources are all that matters" argument, you're not out the gates yet on that one. They matter - and so do other things beyond RS. Feel free to reply on this thread. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Levivich. I presume you haven't read the above. Let's see if you and I can reach an understanding by moving away from Kosovo and focusing somewhere else. I can edit on any part of the world yet there is one zone even I keep a distance from if I can help it. Now, far from perfect or neutral in any way, have a good look at how Jerusalem is said to be presented. Which country is it in? Well, depending whom you ask, there could be up to FOUR answers. 1) Israel, who claim it all and control it all. 2) Palestine. 3) West being Israeli and East being Palestine or 4) the defunct but never rescinded special status of Jerusalem being self-governing and not in any country (per early UN recommendation). The article lede favours NONE but focuses on an explanation of the delicately conflicting views. However, so-called "reliable sources" don't seem to have any problem claiming Jersulem to be part of Israel: BBC, CNN among others. None of us can go onto that talk page on the back of a bold change by Red Slash and expect to still be editing after an ANI report is filed against someone doing what Horse Eye's Back has done. Do you get what I am saying here? --Coldtrack (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hijri year

First, the Wikipedia "engine" ignores multiple spaces. So abc def and abc def are displayed identically. In the specific case, the original source had a double space, which is typographically incorrect of course but is invisible to visitors. Removing it was thus valid but just annoying to article watchers unless done in the course of a more substantive edit. So why was it done? The only credible reason was to get that grossly offensive username in the record.

Second, the name had already been reported and blocked.

Finally, should I have had the kneejerk reaction to revert it? No, probably not – except that doing so makes it clear that gratuitous offensiveness is not tolerated. Evidently you disagree. Clearly I won't revert again. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman. Sorry if my behaviour appeared abrupt. It was something else which led me to follow the trail of this editor and I didn't pause for thought once regarding the username. It just flew overhead like a airplane. In my experiences, when a username violation is detected then the blocking admin normally offers the offending editor a chance to switch name to something more appropriate. He was down for disruptive editing, though all I could see was this edit which looked on the iffy side. There appeared to be no warnings or anything so clearly some obscure nonsense is going on somewhere. I've now looked to find that he appealed but was declined as being a sockpuppet and again, I don't know how on earth anybody can claim "checkuser evidence" on a person who makes five edits. I'm sure the IP address may have been used abusively in the 20 years of English Wiki but these things rarely remain static for too long. Some edits were definitely in good faith such as this one which caught my attention. I am very pleased that you restored them following the initial reverts. In future, if I feel it is better to revert seasoned editors such as you, I'll try to provide a more civil summary. All the best. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Coldtrack: no need to apologise, we were both collateral damage from that editor's behaviour. If it is of any consolation, I did exactly the same thing as you, but from the opposite direction: it was just OBVIOUS that the "not here" block was for the abusive user-name: the possibility that it might be for another reason never occurred to me. I was equally astonished at how quickly the admins nabbed him on so little evidence apart from the user-name. In the only other case I've been involved with, the perp has a very distinctive 'fist' and favourite topics.

Anyway, policy WP:banned means banned says "revert all edits, good or bad", so that's what I did. But of course since they were fixing typos, I had to redo them. Nothing especially clever. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)

Edit warring against multiple editors

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Pellumb Xhufi

I have been asked to coordinate discussion of the issue of the reliability as a source as Pellumb Xhufi. You are one of the editors who has either used Xhufi as a source or expressed a concern about the use of Xhufi as a source. The place for the discussion is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi. Your participation is not required but is encouraged, and may be the best way to have your opinion considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I thank you for the notification and I certainly plan to look into this. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Billy Fiddle ...

... is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. See my comments at User talk:Acroterion. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thomas.W. Well hello again Tom. Thanks for posting the above message. I did get to read your statement at Acroterion's talk page as you referenced. I had by that time also followed the prompts of Zzuzz's lead from earlier this year. If you are advising me that Billy Fiddle, Justice 4 all people, Fat Boy Rory and Epsom Nutbuster are one and the same person, and that this person is the one who has harassed you for the past couple of years or so (reverting, re-reverting non-stop), you're more than likely right, and judging by the behaviour of these accounts (not that I will ever find out what offensive material Epsom Nutbuster splattered on my talk because on Tuesdays I practically never edit. I'm a professional translator Ukrainian, Russian, English and work for my local authority, the police and the courts, and Tuesdays are my biggest earner of the week, so I never even log in that day - and in 2022 I've never had so much fun in my life reading statements from refugees who have been up to no good!!! lol), but seriously, yes there is reasonable grounds based on the visible behaviour to assume that this "cohort" share one brain and two hands between them. If however you are trying to convince me that those accounts were handled by an individual who edited from 2005 until 2013, then I regret that I am not seeing the connection between the "cohort" and the "accused". Almost two years ago now (March 2021), I exchanged a few lines with you regarding some anomalies that I came across, and this is before Zzuuzz disclosed a development to have occurred earlier this year. Quite simply, when Zzuuzz, LilianaUwU, and some others I am sure refer to your wrongdoer as "person known as Evlekis", there is a general acceptance that the community may be getting it wrong. Some things add up, and others don't (as they see things). Nine years after his last edit on his own talkpage (since he was banned from previously), I reckon in 2022 we're playing Chinese whispers. It goes from technical data over multiple accounts one day, to DUCK the next day where a link has been made between a new account and a previously blocked account, to something else the day after, and it simply isn't reasonable to assume that continuity in accuracy should prevail. You say Evlekis "impersonates" people. Like whom? I've yet to see an account tagged with his name impersonate him. Towards Liliana he is transphobic, and yet towards me he is anti-Russian and anti-communist. He seems to hate Romanian men but love the females, support Leeds Utd and is anti-Brexit. That's a bald-headed 59-year old blue collar, single, beer-belly lager lout who gets paid Friday and is broke by Monday having spent all Saturday in Ladbrokes. Has there actually been another editor with all those qualities for another jerk to impersonate?! Anyhow, Evlekis or not, you've stated openly that you have intentionally and subtly enticed his reactions. I have to tell you that this for one is to WP:Feed the trolls, and it's not personally doing you any good either. This is because someone clearly has access to thousands of IPs, and you and that person are via different methods at each other's throats. Yes, you feel that reporting him and seeing him blocked with talkpage/email removed is an achievement, while he feels that opening a new account and then reverting your last batch of edits is an achievement. When is this going to stop? But if you truly want a synopsis over "who is winning?", ask yourself that question: you're both anonymous, but one of you is giggling in excelsis and the other is pulling his hairs out in anger. If you're both having a laugh, then why worry? You're both having fun so why need either of you stop? But if you think that there exists some silver bullet in the current paradigm that is going to stop one or more lunatics opening accounts and annoying you, well, it hasn't worked for so many years now. I have just one question for you Tom. Would you swear blind that every single account on the confirmed and suspected list is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis purely on the strength of checkuser accuracy and the reliability of some editor's personal judgements? --Coldtrack (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

You are of course free to have whatever opinion you want, but a) it's been more than a couple of years, I've been dealing with him for eight years, b) there's a good chain of evidence for it being Evlekis, an unbroken chain from 2013 'til now, and c) he's also made repeated references to certain imaginary entities and names over and over again, from at least 2014 until now, so yes, there's pretty good evidence for it really being the Evlekis that was indeffed in 2013. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thomas.W, very well Tom. I'll take that as a Yes to both. At the moment I haven't got time as it's late and I'm up early (busy day ahead Friday), but the information I wanted to share with you last March is stored away somewhere and I need to revisit it. Now when I do so, I intend to notify Zzuuzz on his talk, so if you're interested, pay attention to those details (I'll link your name anyhow). In the meantime, I'll just clear one thing up. I asked Smart tricksta had he edited before, and he said he did - and that he was Billy Fiddle. The fact is that a "first account name" being a "sockmaster" is only really a Wiki convention. The "sockmaster" is the real-life person who has operated the accounts. To that end, the name we use is irrelevant provided we know it to be correct. Smart Tricksta to Billy Fiddle is plausible. Smart Tricksta to Evlekis? Not so. His account was blocked on the basis of demonstrable similarity to Billy Fiddle. I do not believe that someone ran a checkuser on Smart Tricksta and Evlekis, and as I said, nine years is a long time, and for reasons mentioned by Zzuuzz and others who refer to the "LTA known as Evlekis", much could have happened for the process to derail, and it only needs one false link to kickstart an undetectable red herring. There's no smoking gun among those examples I provded. Therefore, I asked Tricksta who he is, and he said Billy Fiddle. I fail to see what stopped him saying Evlekis, or even Chestermoon for that matter (the latter I am convinced is him). As such, for the time being, I'm only refrring to Billy Fiddle. Similarly, I can see the connection between the edits of the not-blocked (let alone talkpage/email withdrawal) of Darko Temelkov and Evlekis. This apple sure hasn't fallen far from the tree, and I haven't seen him call me "Commie-cakes" or you & Liliana some of those horrible things he has in store. You see, you're now dealing with four entities (from a categorical perspective):

• 1. The genuine Evlekis.
• 2. Billy Fiddle (and that means Chestermoon, Epsom Nutbuster and the plethora of accounts you say have harassed you for eight years)
• 3. The IP in Montenegro to message Sro23 earlier this year.
• 4. The genuine Darko Temelkov.

Do you see one, two, three or four persons above? I personally see two: one of those being No's 1, 3 & 4. If you believe that a checkuser should have a good reason to believe that the above four are all the same, then Darko Temelkov plus the Montenegrin IP range should be blocked forthwith with email and talkpage withdrawn, and no tags other than "LTA" per the guidelines. Perhaps it's late for the IP range I admit, but it's the principle. So, notwithstanding the IP range No 3, anyone who reposes faith in the checkuser process needs to ask himself how did the Darko Temelkov account sit all that time below the radar? CUs have taken place multiple times every year since 2015. Who for seven years has been the copper that couldn't shoot straight? --Coldtrack (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It's obvious that you don't know enough about the case to be able to draw the conclusions you draw, basing your view on only a few small bits where someone claiming to be Evlekis claims to be more or less an innocent victim of a witch hunt. I don't share your view. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Well obviously neither of us can know everything on this. It is after all pure blind navigation and guesswork. I asked why Darko Temelkov was never zapped by a checkuser patrol, and your answer appears to be that you disbelieve that the IP from Montenegro was Evlekis, thereby Darko is not Evlekis, and so you contend that Evlekis is only "himself" plus the accounts on the confirmed and suspected lists (and those denied such as Billy Fiddle). Well ok, I can no more convince you that it is the other set which is him than you can convince me the latter bunch is him. I'll put that to one side then as it's moot. Though here's an interesting little detail. The IP claiming to be Evlekis submitted on 24 Feburary that "anybody believing that any single account blocked from the final day of 2013 ("when my provider contract expired and to which I have never returned) is "mine" is mistaken.". Interestingly, the history at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis contains a glaring vacuum from 30 December 2013 to 26 July 2014. As for Thomas.W, we'd have to wait another year before your debut edit to the project page. However, staying with July 2014, what do you make of Materialscientist's statement, "They all geolocate to Evlekis, but the computer data have changed from the last time I dealt with him.". In other words, he has given the first indication that the lines are blurred between whom he knew to be Evlekis and who this suddenly is - while someone claiming to be Evlekis confirms he would never have had the same computer data any time after 31 December 2013. The breakage between Evlekis and other accounts begins at the cusp of 2013/14, a year and a half before you took an interest in his sockpuppet investigations. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I and many others buy a new computer about every two years, browsers are updated regularly (which means a new version number and often also a different agent string) and people also often switch browsers, which means that the computer data that CU's see regularly changes for "natural reasons", for all editors, which is why we primarily go by geolocation and behavioural analysis when tracking LTA's and sock masters here. And behavioural analysis requires quite a bit of experience and a thorough knowledge of an LTA's or sock master's behaviour, experience and knowledge that you AFAIK don't have, which is why you can't possibly draw the conclusions you seem to have drawn from a few comments on someone's talk page. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thomas.W -(My orginal reply before your claim of writing on SPI in 2014). A pure truism which doesn't so much address the issues I presented you with (which by your own admission involve your refusal to believe in someone's veracity sans evidence), but serves merely to reinforce your faith in checkuser inerrancy. I'll leave it that that, but I'll just say one thing if it helps put your mind at ease. I think that you personally fear that Evlekis may become rehabilitated. If he is the one behind Liliana's insults and whatever it is he says to you then that won't happen. but as far as I am concerned, if we are talking about an account created after 2013, you're not out of the gates on any of them being him. Wait until you see the examples I will show to Zzuuzz which were so easily found through the basic search. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I forgot this: your timeline is wrong, I did not wait another year but posted on Evlekis's SPI in 2014 (so the edit you linked to was not my "debut edit", which you would have noticed if you had made a name search instead of just browsing through the page...), and was also involved in tracking Evlekis in other ways than posting on his SPI. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thomas.W Please link me the edit to which you refer. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Evlekis/Archive/1 15 November 2014. And while you're there please check the reports there, and Evlekis's block log: he was indeffed on 6 May 2013 for topic ban violations and confirmed sock puppetry, the first report at SPI is dated 4 May 2013, and there's been a steady stream ever since, even though both SPI reports and sock tags have dried up lately because of WP:DENY, so socks are no longer reported at SPI but blocked at sight, and never tagged. You're also totally wrong about me "fearing he will become rehabilitated", I've even offered him a chance by saying I would leave him in peace if he stopped his vandalism and harassment, even if I found which account he was using. But his chances of ever being rehabilitated are, to say the least, very slim. Assuming good faith is a nice thing to do, even with LTA's, but I suggest you save your sympathy for someone who deserves it... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

OK I'll address each of your points. Let me begin with your previous comment as I missed a couple of things. Your synopsis about the frequency you and others buy computers, switch browsers, switch providers, switch locations and so forth is merely an inverted confession that you have no real idea whether a person is Evlekis because if it geolocates to him, "it's him", and if it doesn't, "must mean he has moved then". Well that's worse than guilty until proven innocent. That's a case of "slap the charges now, and shape the narrative later when we know more by working backwards to arrive at the premise". I mean be honest, does a person who gets accused of being Evlekis really have a chance to squash the claim? I guarantee that after you next edit a main article, if a high school dropout in Barbados reverts you, then self-reverts without ceremony, and should he stop there and not attract the attention of in situ admins, what is the betting that you will notify an admin such as Zzuuzz immediately and report it as being Evlekis. And as you say, per DUCK and without further hesitation, the admin will block the account and talk page access with the same action. But let's assume the regular admins were not on hand, and one should come along who also has CU tools. If he were to tell you, "Oh by the way Tom, User:Blah-Blah-Blah is in Barbados whereas Evlekis is in the UK", what are the chances you'll say, "Evlekis has obviously gone on holiday". You see my point? Carrying on now with your more recent post, you've got it wrong I have to tell you with all due respect. Your remark from 15 November 2014 in the first place formed part of your routine activity whereby you were fighting against vandalism, and in it, you make no explicit reference to Evlekis either, while the edit was simply merged from this edit which you posted on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/3АМ ХХХ. The first time you ever intentionally edited on the Evlekis SPI page was when I said, in July 2015. I don't doubt that you were involved with the name "Evlekis" via other channels, such as going directly to admins or to the AIV page, but even your original post at the Evlekis SPI page was a dogmaic assertion that User:Max Pumpkin is not Evlekis. Anyhow as I said, the breakage comes from the start of 2014. In short, if you and Evlekis were not acquainted in 2013 or prior, then you don't know him. You're not out of the gates sir. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Was that the best you could do? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Look I have no wish to discuss this with you any further. From this point onward, you'll see what I have to say when I notify Zzuuzz of the anomalies. If you want to call Stranger from the Dessert "Evlekis", be my guest. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on in this thread, but regarding Special:PermaLink/1121751651, please don't feed the trolls, Coldtrack. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Tamzin. This actual thread is (or was) a discussion between Thomas.W and me regarding the dubious connection between one indeffed editor from 2013, and a batch of accounts possibly in their thousands from after that time. If you are referring to the talkpage of Jimmy hails peace, then I'm afraid that yes I do have a mouthful to offload with that person over his ignorant comments about my family, but asking him if he were Evlekis might have been ill-thought, because what does it matter whether he said yes or no. But it was amid a real time exchange and I started feeling passionately tense at this end. Anyhow. If his range block is not imposed, and I am certian that this cretin is UK-based, then I don't think this is going to be the last of him. He'll be back tomorrow and the moment, I am in the crosshairs. Only these past days I have become so. Anyhow, I hope that paints a clearer picture for you. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, it does and it doesn't paint a clearer picture. I understand that trolls can get under people's skin, but that's their objective after all. The best procedure with them is to revert, block, ignore. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin. Until such time he was blocked, and particularly before he created some garbage articles based on usernames such as mine, I wasn't do know for definite that the account would not be passed as constructive. Let's face it: the first seven of his edits took place some 14 hours before he logged back in, and if you examine those first seven, they on first inspection give no recent change viewer any good reason to believe that this is anything other than a jolly good constructive editor. Only I would be notified on the bell that an edit of mine was reverted. When I spotted the decoy summary message, plus also the other six edits all being disjointed and submitted with alacrity (ie. let's ratchet up an edit count to pass censors), I immediately smelt a rat. Though I never expected Billy Fiddle (because that's who he is) to spew forth his signature insult "Commie-cakes" on his very first reply to me. Had I reported this to AIV, or opened an SPI on Billy Fiddle (as I'm not adding to the Evlekis SPI for two related reasons. 1) It is basically closed due to "deny". 2) I am POSITIVE not every account with his label is "his"), then could I have been sure that an admin would have indeffed him with the admin's first action based on the scant evidence I would have provided versus seven "ok looking" edits? --Coldtrack (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• A piece of friendly advice, Coldtrack: Stay out of areas you obviously know nothing about, such as chasing socks, or you could cause more problems than you solve. It doesn't matter if all accounts with an identical behaviour are Evlekis or not, if they behave like Evlekis, they're treated like Evlekis (see WP:DUCK), and blocked on sight. So stick to doing normal editing and leave the "dark side of Wikipedia" to those who know much more about it than you do. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thomas.W. My knowledge is incapable of being as much as other editors, chiefly those with CU tools, but to label it "areas you obviously know nothing about" is a trifle bit disingenuous. Furthermore, I don't chase sockpuppets. Either our mutual opposition on topics brings us to an interface, or someone might go out of his own way to register his own presence deliberately (such as here). In fact, I have dealt with two sock farms until now: one is the Billy Fiddle/Smart Tricksta pack, and more recently was the Prim96/LJstats bunch. In neither case have I done something wrong or made the situation worse. But just to simplify, if indeed I see anyone whose behaviour is like Evlekis (not counting his dabbling into non-constructive edits), then I will stand to one side and allow him to carry on, because somehow I don't see the editors who made these edits "blocked on site" (such as for this edit which cannot be reasonably distinguished from an Evlekis edit). However, should an editor behave like the Mountain Code or DEFECTOR 1985 (drawn from who recently edited your talk and got banned), then I will report it. It is not realistic to assume admins will always block it on site because so many seem to survive a few days. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Have a kitty on me.

LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 10:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

LilianaUwU. How sweet and thoughtful of you! Endlessly appreciated! :) --Coldtrack (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

JHP

Don't engage with trolling, it only encourages them. Just ignore them. See WP:RBI and WP:DENY. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry. On this occasion I couldn't resist because something has been in the air for a long time. No more I assure you. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello and nice to meet you! If you're in any way curious as to who I am and how I know what has been going on, then it is because every now and again, I keep an eye on one person who has made several comments on this page, and with specific regard to the name of the account I once used. I appreciate both your objectiveness and your acceptance that I truly did edit in good faith, and that the "disruption" was only as "disruptive" as it is to oppose an influential crowd. For the record, a few things that may interest you. First, I categorically deny that this was I! Second, no I am not transphobic, yes I accept choice of gender, and no I do not Wikihound editors whose user pages disclose a trans identity. Third, I left Britain in February for personal reasons and have not been back. I have a house in England and I also have one in Montenegro, and my son is a Montenegrin citizen and is living with me and attending school there. I'm editing ingognito to allow you to geolocate. Yes this is Serbia, but I come here for other reasons! :))) Either way, it may be worth you noting that this IP address just happens to be the network I was using 2010-2013, and I never went back to them after 31st December 2013. Some people just refuse to accept that people move on and things change. Fourth, the uniform you don't need me to link is indeed a Macedonian uniform, and per your earlier remark, yes I am the armed functionary in uniform, but it was all staged. I spent time on holiday in Macedonia as half my family is from there, including the chief of police in one town (now retired), and he is about my size, and so the uniform fit well. No I am not two meters tall; I am a touch over the 6ft mark. Well observed, but Macedonians are mostly shorter, and doors in communist era apartments are only 1.80 (5'11") high. You're right that here in Serbia, the people are much much taller and I just about come under the cheeks of a great many females. Montenegro more so as you know from your human height edits. Finally, because I don't come on here that much, I have tended to leave a mark, and will confirm to you that on Bijelo Polje Municipality, mine were the edits on 1 August while in Herzegovina (Bos-Herz), and again on 17 + 18 August using separate devices for each day. "For future reference" meant I may wish to draw attention to this at some point. So, I hope all of this helps you! Keep up your fine work, and my best wishes to your family, and I sincerely hope the conflict ends soon without global catastrophe, no matter who "backs down". --178.254.169.234 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

To the IP above - who I suspect will come along between now and next spring! :) I thank you for the message. Unfortunately, I was too busy to respond earlier. I would like to see what Thomas.W has to offer as a rebuttal to your comment. Cheers! --Coldtrack (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• You're being trolled, Coldtrack, that's not the original Evlekis. Nothing in the story above fits. - Tom  | Thomas.W ^talk 08:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thomas.W. Wow! :))))) Just read your comment and saw an IP posting above. I've taken a screenshot in case it gets revdelled (since the admins never volunteer what they're hiding from you) but I need some time to read and look into it. I may be back later this evening, but my life is the same as yours - too busy to dedicate oneself to WP 24/7 like some! :) Thanks for the heads-up. --19:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thomas.W. Updated message. Having opened the links a short time ago, I'm now familiar with the content. So Tom, take it away! Tell me with the biggest TLDR you've ever drafted, what is it from the above story that doesn't fit?! :) . Take all the time you need. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The IP is right in that Kramphaar, a bunch of accounts that among other things have called you "commie cakes", claimed that you're a traitor etc, and countless others weren't him (which were the only believable things in what he wrote), because they weren't, they were Evlekis. The real Evlekis, unlike the Serbian IP, who is just a random troller, probably laughing his arse off at your reactions to what he writes. So why don't you just stop wasting everyone's time, including your own. - Tom  | Thomas.W ^talk 21:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Jesus Christ you don't get it do you. The IP is Evlekis. Kramphaar and the post-2014 accounts is not Evlekis, and you haven't demonstrated a single thing other than your blind authority fallacy that "it must be right because a CU said is was". Even in the course of our brief dialogue you have seen with your own eyes that you & Evlekis were never acquainted when he edited, and your first appearance on his archive came when you were pursuing something else, while the first actual time you hit "edit source" on any of the pages set up for him was to deny that Max Pumpkin was him. The reason why I am feeling a slight bit annoyed is because you said (verbatim) "Nothing in the story above fits." and you failed to provide a single "mismatch". Your above comment is just a development of an earlier comment you made where you refuse to believe that Darko Temelkov is Evlekis because of your own argument from personal incredulity. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2022 (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 . 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.

Since the most recent alert I found in your talk page history is from 2018 you need to again be made aware of the special rules that apply to articles about Eastern European and Balkan topics. Which of course does not mean that I'm implying that you've done anything wrong... - Tom  | Thomas.W ^talk 21:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No problem. The notice can stay. I didn't think the rules had changed but I'll see about adding the template to my page at some point. I'm no expert on Balkan affairs and that's one the last topical areas I ever wish to be trapped into, even if I am involved in disputes there at the second. If by "Eastern Euorpe" you mean the former Warsaw Pact regions (which will include the central Eurasian countries) then that is where I boldly assert that I can offer the brightest knowledge, although even there I find editing can be a sore issue. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:57, 1 December 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) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Srenbrenica massacre=

I implore right now that you exercise full restraint and NOT revert me. Keep the article like that for now. It is high time Santasa99 was reported and I'll do it tomorrow, for a multitude of reasons. I still feel guilty over the #human Height "betrayal" and I feel I owe you this. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)