User talk:Eggishorn/Archive/2020

Hi I understand your point, can you briefly explain what you mean "please establish a consensus for this alteration" as I'm fairly new.

Thanks --FreethinkerMT (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@FreethinkerMT:: WP:CONSENSUS in Wikipedia terms means that a general agreement to make an edit exists among the editors who have an active interest in a page. In the case of your requested edit, I did not put all the details in that you requested for multiple reasons. This article is a Biography of a Living Person and there are strict rules about that class of articles. Furthermore, the article subject is a political leader and the accusations are very negative in nature. This makes the "award" a contentious claim or one that is likely to be challenged. It is generally good practice to only make the smallest of changes supported by sources in such a case until other editors have a chance to express an opinion. I hope this helps explain why I did what I did and didn't do what I didn't do (to steal a phrase). Happy New Year to you and yours. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's clear thanks and much appreciated for sharing your insight. Happy New Year you too!! FreethinkerMT (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

The edit is to correct the historical events that happened before Indian Independence. I am trying to edit some thing which is factually incorrect. In the Wikipedia, it was mentioned that "Purna Swaraj" resolution was passed on January 26, 1929 which is factually incorrect. The fact is that it happened on December 19,1929. I am trying correct it. Kindly guide me how to get consensus on this as I am new to editing in Wikipedia. Thank you. --Balaji049 (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Balaji049:. Great. The edit request was very unclear and so I did not see that there was a factual inaccuracy you are trying to fix. I apologize for the oversight. To make such a change you need to provide a reliable source that demonstrates the change you are requesting is supported and verifiable. You can either create a new request or reopen the old one. To do the second, go back to the article talk page, find the edit request template, and edit it so that it reads: "|answered=no". Then add your revised request including a reliable, verifiable source and another editor or I will consider the request again. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for the help. I did the required changes but I am not able to add another editor as there was no such option.Kindly guide me on this. There is another Wikipedia page called "Purna swaraj" whose information is accurate and conflicts with this page. Kindly check it. Balaji049 (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, Eggishorn, and thanks for adding the new WIR box to your user page. May I suggest you become an "official" member of Women in Red by registering on the main Women in Red page.--Ipigott (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

...you need to consider the edit protection, at OneCoin, so other likeminded and hardworking editors can help you make this a GA-quality piece. Cheers, a former prof. 2601:246:C700:19D:7C8D:56CB:34EB:ED61 (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

And thanks for your WIR work, formal or informal. 2601:246:C700:19D:7C8D:56CB:34EB:ED61 (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Anonymous editor, I thank you for the kind words. I am not an administrator, however, and I cannot remove or place protection levels myself. The administrator who placed the protection, MER-C, would be the first person to contact concerning reducing the protection on OneCoin. Given the frequency with which inappropriate requests have been made since the protection level was increased, my own opinion is that reducing protection is not indicated at this time. Although not the answer you were likely looking for, I hope that helps explain the situation better. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I just want to thank you for voluntarily walking into this hornet's nest and performing a closure. (And for messiness, welcome to the Balkans!) I have for a long time tried to make some participants (read that as singular) understand that they have not "won" the RfC. I just hope your closing comments will be understood properly. I do not really have a stake in this discussion at all, beside trying to keep it inside Wiki rules, but I can say that your closure has made my day brighter. Cheerio! --T*U (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@TU-nor:, why, thank you. That's possibly the nicest thing another editor has said to me concerning a NAC I've done. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree with TU-nor's comments. Thank you for your impressive close of the RfC, Eggishorn. You have provided very good advice to the RfC participants about how to create an RfC that would have a better chance at achieving consensus. I really appreciate the thoughtful work you put into all of the RfC closes you have made the past few days (and in the past as well). Thank you! Cunard (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Cunard:, thank you as well. It is very gratifying to have the work I do on those recognized. I try very hard to make my summaries neutral and reflect the discussion without injecting my own biases. As you know, this can be a challenge on some of them. thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, regarding the close of the Paste RFC on RSN you wrote there is no consensus on whether paste is a reliable source. I suggest it would be better to add ... for politically related topics. As the RFC did not question its status as an established reliable source for music and pop culture, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atlantic306:, thanks for asking. I've attached a note to the close reason to make this clarification. The RfC question was only about political coverage and so the close can only address political coverage. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

thanks that's great, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

You mentioned fatigue, - did you realize that people who think an infobox is the normal thing to have voluntarily decided not to vote, because fatigue reached a point where every repetition of the same "arguments" is a strain on editor relations? Call it a strike, - life is too short to participate. I said the same thing in other words years ago, same talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

ps: seeing DBigXray's colourful signature above makes me sad with missing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Gerda Arendt:, whether I realized it or not, it doesn't change the comments people contributed. As a NAC, all I can do is reflect what is written by people who have said chosen to say something. I can't change what other people decide to say on any individual RfC. That said, I am aware of the fractious history of infoboxes, especially on classical music articles. The Arbcom decision I linked to is only the tip of a very large and nasty iceberg. Is there something else you would like me do say or do, though? (And yes, I agree the project is poorer for his absence.) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you can tell me something about the iceberg. I met the topic in 2012, Samuel Barber, and still don't understand how many words, thoughts and energy a few people spend to prevent Mozart looking like Beethoven (community consensus), and painters, and scientists, and saints. I gave up in 2015, Pierre Boulez, 2015, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Gerda Arendt:, I can't tell you how or why this started. I've never seen any indication in any of the discussions, debates, or complete breakdowns of all civilized standards for conversation I've read here that there is any solid basis in site policies or in the manual of style that specifies when or how to use them. Fights over infoboxes, however, have led to blocks, desysopings, and even global bans. To be sure, none of those have been because an editor was an advocate or opponent of infoboxes but because the actions they took to push their point were unacceptable. I honestly do not understand the intransigence that people bring to this issue. It is largely a cosmetic one, after all. Whether one thinks they are handy summaries (as I honestly do) or they are clutter, the only arguments ever offered are ones of personal preference. The only explanation I have is that it is related to the Online disinhibition effect and participants in these debates forget that there's another human being on the other side of the keyboard. The Law of triviality may also play a part in that some editors are hesitant to talk about, say, Mozart's perfection of the piano concerto form but they have a very definite opinion about the infobox on his article. I hope I have at least shed some light on the iceberg, even if I haven't really answered the question. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I like your reflection ;) - I was welcomed to the group of infobox warriors with a Mozart composition, DYK? I have another composition on today's Main page, - enjoy, we sang it last Sunday. - I decided to not waste time in these discussions this year, but my battle cry is still valid ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, my name is arya and i live in indonesia. I have a quick question for you, i see you an wiki ogre and journalist. Here the question, you know anything about Fenn Treasure? Anything, clue, codes, hint, coordinates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.124.133.223 (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Goodday, hello my name is arya from indonesia, i see you an wikiogre and journalist, quick question, you know anything about fenn treasure? Essexx (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Essexx:, Arya, I'm afraid I don't. I've worked on the Fenn treasure article that we have here but only from the standpoint of ensuring it complies with site policies. I'm personally of the opinion that the Treasure doesn't exist and it was one man's dying hoax when he didn't think he would live for very long. It's a lot easier and cheaper to self-publish a book that says "I buried a treasure in the American Southwest" than to go through the trouble of putting one out there. Even if there is one, it's hidden in an area larger than Borneo with only minimal or even outright misleading clues. My suggestion is to treat the Fenn Treasure and the many books associated with it somewhat like Stevenson's Treasure Island and enjoy the yarn but not take it seriously. People have died looking for it. If what I've said still doesn't dissuade you, then the Fenn treasure article has links to more resources. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for beginning to help on the Pat Day page. This page requires a lot of assistance because it has been formed by somebody who has a great deal of disdain for Pat Day and as you have noted, seems to favor rival jockey Mike Smith.

I am not experienced in how to cite sources on Wikipedia but the most important things that need to be added and protected is to mention near the top that Pat Day retired as the record-holder in earnings (https://www.newsday.com/sports/horseracing/pat-day-s-career-was-complete-when-he-finally-won-kentucky-derby-1.13562122) and still ranks fourth on the earnings list (thttps://www.equibase.com/stats/ViewAllTime.cfm?tf=all-time&tb=horse&vb=E) and fourth in wins (https://www.equibase.com/stats/ViewAllTime.cfm?tf=all-time&tb=horse&vb=Edespites)since retiring in 2005.

Day is also one of only two jockeys with five wins in the Preakness Stakes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preakness_Stakes#Winners) and three wins in the Belmont Stakes (https://www.cbc.ca/sports/jockey-pat-day-retires-from-racing-1.535657) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_Stakes#Winners). The only other jockey to do so is Eddie Arcaro.

I would like to further address some of the more vile attacks in the page as well as add some more of the positive accomplishments that Day achieved in order to balance this one-sided hit piece that currently reigns.

I appreciate your efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatroneDay (talk • contribs) 20:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@NatroneDay:, thank you for the kind words. I think these additions are very eligible for inclusion. Before adding this new material, though, the dispute over the text already there should be resolved first. We should see if there are any other responses in the article talk page before proceeding. Secondly, while the current text does deserve removal and such criticism can be distressing for an article subject or their friends and family, it is not defamatory. The Biographies of Living Persons policy tells us we should try to get such articles right but the objectionable text just skirts the line of what needs to be removed on sight. Thirdly, given your user name the question posed on your user talk page should be answered directly. Are you related to Pat Day? If you are, you need to read the Conflict of Interest Policy right now. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@JIJJRG:, please don't argue article content here. The discussion has been opened on the article talk page. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am not related to Pat Day, I have no association with Pat Day, and no business interests with Pat Day.

I am a racing fan, historian and admirer of Pat Day's career. He frankly should not require me to stand up for him as his career speaks for itself.

He has the fourth most wins, fourth most victories and has accomplished more than only a handful of jockeys can compare to.

It is quite obvious to me that he is being slandered here with a one-sided attack.

What is most important to me is that the vile, personal character assassinations are ended and replaced with a factual accounting of his career.{[unsigned|NatroneDay|23:58, March 14, 2020‎}}

@NatroneDay:, thank you for that. Where you need to make sure you state this, though, is on you own talk page. Placing a similar note on your userpage would also help forestall questions. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

In your article, you have named Ram setu as adam's bridge. Why so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.210.99.84 (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's not my article, I didn't name it. The full answer is at Talk:Adam's Bridge where there are multiple links to discussions that explain the reasoning in copious detail. Now, I have a question for you: Who is coordinating these questions? You didn't find my talk page by accident so who directed you here and where did you find those directions? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

but now if you know that many people reporting it and it's a wrong information then you should change it to it's original name only Ram setu. it will be just a article for you but Indians attached emotionally with it and now you should respect thier emotions. Sajankumar408 (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Eggishorn: oops, in one of your edits which I undid recently on Adam's Bridge I said I updated the link but that didn't happen until afterward. Just giving you a simple heads up and please continue on with the good work you are doing here. Prana1111 (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Prana1111:, thank you, but I have reverted again. The actual text says "According to legend" it is in gnostic texts. This is not a WP:RS. I hope this explanation helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a problem with that, besides it could actually be a good thing since multiple accounts seem to be constantly attacking the article for containing non-Hindu ideas on the subject. Though I would like to correct you that the cited material stated "According to legend, first narrated in Gnostic sources and later given in Islamic texts, when Adam was expelled from paradise, he crossed this bridge". Meaning that this legend was referenced to by the presented groups. Cheers anyways:) Prana1111 (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Prana1111:, thanks for your understanding and help. I recognize the difference in meaning but the nubbin of the issue is the "according to legend" bit. If we find a citable RS that says "according to The Apocryphon of James, Adam..." or some such then that would be includable. As you've noted, though, the current attacks mean making absolutely certain we follow WP:V and WP:RS is really, really important right now. I hope that helps. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

hello sir I read your article on Ram setu. I found many mistakes in it. first it's Not Adam's bridge, it's just Ram setu. so please make a correction in it. thank you. Sajankumar408 (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Sajankumar408: Why in the name of Rama himself do none of you read anything before you make these demands? It's not my article. I didn't write it. The name of the article has been the same since 2016. It won't change. GO AWAY. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

: @Eggihorn: Was wondering what it is like on your page. Now I understand where all that hunting of Surya Sidhant wiki page was coming from. Completely understood. The interesting thing is, whoever tries to remove the BC era dating from Surya Sidhanta page, never showed up again. Everytime there is a new guy, who never responds or present any scientific basis to their "CLAIMS". Infact, all of the people have been identified as highly prejudice against the ancient Indian antiquity on their own pages. Be my guest and check and confirm for yourself. How about being honest and present scientific refutal to many many researchers' works I have provided references to. Read the name of those researchers and provide your claim. --Gurnidar (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Gurnidar:, please see User_talk:Gurnidar#Discretionary_sanctions_alert. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct reliable sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Toddst1:, thank you for the notice and for also adding the sourcing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello. On 08 March, you closed an RSN discussion of Grayzone with the effect that the site was deprecated, writing: " The arguments for two of the options presented were based more clearly on policy and procedures while the arguments for the other two options were based more on personal preference and appeals to anti-imperialism. There is a clear consensus below for the options that consider Grayzone less reliable (i.e., Option 3 and Option 4). Taking into account the strength of the arguments and those who did not distinguish between those options, there is a rough consensus for Option 4: "Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated."
Could you detail which arguments carried strength and why?
Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   14:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ZScarpia:, than you for asking. By "strength of arguments" I was referring to how the opinions expressed analyzed the source under consideration and also how relevant policies and procedures were related to the source. Your !vote, for example, only said "reasoning to follow" but there was no further expression of that reasoning. DreamLinker and ZiaLater, by contrast, posted detailed analyses of the source ans some of the source's writing and justified their analyses with policy-based arguments. The "strength of the arguments" they posted is more helpful in assessing consensus than those that did not. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I hadn't expected my own comment to count for anything. My intention had been to return and write a detailed reasoning, but I kept on being diverted to other Wikipedia discussions, which was remarkably easy to do as I felt pretty heavy-hearted about getting involved in the RSN discussion.     ←   ZScarpia   15:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ZScarpia:, no problem. There are a million and one things that need to be done around here and I hope that I haven't given you reason to feel bad about not coming back to this one. For the record, I did "count" your !vote but closing discussions is explicitly not about just vote-counting. It's about weighing the discussion overall and trying to read what the composite result is. Sometimes that's an easy task but other times it's open to interpretation. Thank you again for asking your question here and best wishes in whatever you choose to volunteer your time here to do. I'm going to blatantly steal a sentiment from the long-time and respected administrator Bishonen and say that volunteer time is the project's most precious resource. You should choose to spend yours however you like without guilt. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hehe. Thank you very much, Eggishorn. You've inspired me to say it again. Bishonen | tålk 20:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

The reaction: The Grayzone - Ben Norton - Wikipedia formally censors The Grayzone as regime-change advocates monopolize editing, 10 June 2020: On Wikipedia, a small group of regime-change advocates and right-wing Venezuelan opposition supporters have blacklisted independent media outlets like The Grayzone on explicitly political grounds, violating the encyclopedia’s guidelines.     ←   ZScarpia   12:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ZScarpia:, I supposed I should be happy Mr. Norton didn't name me but aside from some sour grapes, I don't see anything there. It's not surprising a source judged not reliable is offended by that but it doesn't change anything. Just to check: Am I right in assuming that you're just letting me know about the reaction and don't want me to take any action or respond? Thanks for letting me know. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your assumption is correct. I didn't expect you to take action or respond in any particular way.     ←   ZScarpia   18:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Eggishorn. With the message you sent me, you contradicted yourself. For three points:

1) "I don't want to criticize you there": you've already criticized me for no reason;

2) "If this is true, then you may want to use the Wikipedia in your first language. Here is a list": the nationality of a Wikipedia public user for every languages sections, not only in the main English, is personal and not necessarily notable. And then, as the same name says (for all languages), Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia so there are no orders you can give to others;

3) "Using one of these may be more fun and less frustrating. No editor should be working on a Wikipedia where they are not enjoying it": you don't know me at all, both in virtual and in reality, so you'll never ever know my true mood when I work in "general". Luigi1090 (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Luigi1090:, you continue to misread. I intentionally used the simplest, most direct grammar to make it easy to read but apparently that was not successful. To clarify, then: 1) I said: "I don't want to criticize you there". "There" is a significant word in this sentence. It states a location. I am trying to give you advice on your talk page as it is a place that is less public. 2) Your second statement above is nearly incomprehensible in English, which only proves the point. No, I cannot give orders to you and anyone with passing competence in English would know I wasn't. It was advice freely given. I obviously think it is advice you should heed. You are, of course free to reject it. Doing so, however, will make for a more miserable experience. 3) Of course I don't know you and how you think I claimed I did is beyond me. Again, I hoped to give you advice that would make editing Wikipedia projects a pleasant activity. Perhaps you enjoy half-formed arguments and garbled syntax. It that is the case, then, have at it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I understood their message about using English langauge only that they'd to clarifying me WITHOUT using words equivalent to real insults for me, because I hate ALL type of insults: first The Grand Delusion called me "paranoid" and "mess" on his answers, then Llywrch called me "troll" and "incompetent" on his summary description. In fact, if you look at all my answers in this discussion, I'm replying exclusively for these their words, NOT for the message.
And then, the statement that you found on my user page: "...based on TRUTH, because of edit a page I inform you about EVERYTHING...", it's a type of statement to which I'm not tied and associated for a long time, because I wrote it as a novice the first day I registered here on Wikipedia 8 years ago. Therefore, you must not relate it to my alleged opposion to the site's Core Content Policies because it's not true. Luigi1090 (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Luigi1090:, this message is not comprehensible and, even if a comprehensible meaning is extrapolated, is not actionable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Eggishorn: Then explain to me where these incomprehensibility errors are that I'll correct them. And then it's actionable because I'm telling the truth, nothing but the truth. Luigi1090 (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Luigi1090:, I'm not your copyeditor and I'm not going to markup your statements for correction. That said, literally every statement you've made has been riddled with grammatical or usage errors. I can't explain to you the "where" because it's everything. In the first sentence above alone I count at least nine. That's a conservative estimate because I can only guess as to what you might have really meant to say. I'm going to recommend again that the English-language Wikipedia is probably not the project that you want to contribute towards. Whatever your native language is, there is definitely a Wikipedia for it. Please use that one instead, both for your sake and for the sake of other editors and for the readers. The non-English Wikipedia are always hungry for help and I'm certain they would welcome your participation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Eggishorn:. May I please assure you that my intention was to insert an image, and it was in no way intentionally unflattering. The image inserted was the image given in wikidata for her. Happy with your edit, however. It is not a flattering image. MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@MargaretRDonald:, thank you for your comment. I didn't mean to imply that the insertion was intentionally unflatttering but I'm glad you agree that the image itself is. The article subject is the target of a small but determined slandering campaign so we have to be aware of the BLP implications. I know that the article is protected because of these efforts but I suspect the wikidata item is not. I suspect this is a back door attempt to get good-faith experienced editors such as yourself to essentially do their character assassination for them. Thanks again for being so understanding and best wishes for you and your family's safety. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

im sorry I noticed that theres a difference between the interstates (highways) and the routes are regular roads at least in CT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsstatsguy (talk • contribs) 15:54, April 19, 2020 (UTC)

@Sportsstatsguy:, I'm going to copy this to the article talk page to keep everything in one location.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs) 16:32, April 19, 2020 (UTC)

yes thank you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsstatsguy (talk • contribs) 18:13, April 19, 2020 (UTC)

wow your username is pretty cringe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.146.63 (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Anonymous user, Eggishorn is the name of a mountain in Switzerland. Why is that "pretty cringe" and why did you attempt to remove you insulting comment? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I just wanted to say thank you for creating the Marjorie Bell Chambers page. She is my grandmother and our family misses her dearly. If I may ask what inspired you to create this page? Amt18 (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Amt18:, that is so gratifying to hear. It sounds like she was an amazing person from the research I did but to hear that her family members appreciate the research is amazing. I happened on her name as a requested article from the Women in Red project, which tries to address the encyclopedia's gender disparity in coverage. The name comes from the idea that links to articles that have not yet been written are usually presented to the reader in red text. Another editor had previously listed them at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Academics#United_States and I noticed the listing and thought she would be interesting to learn about both for me and for other readers. Thanks again and best wishes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

You closed a talk section on Trans woman on the grounds that I (A) complain about transwomen, (B) stated my objections are based on my personal opinion and (C) that I have not given any sources. These reasons do not hold: (A) I have not once complained about transwomen and (B) I have never stated that my objections are based on my personal opinion, but explicitly that they are not and that I have been concerned about the neutrality of this article and (C) I have explicitly argued that my objection is based on the observation that “transwomen are women” is a mere opinion, and not a fact, so it is not a matter of sources to give. (Nevertheless, I can still search for sources and show them when being asked – which I’m inclined to do.)

Hence, I would like to have this section re-opened on the grounds that it has been closed for non-holding reasons. I’m a bit new to editing wikipedia, so I don’t know how exactly things like these are handled: Do I address this issue to you personally or do I leave a comment elsewhere? Anyway, I would like to ask you for some forbearance if I don’t follow all the protocols properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.132.68.27 (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Anonymous user, you say that you are new and fair enough. Every user started out new here. That said, there are some things that you need to know if you are going to continue to participate. First the easy stuff: When you start a new conversation on a talk page, whether a noticeboard or an article talk page or a user talk page such as mine here, you should start a new section. This is easily done by clicking the "New section" tab at the top of the page helpfully placed next to the "Edit" tab. Also, when you make a post you need to sign it. This is also easy, just type a row of four tilde characters at the end of your post like this: ~~~~. Both these things help other users follow conversations more easily.

Now the more substantive points: No, your "observation that 'transwomen are women' is a mere opinion" does not absolve you of needing to provide sources. As was pointed out to you several times, making arguments or stating your own conclusions without providing sources is not how discussions work on this project. This project is not a social media platform where arguments and discussions are based on personal observations. This is an encyclopedia that uses policies and procedures that are based on the best possible reliable sources. The current text is supported by sources and your argument to change it requires equally-good sources. You aren't excused by labeling the current text as opinion.

This resistance to providing the sources you were asked to provide is why I labeled it as your opinion. You state that it is not actually your opinion but that is neither here not there. If a position presented on a talk page isn't supported by reliable, verifiable sources then it is just an opinion. No other editor cares what your opinion is or what my opinion is or what Jimmy Wales' opinion is without sources. Arguing ex nihilo based on one's own logic may be a viable discussion tactic in other parts of the Internet but here it almost always gets perceived as disruptive editing.

Which brings me to the main point: I archived it as much as a courtesy to you (as a new user) as anything else. You were already asked several times to provide sources or to look at the previous discussions on the issue and provided no evidence that you were going to. The line of discussion you pursued was not going to result in any change and was likely to end poorly. Leaving it open did not serve the readers, the other participants in the discussion or even you. So, no, I will not revert my archiving.

If you truly want to continue your discussion, then you first need to read, understand, and follow the Core Content Policies and the Talk Page Guidelines. If you can provide source and policy-based reasons, then a new discussion might be fruitful. I will also strongly caution you to thoroughly read the actual Neutral Point of View Policy. Many new users just skim it and so think it means some form of balanced or neutered content but neutral point of view does not mean "neutral" content. Finally, that talk page has archives that have extensive prior discussions about the very issue you raised. Failing to read through those archives and re-raising the same points without new sources will likewise be a negative experience.

If it sounds like I'm expecting you to read a lot of policy and procedure stuff in order to make the comments that you want, well, that's because I am. This is a community that operates differently than other Internet sites and has different mores and standards. If you want to be effective in participating in this community then understanding those standards is a necessary prerequisite. This is part of the new user learning curve that every established user goes through. If you want to ignore those and just demand that your point of view be accepted (after all, "anyone can edit, right?) then one of two things will likely happen: You will go away ignored and dismissed and leave without contributing or you will be asked or forced to leave. Neither outcome is desired. I hope this helps explain why I did what I did and why I will not undo what I did. I hope this also helps provide you with the resources you need to understand how best to participate in talk pages you are interested in. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply and thanks for the advice for new users. In fact, I have only been asked for sources once, namely by Bilorv, which has been the last post to the discussion before it was closed. I haven’t even had the chance to provide sources. (And I certainly would provide sources which make it clear that this topic is heavily debated and far from settled.) On the contrary, I have noted several times that the lead sentence is not backed by sources and I asked several times others if they can provide any (since they have claimed multiple times, that the lead is backed by sources). I don’t get your reference to “neutral point of view does not mean neutral”. It’s not about whether there should be a section about trans women being regarded as women or something. The policy specifically says “Do not state opinion as facts” and this is exactly what I see. And again, I really find it odd that I have to provide sources for claiming that something, which is apparently so controversial that there had been multiple discussions and a request for comment, is not an established fact, whereas the people claiming it to be a fact may rely on proclaiming “it is based on reliable sources” without actually giving any and without any of them being visible before, neither on the article nor on the talk page nor on the request for comment about the issue. Again: I really don’t see any sources. I really, really don’t. So my complaint is: “There is something which I can clearly identify as an opinion stated as a fact without any sources visible, in violation of Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy.” You argued “If a position presented on a talk page isn't supported by reliable, verifiable sources then it is just an opinion.” Yeah, well, I merely applied this logic to the article itself, no? But, as I told you, I’m happy to provide sources if the talk page is re-opened. Since you didn’t even try to defend the other two accusations you made (that I questioned), I again kindly ask you to re-open the talk page, so I can actually provide sources as I have been now actually asked to do. Many thanks! 78.49.135.228 (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Anonymous user, thank you for your interest but you are continuing to depend on argumentation and your own personal interpretations. You say the lead sentence is not backed up by sources but our Manual of Style states: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies....Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus.

In other words, every sentence in a lead does not require a cite to a reliable source if the general agreement of editors on the talk page is against it and the statement in the lead summarizes adequately-sourced statements in the body. The statement you want to change ("A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth") is a summary of several sourced statements in the body text. The "Terminology" section provides copious support for the lead summary, including references to the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, standard academic texts, and the Centers for Disease Control. These are the sources that you claim are not actually given. The long-standing consensus of editors is that these sources support the statement you want to change. You can find the discussions that lead to this consensus in the article's talk page and the talk page archives. The yellow boxes at the top of the talk page will be able to locate those discussions for you. New users often ignore those but they are repositories of useful links and information.

While consensus can change, doing so is often difficult. Expecting that other participants in a discussion will accept your proposal simply on the strength of your arguments is always very difficult. The odds for such discussions to violate either the Civility code of conduct or the disruptive editing guideline approach 1:1 as the discussion continues so you should take those into account.

As to "re-opening" the discussion, I think you are mistaking what I said earlier. I am not an administrator and closing the discussion has no adminstrative sanction attached. I am a regular editor and, to the extent that I have any rights any other random user, those are only because of length of my user registration. I have been here for over thirteen years and that does give me some perspective but no actual authority. Closing the discussion was a regular editorial action, in other words, and you can't be sanctioned for continuing the discussion.

That said, however, the Talk Page Guidelines would greatly frown on you removing the closing tags and continuing that section: The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.... A discussion which has been closed with the {{subst:Archive}} or similar template is intended to be preserved as-is and should not be edited. Subsequent edits inside of an archive box should not be removed for this sole reason, but may be moved below the box to preserve the integrity of the closed discussion. You can easily create a new section on the talk page to continue the discussion without fear of sanction. So there is really no reason to re-open the discussion and good reasons (as I explained above) to not re-open it.

If you do want to continue the discussion, then you can use the "New Section" tab at the top of the article talk. I suggest that it will not change anything unless you do provide sources that dispute the ones that exist in the article. Just to re-iterate, you need to refer to the sources in the "Terminology" section to see the support for the sentence as it currently exists. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I will take my chances and reopen the discussion myself – it’s easier than opening a new section and I can directly reply to the person asking me for sources. Other than one source (implicitly) concluding “transwomen are women such that …”, nothing in the terminology section says that transwomen are considered women by any consensus, let alone that it is considered a fact. So the “copious support” simply doesn’t exist. If you actually read the request for comment on this issue, you will find that there is literally “no consensus” on the issue whether a trans woman should be described as a woman or as a person. So there is not long-standing consensus on this issue. Many thanks for your patience, I know it can be exhausting to engage in lengthy discussions about minor things. I know I’m a nuisance right now, but I have decided to try and see how much effort is necessary to get one bit of Wikipedia which I think is biased to be neutral again. Being an annual donator to this site, I feel strongly about it upholding neutrality and I’ve lately been noticing some clear violations of this. So sorry for all the fuss! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.135.228 (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

As per the wiki sources itself the video of Kunal kamra is 2.26M dislike taking it up to spot number 27 of most disliked video Ask4akki (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ask4akki:, make your request in the form of "Please change X to Y" on the talk page of the article and provide a reliable source for your request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Done .. mentioned it on the talk page of article Ask4akki (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the discussion seems a bit stagnant at the Lynching list case DRN. I just sent a few reminders, but would you like to be involved? You seem to know this particular field. Thank you! Feynstein (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @Feynstein:, and thank you for asking. I think that it has become stagnant because the IP editor was the only editor advocating for their idiosyncratic and expansive definition and they have apparently abandoned the process. I would suggest that closing the DR as unsuccessful and returning the discussion about a fixed definition to the article talk page is the sensible action at this time, but I will abide by your moderation skills. Never having previously participated in the dispute, I don't consider myself involved and I don't think I want to be. If discussion does return, I might add some to a definitional discussion there but I don't consider myself an expert in the topic. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your answer, I asked the involved editors to write their decisions over there in order to conclude this dispute. Thank you again. Feynstein (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Eggishorn! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 80 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 22:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ed6767:, thanks for the invite. I'll check it out. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Eggishorn, awesome - keep in touch on how it works for you. Ed6767 talk! 17:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Diamond Princess says "fourteen" deaths and should be "thirteen" unless there's a reference I'm not seeing — Preceding unsigned comment added by GFTAnalyst (talk • contribs) 21:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@GFTAnalyst:, you need to suggest this on the page titled Talk:Diamond Princess (ship). Please be sure to provide some reference for why you think the number should be different. Thanks, and I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Sorry for bothering you, but I noticed that you reverted an edit I made here, where I added the desktop distributions to the “platforms” table. The message you left was “failed verification”. I wanted to ask what you mean by that, as I’m fairly new to this, and I might’ve missed something important. If you’re saying that the downloads don’t exist, you can see them on the downloads page, otherwise I know not what you mean by that.

Once again, sorry if I’m not doing something correctly - I’m new at editing stuff on wikipedia, so I probably just missed something :P

Best Wishes,

- Jab

Jabster28 (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Eggishorn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Swami Yogeswarananda Giri".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Lapablo:, that was not actually an article of mine. As the edit summary noted, it was created as a favor to a new user who had tried to create it as a draft in the wrong place. That user never followed up so it is not of any interest to me to continue. It has already been deleted at this time but I thank you for the notice. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. So I see that you just reverted my edit on Jack O'Connell's tattoo on his arm. I know that there are no source to back up, but I don't go around spreading nonsense on a Wikipedia page. I'm a native Cambodian and I can recognize that the tattoo on his arm is indeed a Khmer script, not a Thai style. You can do research on it. The scripts has three lines. The first line is written ចននីផាទ្រឹក that says Johnny Patrick, the name of his father. The middle line is written អាលីសន that says Alison, his mother's name. The last line is written មីហ្គេន that says Megan, his sister's name. I hope that you will look into this. Yuforiya (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Yuforiya:, please read the Policy on Original Research and the Policy on Biographies of Living Persons. If there's no source to back a statement up, we can't make it in an article about a person. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I understand that. But do you have a source to back up that his tattoo is a Thai-style? I saw it as a false information and I'm trying to fix it. Also, he did come to Cambodia a few years back. Yuforiya (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Yuforiya: I've removed the statement about the Thai style tattoo because it is also not reliably sourced. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your help at the tea house! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Lima Bean Farmer:, you're welcome. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Eggishorn, I am 7vik0808 & I had posted a request to Change the name of the District Magistrate of Kanpur on this page [[1]] & you had responded my request by saying that its already changed to Dr.Brahma Deo Ram Tiwari but brother when I saw the page it was still Vijay Vishwas Pant written there I have attached a snip displaying the same.

 

Therefore I request you to please change it and as far as the spelling is concerned I think the spelling on the website that I inserted would be all right as its an official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7vik0808 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Eggishorn! First, I want to thank you for taking the initiative to close and for doing a good job of it. Secondly, in your closing statement you said "this RfC has been open 59 days," (it certainly felt like it), but it was actually opened June 19th and you closed it July 19th = 30 days. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atsme:, thank you for the note. I've made the change to the close statement for strict accuracy reasons. I'm not sure what I saw that made me use a May date to calculate the time it was open but 30 days is still long enough for a NAC. Thanks again for the heads up. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can you please clarify something about your recent RfC closure? I agree that counting the different !votes likely results in a "no consensus" close. But I think you need to address the fact that the !votes for "public" provided numerous sources for how this precise situation is handled in reliable sources written by experts in this very topic who have had to make the exact same decision but the other !votes provided very few, if any, sources. (I can provide many, many more similar sources if that would be helpful, too.) Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ElKevbo:, wow, that was quick. As a closer I did take that into account, which is why the plurality of !votes for "state-related" was not accepted as even a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS despite said plurality. WP:NHC says that arguments that can be discarded are those that ...flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Those policy grounds did not provide sufficient justification for completely ignoring the "state-related" !votes, whatever the possible shortcomings on sourcing discussion participants may have perceived. Making my own judgment on that sourcing issue would have been a clear WP:SUPERVOTE and therefore not allowed as a NAC. I hope this clarifies the close. Please let me know if you think this needs further expansion. Thanks again for asking. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ElKevbo:, there was an edit conflict so I did not see your offer of other sources. I appreciate that these sources may exist and be persuasive to other editors but my purpose as the discussion closer is not to be the one persuaded. I can only evaluate how well the discussion participants persuaded each other. I realize that is probably disappointing, but again I am not an admin and don't feel that it is appropriate to substitute my judgment for the discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think that when one side of an RfC provides many reliable sources that are directly applicable to the exact question that is being asked and the other side doesn't then it's a pretty clear close no matter the numbers on each side. I don't think the "state-related" !voters showed a genuine understanding of the issue which was solely confined to how the institution is described in the lede and infobox and not how it should be described elsewhere in the article where context and nuance can be provided. We have incredibly clear evidence about how every reliable source has resolved this question and we're ignoring it because...we don't like it or we think we know better than the experts in this field? ElKevbo (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ElKevbo:, I am explicitly not making any decisions or taking any position on the sources or the experts cited. That is not my place. I recognized already your use of sources but I cannot ignore the positions expressed based on my personal preferences or source evaluations. According to the consensus policy, accepting one editor's arguments that everyone else was wrong or not using the right sources or not understanding the issue would be taking a side and making a supervote. You seem to suggest that the "state-related" !votes did, in fact, "...show no understanding of the matter of issue." I cannot say I agree with that characterization because there were policy-based arguments for "state-related". I'm sorry that doesn't agree with your perception but that is exactly why I suggested that further DR is necessary, probably at DRN. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you believe that you should not be reading and evaluating the arguments and evidence presented by those participating in an RfC then you have no business closing them. ElKevbo (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ElKevbo:, I have closed now 96 discussions, many on difficult and controversial topics, only one of which has been overturned on grounds that were impossible to evaluate at the time of the close. I think that is a decent record. It is clear that you are at this point reading what you want to and not what I actually am writing. I said I did not evaluate the expert positions. I did not say I did not evaluate the arguments. I explicitly stated above that it was due to my evaluation of the arguments that I weighted them in the way I have already extensively discussed. It is also clear that you will dispute any close that did not agree with your position. I cannot agree with that. I am truly sorry you are feeling dissatisfied by my responses. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your recent closure of the RfC at Talk:Project Veritas, which I initiated. Would you mind taking a few minutes to make the necessary edits to the article to reflect the consensus? I would do so myself if not for my declared COI. If you prefer to refrain from getting involved further in this area, I will make an edit request via the WP:COIREQ process, but as the queue there is very long, I thought to inquire here first. Thank you! Sal at PV (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Sal at PV:, I think it is inappropriate for me to close an RfC in one way or another and then make the edits I say should be made. Doing raises the possibility that I closed the discussion in that particular way just to make the edits I personally preferred. I hope that makes sense. Thanks anyway for asking here first. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Günter Bechly‎ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination)‎ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, this is for a clarification. I saw your entry in the Deepak Sathe afd, I am learning more about wikipedia and researching how things work. As you said unless i have no new point please dont comment. So i thought of sending it here if you could reply. Also in afd discussion i know we cannot compare pages as there is a policy which forbid that. But I wish to know why George Floyd page is live. He became notable only through that unfortunate incident and all news about him came only after that terrible incident. Please clarify . Thanks Jehowahyereh (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jehowahyereh:, you seem to be familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS yet you are asking an "other stuff" question. To clarify, though, there have been extensive and repeated discussions for months on this project on exactly that question. The ultimate result is that George Floyd did, indeed, become only notable after his death but that death was so important that to not have an article would be ludicrous. The death of George Floyd has changed not only this entire nation but had real effects worldwide. Deeapk Sathe, despite his accomplishments and the official recognition of him as a hero, is simply not anywhere near that same level of significance. I will state that creating a new article or defending an article against deletion requires knowledge of many interlocking and overlapping policies and standards. It is better to understand as many as you can before trying to argue as you have been in the AfD. You can start with Help:My article got nominated for deletion! and Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process and, of course, the WP:BLP and WP:N policies. I hope that helps. 06:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Please excuse my lack of understanding, regarding the recent post at ANI. But, is Memon KutianaWala, claiming that they have received threatening emails, via WP’s “email this user” function? I always thought that if I used this function, my WP name would be attached to the msg. Or will it *only* reveal the email address I am using? Or both? (Note: I have a WP-only email address attached to my account.)

It hadn’t occurred to me that a non-WP (unnamed) editor might be able to use this function, without signing in....ie, as an IP.

I have seen your name and comments, over the years, and have considered you to be "a good egg". I do not have an opinion, per se, regarding the issue at ANI, just wished to ask about the email function. Thanks for your time. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Tribe of Tiger:, it is very unclear to me from MKW's posts whether he is claiming that he received the threats he claims through his regular (off-wiki) email or through the "Email user" (on-wiki) function, probably due to the obvious language competency issues. Neither is is clear if the legal threats he's making were on- or off-wiki. Most of the documentation on the internal email feature is at Wikipedia:Emailing users. When you send a message with this feature, the email address attached to your Wiki account is passed to the recipient and your WP name. I cannot find and do not remember if non-logged-in users can use the "Email user" feature of Mediawiki so I'm afraid I cant answer that question. You might try asking about that at WP:HELPDESK or WP:VP/T. Sorry I couldn't answer fully your questions but thank you for the nice words. Stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this reply! Between the language competency issues, and my lack of understanding of the email function, I was rather confused. Your stmt: "When you send a message with this feature, the email address attached to your Wiki account is passed to the recipient and your WP name." (my bold) answers my basic question. So, it *seems* that passing threats thru the system provides some Wiki identification of the sender. The links you have kindly provided, will help me with any further inquiries. (Of course, no matter what else is going on in respect to content matters, etc., editors should not receive threats, nor issue them.) You have been very helpful, as always! My best wishes to you, also, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction ban proposal -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I read your feedback and I acknowledge your point. I am willing to learn and to defer to more experienced editors. In your opinion, how should the following content be edited in order to fit the standards of Wikipedia? I have asked Snickers2686 the same question.

Ellis oversaw the frivolous Joshi v. Joshi case [5], in which a physician by the name of Jaydeep R Joshi filed a lawsuit against another physician by the name of Jay K Joshi ostensibly claiming the latter had imitated him, and used the Lanham Act as the basis of the lawsuit, proclaiming himself to be a "world famous physician", the "only real Jay Joshi", and an apparent subject matter expert in a wide ranging array of medical topics [5]. In a stunning departure from established legal precedent [6], Ellis allowed the case to survive initial motion for dismissal on the basis of a specious trademark claim despite the absence of any notable evidence and likely perjured statements by the plaintiff, Jaydeep R Joshi [5][7]. The case has since been dismissed with prejudice [8] and it is unclear whether Ellis recommended sanctions against the plaintiff, Jaydeep R Joshi, or the attorney representing the plaintiff [8].

References 5. “Joshi v. Joshi.” https://Www.abajournal.com/Images/main_images/JoshiSuit.pdf. 6. Motion to Dimiss for Failure to State a Claim. www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/motioniqbal_1.pdf. 7. Churney, Dan. “Judge Lets Suburban Doc Continue Lawsuit vs Doctor with Same Name Imprisoned over Opioid 'Pill Mill'.” Cook County Record, 5 Aug. 2019, cookcountyrecord.com/stories/512872512-judge-lets-suburban-doc-continue-lawsuit-vs-doctor-with-same-name-imprisoned-over-opioid-pill-mill. 8. Wood, Lauraann. “Ill. Doctors With Same Name Agree To End Trademark Fight.” Law360, 2020, www.law360.com/illinois/articles/1303127/ill-doctors-with-same-name-agree-to-end-trademark-fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engaged audience1 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Engaged audience1:, thank you for the message. I am always ready to help new users. To start with the sourcing, there are two important points:

1. References 5 and 6 are not really acceptable because they are primary source documents. This is the WP:BLPPRIMARY policy
2. The two news articles (references 7 and 8) do not directly support the claim that Judge Ellis's actions were unusual or unacceptable. The WP:BLP policy requires all claims made about a living person to be directly supported by a verifiable source.

These two points alone mean that the Joshi v. Joshi case is not going to be appropriate for the article about Ellis. None of the sources that are acceptable are going to support a claim that Ellis made a bad decision in allowing the case to move forward. Perhaps granting this type of motion is unusual but stating that in the article would require one source to characterize what is "usual" for motions to dismiss in trademark suits and another to characterize this particular motion. Combining sources in such a way is what we refer to as WP:SYNTH and it is not allowed by the Original Research policy.

Furthermore, the terms such as "frivolous case", "stunning departure", "specious claim" "likely perjured statements" are all clearly not acceptable under the Neutral Point of View policy. Wikipedia is not a forum for arguing a position. These sound like excerpts from a motion to recover attorney's fees and penalties, not an encyclopedia article.

The bottom line is: That content cannot be edited to fit policy and be added to the Judge Ellis article. I'm sorry to say that but not everything does fit. As a side note, you're encouraged to sign your posts on talk pages such as this. This can be done easily by typing a row of four tilde characters ~~~~ at the end of your post. Thank you again for your question and I hope this helps explain the policies a little. Stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Eggishorn

Okay, I stand corrected. I will accept your decision and refrain from adding any additional content to the Wiki section. Engaged audience1 (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, @Engaged audience1:, but it's not so much "my decision" as it is just the way this project has decided to run itself. I realize it's not what you want to hear. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Someone is making assertions about you on ANI, at Articles for deletion/Chen Rui. Sorry, can't remember the way to link, etc. Listed as item #39. You are suspected of being a meatpuppet. Unfair not to let you know....Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 20:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Tribe of Tiger: Thanks for letting me know. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

So, User:Astghik Manukyan just admitted that they are related to Vazgen Manukyan. Saturdayopen (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Saturdayopen:, noted and responded to. Thanks for the heads up. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Should we mention this to the other Wikipedia communities? As I mentioned before, this user also edited the Armenian and Russian version. Saturdayopen (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Saturdayopen:, please WP:AGF. Ashtghik has just now acknowledged that the COI applies to them. There is no need to notify anyone about anything yet. I am not even certain that ru:wiki and hy:wiki even have the same COI policies that en:wiki does. We could try asking Ashtghik first, after all. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I hope I haven't been too sarcastic in my comments...as my User page states, I try to defend worthy music articles (maybe that should read subjects). If the community consensus is delete, great. If it's keep, great as well. Have a good day. Caro7200 (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

--WOOLFHOUSE (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC) I clicked the TALK button at top of article but I can't find where I can ask my question. GerryReply

Hello, thanks for reviewing the edit request for Aydin Aghdashloo. The issue I have is with the statement that 22 anonymous women have come out with allegations. These allegations are nowhere to be found and the linked Washington Post and IranWire articles do not make any references to this either. Please review the edits one more time carefully with this in mind. Also, based on Wikipedia rules the allegations should not be included in the opening paragraph. An edit request which you seem to have missed. CameliaMTF (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Eggishorn. You recently reverted my edit on Ramadan because Wordpress is not a reliable source. The source I added is actually a PDF of a published book which happened to be hosted on Wordpress. I assume this is okay because Wordpress is simply being used as a host for the actual source, which is a book, and not as the source itself. Please clarify when you have the time. — LissanX (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@LissanX:, hello and thanks for your question. I'm sorry I haven' been able to reply sooner but I was out of town this weekend. I took another look and I still think a direct link to a Wordpress blog for the AhleSunnah Library is not a reliable source. That said, this PDF has a title and publisher's information page stating it was published by the Islamic Texts Society. If you can find the full publisher's information normally expected for citing published book,s it would probably be acceptable. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

No worries, I hope you had a good trip. Sorry for my late response too, I was really busy yesterday. Okay thanks for clarifying, I’ll check it out and try and re-add it with a new source. — LissanX (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help regarding my effort to correct my grandmother's Wikipedia page. Can I cite and attach her (Minnie W Collins) Dartmouth MA birth record that shows her born on May 7, 1880, the illegitimate daughter of Eliza Collins? Her mother and George W Ashley, a married man, moved to the Boston area. Minnie's last name was changed to Minnie Ashley although Eliza and George never married and there is no legal document showing when her surname was changed by Ashley and Eliza Collins.

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-DTK3-G65?i=162&cc=1536925&personaUrl=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AFX85-RQ3

Thanks,

William A Chanler — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamAChanler3rd (talk • contribs) 18:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@WilliamAChanler3rd:, Thank you for your inquiry but I prefer to keep all discussions about Wikipedia on Wikipedia so I've removed the email address for your security and privacy. The information you've provided above from Family Search is not going to be considered generally acceptable because Family Search is a self-published source. All the information that Family Search provides was given to Family Search by other users. There is no way of verifying this information. The birth certificate is interesting but Wikipedia policy frowns on the use of primary sources such as birth certificates. If you want to edit your relative's article, I would suggest that you are more likely to get your changes accepted if you can find published secondary sources. That's probably not what you'd like to hear but I'm afraid it's the reality of the way these policies work. I hope that helps at least explain the situation. Feel free to contact me with further questions. This is an interesting case to me since I grew up on Buzzard's Bay. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

i am asking for a fairly large redefinition of "the holocaust" back to it's traditional definition. the 17m murders number need not be omitted, but the holocaust proper number of 11m dead should be included as well. (that is the X to Y that i am requesting)

the holocaust was the systematic genocides carried out primarily during WW2 by the nazi's, not all "illegal" killings the they were responsible for i am arguing. the wartime deaths of civilians (whether partisans, perceived potential military threats, or other) are not all part of the holocaust proper. i think that this is a rabbit hole that the holocaust museum's interpretation is leading you down. (if you want to count all illegal deaths caused by the nazis then we should have a number closer to 100 million as the regime and war were illegal by pretty much any interpretation.)

this - what you have done on these pages regarding the holocaust - may be a current trend, but i think that it is completely wrongheaded.

the nazis themselves kept pretty meticulous records of the holocaust. hence the solid 11 million number for more than half a century.

and at the risk of being repetitive, i consider it ill advised to move the goal posts and arbitrarily redefine what the holocaust was - and thus change the numbers by around 50% upwards.

if you are willing to consider this position i can provide myriad sources for my 11 million number... pretty much all materials on the topic from between the end of the war through the beginning of this century.

thanks again for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KuzeOri (talk • contribs) 18:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@KuzeOri:, Please re-read the article: The [United States Holocaust Memorial Museum] puts the total number of murdered during the Holocaust at 17 million: 6 million Jews and 11 million others. If you want to change these figures, you will need to propose the exact text you want changes, the proposed new text, and the sources you feel justify this change. This is more complex than the type of request handled by edit requests and should be a new section on the talk page. To create a new section on any talkpage (such as I have gone back and added here), use the "New section" tab at the top of the page next to the "Edit" tab. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear Eggishorn, you have replied, "Establish consensus before editing". I have also read the info on consensus. I'm being new to the edit request on Wikipedia, can't find a way for my next step. What should be my next step to establish a consensus? As I explained with the reference, that Female Infanticide is never a community-based thing or specific these community or cultural and ritual based thing to be represented in a Wikipedia page that provides information on representing a community. It is purely independent of communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunmugamsri (talk • contribs) 14:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Nagorno-Karabakh" is a region. Artsakh is a country; Stepanakert is capital of Artsakh, not of Nagorno-Karabakh. This would be like having an article on the Rocky Mountains and saying the capital is Denver. You seem to think I'm somehow questioning the existence of Artsakh; far from it. --Golbez (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear Wikipedia The vertebral augmentation page continues to cite the 2018 Cochrane review of vertebroplasty as core evidence that vertebroplasty is ineffective. We published a methodologically sound criticism of the Cochrane review, which has not been challenged by Cochrane authors (DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111171). It is not an opinion - it is methodologically sound description of several fundamental breaches of Cochrane protocol . The Australian Medicare Services Advisory Committee has recommended resumption of Medicare funding in Australia for thoraco-lumbar fractures less than or equal to 3-weeks duration despite the lead author of the Cochrane review being on the MSAC committee . Meta-analysis of vertebroplasty published by Lou et al in 2019 concluded that vertebroplasty was safe and effective for patients with fractures less than 6-weeks duration with severe, unremitting pain (Osteoporos Int. 2019 Dec;30(12):2369-2380. doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-05101-8.) Evidence review by Lamanna et al in 2019 in its conclusion writes "All RCTs evaluating vertebroplasty exclusively in patients with acute VCFs found it to be superior to conservative treatment or placebo, including a high‐quality sham‐controlled RCT. Despite recent Cochrane reviews, it may be that vertebroplasty has clinical value in treating acute VCFs, particularly in patients with severe pain.") (Lamanna A et al. Vertebroplasty for acute painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: An update. First published: 20 May 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12900) I have included four groups of authors (Clark et al, Lou et al, Lamanna et al and the 20 members of the Australian Medicare Services Advisory Committee) who find vertebroplasty effective for the management of acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures causing severe pain versus one group in the Cochrane review who don't. The Wikipedia page is misleading in its current version and misinforms patients. Please arrange to have it rewritten or removed. Yours Sincerely Dr William Clark Lead author VAPOUR trial (Lancet. 2016; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31341-1) Investigator Kallmes trial (N Engl J Med 2009; 361:569-579 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0900563) Author Diamond et al trial 2006 ( doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00148 ) Author Diamond et al 2020 (Diamond, T. et al. Early vertebroplasty within 3 weeks of fracture for acute painful vertebral osteoporotic fractures: subgroup analysis of the VAPOUR trial and review of the literature. Eur Spine J 29, 1606–1613 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06362-2) ^[1]Osteoporos Int. 2019 Dec;30(12):2369-2380. doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-05101-8^[2]DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111171 Williamxrayclark (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Williamxrayclark:, Wikipedia is a project that anyone, including you, can edit. Please discuss this at talk:Vertebral augmentation or make the changes yourself. good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Cesium is absorbed by animal and plant cells in a competitive way with potassium, but cesium has no known function; however, at high concentrations, it can cause toxicity in plants, inhibiting their growth. Indeed, mammalian organisms, during evolution, began to distinguish the useless (non-radioactive) cesium from potassium, which is essential in the Na + / K + pump of animal cell membranes. This is clearly visible in the poor absorption and selectivity for cesium of the liver and fetuses, in the autoradiographs of Nelson et al. (1961) [1]. The human organism in fact expels cesium through three emunctories: the kidney, and also through the salivary glands and, greatly, through the exocrine pancreas, that concentrate, filter it and eliminate it with secrete saliva and pancreatic juice in the intestine, as reported by Venturi [2]. In fact, "Prussian Blue" (ferric ferrocyanide), ingested orally, is able in the intestine to chelate cesium, preventing its reabsorption, and to eliminate it in the faeces, and, in this way, purify the human organism by about half of cesium in 30-70 days.

sign User:A-Venturi Sebastiano (assumed) 28-10-2020

Nelson A, Ullberg S, Kristoffersson H, Ronnback C (1961). Distribution of Radiocesium in Mice. Acta Radiologica. 55, 5: 374-384. doi:10.3109/00016926109175132.
Venturi, Sebastiano (2020). "Is there a correlation between radioactive cesium and the increase of pancreatic cancer ?". Reseachgate. Aug, 16: 1–13. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.27682.86728.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.249.207.36 (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply 

I don't really know what is expected of me from posting this here. Wikipedia is not a place to promote one's journal articles, but this isn't a specific request. Possibly it content that the anonymous editor should be part of the related to the cesium article and if so, this should be an actual edit request at Talk:cesium. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Eggishorn. I sympathise strongly with your feelings, but I really don't think that your reply is for the good of Wikipedia (and neither is it likely to have the slightest effect on the IP editor). --ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ColinFine:, for the record, I wasn't just blowing off steam. I didn't think the IP editor's demand for a retraction should have gone unaddressed and I was making the absurdity of the demand clear. I was snarky, sure, but I wasn't uncivil or otherwise out-of-bounds. I hope that explains my reasoning. Thanks for your feedback. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I've noticed the second level of indentation you used in this reply: Special:Diff/988356286#Joe Biden bio makes an impression you answer to User:Khajidha instead of the OP IP-user.

I fixed it. Feel free to revert my change if I did it wrong. --CiaPan (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@CiaPan:, that's OK. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have noticed your recent work on restructuring archives and I think you may be interested in a simple way to reduce it.

You can just create a little index page in your User: space and then include it as a template in your talk page and in archive pages. Then you add a link to every new archive page in one place only.

See User talk:CiaPan/archives for a primitive example of such index, and the lead section of my talk page for its use. --CiaPan (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@CiaPan:, thank you again. I do it manually intentionally to make sure I have control over everything and know what is happening. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's allowed (indeed preferred) to leave the thread in the archive and close it there, then let one of the regulars know to put it on RSP. That way it doesn't clog up current discussions, and one doesn't have to update the RSP links once the thread is archived. (t · c) buidhe 17:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Buidhe:, I have seen it done both ways recently so I'm honestly wondering if normal preference is changing. I did a close recently and left the thread in the archives and was contacted with a recommendation to do the opposite. That's why I linked WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE in the edit summary, which says: If a thread has been archived prematurely, such as when it is still relevant to current work or was not concluded, unarchive it by copying it back to the talk page from the archive, and deleting it from the archive. So maybe we need a VP on whether closes requested at AN/RFC should be left in the archive with a note on the current page or unarchived. I think both are kind of problematic, either way you look at it. Would you help with such a discussion if I started it? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I can see that there is a downside to not posting the close to the noticeboard. (Perhaps the right compromise would be to copy the closing statement to the noticeboard with a pointer to the closed discussion.) I'm not well versed in VP, but would be happy to help; it would be good to have some kind of common practice at least. (t · c) buidhe 17:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thanks for closing the RFC and emphasizing how the purpose of the RFC was not clear at all. You’ve logically stated that their is no consensus and thus the article should be brought back to the initial version prior to the adding of the sentence with Afghanistan and Myanmar, however the user who initially added that and was edit warring with 6 different users about it and opened the very weird unclear RFC simply re-added the content by simply putting an “ Albeit” in front of the sentence and implied in his edit summary that this edit was done per your RFC closure(?). Here is the diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/989963621 . This is definitely not going according to the rules, the outcome of the RFC is just simply ignored by him, please intervene. Best regards Xerxes931 (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Xerxes931:, I am not an administrator and I do not know how definitive my "intervention" can be. I can do not more than you as a fellow editor can. I will post a message on Aditya Kabir's talk page and see what the response is. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am sure anyone can edit to "retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" (WP:NOCONSENSUS), only it would probably take a bit to find which prior version and which bold edit. I hope you wont mind if I state that I have edited into the article what I saw as the version prior to the bold edit (regretfully with concessions), and can't see how I can do better without some enlightened instrtuction (details regarding that in the other part of this discussion, on my talk page). I am sure process will prevail. Cheers. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 18:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Aditya Kabir:, it is poor practice to split discussions between multiple talk pages and I had already started this discussion on yours. I will reply as needed there. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have seen that you have edited Aditya Kabir 's talk page lately. It is very sad to let you know that he is no more. I have worked with him about 13 years back in a featured article and it's very hard for me to tell this to you. But I thought about letting you know. --Tarif from Bangladesh (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Tarif Ezaz:, thank you for letting me know. I'm sorry to hear that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is completely false information. Ahmadis are not even Muslims, according to The Holy Quran and Hadees. How they get the right to edit Wikipedia in such way to hurt Muslims all over the world. A stick action must be taken on this... Thank you.. Waqas Ahmad Jan (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Waqas Ahmad Jan:, I strongly suspect you are not ever going to see this and have no interest in anything but stating your doctrine and therefore giving yourself a lovely righteous glow but I will assume at least a minimal level of good faith and reply anyway. Wikipedia has nothing to do with your complaint. Furthermore, I certainly have nothing to do with this statement so I'm puzzled as anything as to why you chose to message me. What you are seeing is the result of Google's algorithms mistakenly taking something from an article and calling it the answer. Our article on the Ahmadiyya Caliphate already makes it clear that the belief of who is the 5th Caliph is a minority one: Since the Ahmadiyya is widely viewed as a heterodox movement by the mainstream of Sunni and Shi'ite Islam, most Muslims outside the movement do not recognise Ahmadi claims to a caliphate as valid. If you had taken even 5 seconds to verify this for yourself instead of simply following a YouTuber's dictat you would have already discovered this information. Please never contact me again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply