Daniel Case
Hi, welcome to the 26th volume of my talk page.
P.S.
I lived in NJ for a while! Close to Denville, and I worked in Earth sciences at Columbia. I passed through Englewood sometimes :) . -Darouet (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Other than what my birth certificate says, I have no real connection to, nor memory of, Englewood.
- We lived in Leonia at the time, and later moved across the Hudson for a year to Riverdale (so I can say I once lived in the city
) I have more memories of where we moved later—Lyndhurst, Chatham and eventually Summit, the last of where we lived for nine years and where I consider myself to be from. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Protection for AJ Styles
Could you look at the recent activity at AJ Styles and consider further temporary semi-protection? You’ve applied it a few times before, the most recent one ending in March, and now, after three months of protection, the same editor has made the same edit that got the article protected, three times in about ten days. I put it up for increased protection but it got denied for not enough disruptive activity. I think the admin only saw the most recent offense and not the previous two under different user names. Thanks. NJZombie (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Done It is now under six months semi-protection and I have logged this at WP:GS/PW. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Much appreciated! NJZombie (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Report
173.23.106.234 has been disrupting articles by removing content calling them promotional without any reason. I tried reporting them using twinkle but didn't find right option. Can you please tell how exactly to report such Users? saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔ 17:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- I have blocked them 24 hours for disruptive editing since they kept doing it past their final warning (and do not really appear interested in discussion, which repeatedly invoking WP:NOT is, well, not. Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Wamalotpark/3RR
Unfortunately, this user has again decided to ignore and blank a 3RR warning on List of United States over-the-air television networks, along with calling OVERLINK on an article where the link is fine, and continues to use edit summaries (including a mention of me, an unknown person to them, as bud) rather than any talk discussion (shut down with blanking) to continue maintaining their version of an article despite patient explanation from others as to why these edits are not needed. Nathannah • 📮 19:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to hold off on this one for now. Another editor restored a templated warning they had blanked, something they are allowed to do. This very often needlessly enrages people, and that seems to have happened here.
- This was the right move on your part. Let's give them a chance. Because otherwise their recent edits seem not to have met with any objections. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Please look at my talk page for my response. This user seems to compulsively twist the narrative to make me look bad. They insulted me on my talk page by saying "Worry about actual article content" and I should just focus on stuff "that matters", even though I enjoy working on grammar and MOS related content. They are the only person to object to me lowercasing the "the" at the beginning of "the Walt Disney Company" in a running sentence per MOS:INSTITUTIONS. I've now responded on my talk page, but they did not seem very friendly and I do not like the way they frame things with outright lies. Wamalotpark (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- I have so seen. It is better that, as Churchill put it, you jaw-jaw than war-war. Feel free to bring other people into this discussion through a post to the appropriate noticeboard; you're more likely to get consensus this way. Daniel Case (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Please look at my talk page for my response. This user seems to compulsively twist the narrative to make me look bad. They insulted me on my talk page by saying "Worry about actual article content" and I should just focus on stuff "that matters", even though I enjoy working on grammar and MOS related content. They are the only person to object to me lowercasing the "the" at the beginning of "the Walt Disney Company" in a running sentence per MOS:INSTITUTIONS. I've now responded on my talk page, but they did not seem very friendly and I do not like the way they frame things with outright lies. Wamalotpark (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
AIV
[1] it's a known LTA (see their deleted edits for one of their usual tells, or email for details). DMacks (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- OK ... I see ToBeFree has taken care of them. It just wasn't clear to me from the report. Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yup. The crazy stuff that happens when I step out for coffee and other Real World things. DMacks (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Advice
Hiya Daniel, could you please take a look at my talk page and advise on the request on the bottom there. I happened to agree with an IP on a matter and now the IP requests I make a page. Does this fall foul of some WP policy? I don't wish to be accused (or guilty) of doing summat that runs contrary to policy. I checked Wikipedia:No soliciting of cliques, but I'm not sure, ta.Halbared (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't AFAIK. You make a good case for deleting the article (which isn't to say there's no need for community consensus). But it's good that you erred on the side of caution and asked. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
About Protection of Harry Potter
Hi Daniel, are you considering downgrading Harry Potter’s protection to either extended confirmed protection or semi-protection? I show no interest in editing the page itself, just concerned about how long the full protection will last. I understand that Harry Potter is a very popular article, and thank you for your contributions! HwyNerd Mike (contribs | talk) 23:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's downgraded to indef semi. I don't know why I put it on indef full ... must have been a mistake. Or did the request ask for indef? I can't remember. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Quick question about lack of edit notice on a semi-protected CTOP article
Hi, in this edit, you let an editor know that Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was semi-protected for 2 weeks. I'm not sure when those 2 weeks started/expire(d). The CTOP notice at the top of the talk page says that edits are limited to editors who are logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account, but there is no notice about this if someone attempts to edit the article (at least, I'm not seeing one, though I think there used to be one). Has the semi-protection expired? Or am I just misremembering about there being a notice that shows up when someone attempts to edit a protected article? (Asking because I just reverted a significant edit from an IP editor, who should not have edited the article if its still semi-protected.) Also, would it be possible to add an edit notice about BLP and AP2 applying to this article? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Answering in bullet points:
- Muboshgu protected the page for just a week, actually. I was perhaps confused by the request for a 2-week extension above it when I added the note that it was already protected, given that I review a lot of protection requests.
- Protection began, according to the log, on April 18 so it expired two days ago. When a page is under protection, the notice that appears above the edit window gives the date of expiry.
- When an editor who cannot edit a protected article attempts to do so, the edit window shows a red background of the same color as the aforementioned edit notice. Source text can be copied, and edited on another page if an editor not at that access level wishes to propose an edit request on the talk page, but they cannot save any changes they make to the original page.
- As far as adding an editnotice about the CTOP designation, we generally have not been doing that where we've imposed semi-protection since the software already takes care of that (and that would also be the case with ECP). It's most effective in cases like ARBPIA where the standard restrictions include 1RR or 0RR, and anywhere we've imposed that in other topic areas, since the software cannot enforce it and therefore we rely on users to police themselves and file ANEW reports when that restriction is breached.
- I would really like it if the CTOPS notice accommodated multiple topic areas. But currently it does not.
- Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for all that info. I'll put in another request for semi-protection, as we have IPs inserting false information and edit warring in attempts to make huge non-consensus edits to the lead (the article topic is still very much in the news, with the Trump admin still defying a Supreme Court order). FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- One other question, given that the semi-protection ended: why does the CTOP notice on the talk page still say that an editor must be logged-in to edit the page? (Does that apply even if the page isn't protected? Or is there simply not a way to link the end of the page protection with the removal of that rule, so it remains there unless someone removes it?) FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Another change I'd love to see is a bot that edits those templates to correspond with the level of protection currently applicable. It's just far too much for a human to keep up with. But, as it is, if that deters bad-actor editors from the page, then why not? Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- One other question, given that the semi-protection ended: why does the CTOP notice on the talk page still say that an editor must be logged-in to edit the page? (Does that apply even if the page isn't protected? Or is there simply not a way to link the end of the page protection with the removal of that rule, so it remains there unless someone removes it?) FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for all that info. I'll put in another request for semi-protection, as we have IPs inserting false information and edit warring in attempts to make huge non-consensus edits to the lead (the article topic is still very much in the news, with the Trump admin still defying a Supreme Court order). FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Since you have left a CTOP note on the tp of that article, can you take a look at Aetolia? They have been edit warring for some time, removing content sourced to academic RS. On the article's tp they have made some original research claims and have not provided any RS to back them. On their own tp they have received several warnings, including for making legal threats. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- I have formally warned them for edit-warring on that article. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I had the wrong impression that they had already been warned for edit warring. They are edit warring again, and keep making personal attacks. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
New message to Daniel Case
Hello, Could you raise protection for Wikipedia back to ECP? It's been persistently vandalized by a now-blocked user. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk · contribs) 21:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Maybe you'll have better luck than I did
I said essentially the same thing. You were nicer though, so hopefully it'll stick.-- Ponyobons mots 19:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, we have to try that before we come down with a block, I think.
- I do get the feeling this user may have some cognitive reason for doing this. Some people's brains just work that way—they can't handle adding a source at the same time as their text. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Can you please look at this
Hello hope you are well, can you please check and revert latest addition on Ivan Crnojevic page, I feel that there is some serious wp:gaming going on, first the ip started with the disruptive editing on the page [[2]] and then directly after spending their 3rr this user appeared and did the same types of disruptive edits [[3]] so I wonder are they the same person. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm. I notice they did not respond to your accusation of LOUTSOCKing. And the IP address resolves to Serbia.
- I will ask them about this on their talk page. And leave a CTOPS notice on the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes this is very strange behaviour, also the current stand of the lede in Ivan Crnojevic where they are stating that Crnojevic was Serbian leader according to Serbian historians is obviously bias, I don't think this goes under good faith edits, they could have added like Monetnegrin/Serbian leader or something like this. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:NAT ... as I just told Critikal, it's at the heart of so many of our contentious-topic designations. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes this is very strange behaviour, also the current stand of the lede in Ivan Crnojevic where they are stating that Crnojevic was Serbian leader according to Serbian historians is obviously bias, I don't think this goes under good faith edits, they could have added like Monetnegrin/Serbian leader or something like this. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
3RR interpretation
Khirurg made 3 reverts on Northern Epirus within 21 hours [4][5][6]. After I warned them about edit warring [7], they stayed inactive on enwiki for a day, then returned and immediately made the 4th revert [8]. Is the user within their rights here or is this considered a case of gaming the 3RR? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Per WP:4RR: Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.
- Especially given that the user's been blocked for edit warring before more than once (although, granted, the last time was over two years ago). Daniel Case (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- My last two edits are over a day and a half apart, not just outside the 24 hour window [9]. Plus this is not really a revert [10] - there is no previous version reverted to. And I have been discussing in the article talkpage, where I made my case, unlike the party that reverted me. Khirurg (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- You keep posting on the tp, and you keep reverting at the same time. The diff you mention above is a revert, as you removed content that had just been added by me and Maleschreiber ("implausibly", "many", "systematic" which change the meaning of their sentences). You are fully aware of the DS regarding the Balkans, as you alert other editors about them [11] and in the past you received AE-logged sanctions and alerts, so edit warring on such an article in particular does not give a good impression. Anyways, it is up to Daniel to decide what is the right path to follow in this case. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- "
My last two edits are over a day and a half apart, not just outside the 24 hour window
" See WP:LAWYER. "Plus this is not really a revert [10] - there is no previous version reverted to.
" As noted by Ktrimi "You keep posting on the tp, and you keep reverting at the same time.
" See WP:STATUSQUO. Good and conscientious editors do not touch the article during ongoing discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)- Ok then how am I supposed to deal with stuff like this [12]. Massive removals of sourced info, WP:NINJA-style reverts. How is a good and conscientious editor supposed to deal with that? Please advise. Khirurg (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- You could request full protection for a short time. It also seems like at least one other editor agrees with you. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- In the last 24 hours, the edit warring is entirely linked to Alexikoua. If you check the reverts, they are all either Alexikoua reverting other editors, or other editors reverting Alexikoua. He has already made 3 reverts in the last 24 hours. So IMO, better than article protection, Alexikoua needs to stop edit warring against multiple editors. The others too should not revert, but when there is a case of one editor vs multiple editors, the former is the one that has the most to reflect on. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- WP:1AM. Maybe it's time to report this at WP:ANEW where some fresh eyes can take a look. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- I gave them a formal warning. If they revert again, I will report. Otherwise if they don't revert again, I am happy to conclude that they have reflected on the issue. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- WP:1AM. Maybe it's time to report this at WP:ANEW where some fresh eyes can take a look. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- In the last 24 hours, the edit warring is entirely linked to Alexikoua. If you check the reverts, they are all either Alexikoua reverting other editors, or other editors reverting Alexikoua. He has already made 3 reverts in the last 24 hours. So IMO, better than article protection, Alexikoua needs to stop edit warring against multiple editors. The others too should not revert, but when there is a case of one editor vs multiple editors, the former is the one that has the most to reflect on. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- You could request full protection for a short time. It also seems like at least one other editor agrees with you. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Ok then how am I supposed to deal with stuff like this [12]. Massive removals of sourced info, WP:NINJA-style reverts. How is a good and conscientious editor supposed to deal with that? Please advise. Khirurg (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- My last two edits are over a day and a half apart, not just outside the 24 hour window [9]. Plus this is not really a revert [10] - there is no previous version reverted to. And I have been discussing in the article talkpage, where I made my case, unlike the party that reverted me. Khirurg (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: When a group of editors gang up on one or two editors and take turns reverting so as to avoid WP:3RR, isn't that considered tag teaming? Because this is what is going on here. There are two groups of editors with different POVs, but one group outnumbers the other. Khirurg (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- I have to set aside the time and take a long look at what's going on. But it is increasingly looking like 1AM. Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, the situation does call for an experienced admin to take a look [13]. One side adds whatever it likes, and then removes sourced material with little or no explanation [14]. If you look at the contribs history of the editors doing this, it is obvious that they share the same background. Khirurg (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Since you are making these "tag-teaming" accusations, isn't it a bit suspicious that Alexikoua returned after more than a month of inactivity, precisely when you ran out of reverts (you had made 4 reverts)? Is it a coincidence that in March too Alexikoua returned after months of inactivity, just to make some comments supporting your POV on the tp of Byzantine Greeks? Are you accusing others of things you are doing yourself? If each of us started to make accusations about everything we see as suspicious, the editing process would become impossible. Baseless accusations do not help, better focus on content. We need to improve the article, not accuse each other without evidence.Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- You were warned in the past by another admin about making baseless "tag-teaming" accusations (and the admin blocked you 2 days later)[15]. Given this and the fact that you have an AE-logged warning about personal attacks, making such accusations after apparently gaming the 3RR does not help creating a good environment on the tp. Better focus on content. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- And you were told by an admin [16] to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS like you did here [17], to the point where they felt the need to remove your comments from the talkpage [18], something which is incredibly rare. "Focus on content" yes, but I'm counting 6 reverts [19] [20] [21] [22] (removal of well-sourced info because "ahistorical") [23] [24] (an editor that has never edited the article before [25] reverting me within less than an hour) in the last 3 days (of which 5 in the last 2 days) by editors that share the same viewpoint and background as you, so yes, I am calling ethnic bloc editing here. It's not just "multiple editors", it's multiple editors that have the same background. "Focus on content" sure, but it's getting really hard to do so when so many edits by one group of editors are being removed in this manner. If one side just adds whatever it wants and removes the other editors' additions, we have a big problem.
- @Daniel Case: When something very similar happened at Pashalik of Yanina [26] a couple of years ago, when the same group of editors refused to accept some well-sourced additions to the article [27], Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) placed an "affirmative consensus" restriction on the article [28], which worked like a charm in reducing disruption. Another potential solution is collective 3RR for groups of editors sharing the same POV, but that may be more difficult to implement. Thank you for your consideration. Khirurg (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- I see you've pinged them; let's see if they join in and offer some input. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- My input is that this looks to be a dispute ready for AE. Possibly the page should be fully protected in the meantime. Khirurg, you're close to being blocked solely on continuing to make unevidenced accusations of tag-teaming. It's not about other editors all disagreeing with you. It's about coordination. For an example of evidence of coordination, take your cue from Ktrimi991's point about the timing of Alexikoua's participation. It's not conclusive evidence, but it's the difference between a reasonable interpretation and an aspersion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
And you were told by an admin to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS
The admin did not tell me to "stop", it was a single comment, and I agreed with the admin's advice and I thanked them. I did not receive any warning. People can check the diffs, anyone can see what happened there. The admin too can pinged for clarification if necessary. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)- Daniel, Alexikoua made 3 reverts within 24 hours [29][30][31]. Then after I warned them, they waited for some hours and made the 4th [32]. This is IMO a patent case of gaming the 3RR. Virtually all reverts on the article in the last 2 days are either Alexikoua reverting other editors, or others reverting him. As I don't have time to prepare an ANEW report, it would be helpful if you intervened. This is wasting too much time and some have resorted to baseless accusations etc. Maybe I am done with that article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- I see you've pinged them; let's see if they join in and offer some input. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, the situation does call for an experienced admin to take a look [13]. One side adds whatever it likes, and then removes sourced material with little or no explanation [14]. If you look at the contribs history of the editors doing this, it is obvious that they share the same background. Khirurg (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- I have to set aside the time and take a long look at what's going on. But it is increasingly looking like 1AM. Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: When a group of editors gang up on one or two editors and take turns reverting so as to avoid WP:3RR, isn't that considered tag teaming? Because this is what is going on here. There are two groups of editors with different POVs, but one group outnumbers the other. Khirurg (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
(unindent) @Daniel Case, @Firefangledfeathers: All my edits undone with a blanket rv [33], sourced additions, copyedits, even ref fixes. And again, by another user of the same persuasion, that has never edited the article before [34]. Khirurg (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Khirurg, if you’re going to bring my editing to the attention of the administrators, I kindly ask that you have the courtesy to ping me directly so I can participate in the discussion. You also know very well that I am heavily involved in articles of this topic area, such as Chameria and Epirus, where similar disputes have now arisen alongside this current one. We’ve had many prior interactions, discussions, and disagreements, so please don’t pretend to be surprised at my involvement now. I’ve been consistently active in Albanian-related historical articles and have contributed constructively for years, and these articles are all on my watchlist.
- @Daniel Case, @Firefangledfeathers - what’s deeply concerning here is the language that continues to emerge from Khirurg, and not just in isolated moments, but as part of a documented and escalating pattern of behaviour. Prior to the involvement of Firefangledfeathers, Khirurg had already used phrases like:
- “
they share the same background
” - "
editors that share the same viewpoint and background as you
" - “
ethnic bloc editing here
” - “
multiple editors that have the same background
” - “
the same group of editors refused to accept…
”
- “
- This kind of rhetoric already raised serious concerns, but after Firefangledfeathers directly warned them — “
Khirurg, you're close to being blocked solely on continuing to make unevidenced accusations of tag-teaming
” - Khirurg immediately resumed this pattern by referring to me as “another user of the same persuasion
” in the comment above. At this point, it's really starting to seem like a racial profiling of editors. What does “same persuasion” even mean? Why is participation by multiple editors with an interest in Albanian history being framed as suspicious or conspiratorial? These are Albanian-related articles. Why are you surprised that editors from the Albanian topic area are involved? - It is completely inappropriate to imply that shared cultural or ethnic background constitutes some kind of bad-faith "bloc". This violates WP:ASPERSIONS (again) and WP:WITCHHUNT when you take into account the fact that they have been blocked for this behaviour previously and have unsuccessfully filed a "tag-teaming" report at the ANI previously. This creates a hostile, WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere where editors are treated with suspicion for merely engaging in content relevant to their interests.
- At this point, it’s clear that this is no longer about a content dispute - this is an obsessive pattern of conduct. Khirurg has made it a point to track, label and discredit editors who engage with Albanian-related articles, repeatedly invoking ethnicity or presumed background as a basis for suspicion. This is not a one-off. It’s a persistent fixation, even continuing after a direct and explicit warning from an administrator. That should be the final straw. The warnings have been given. They’ve been disregarded. It is time for action.
- I therefore respectfully urge you - @Daniel Case, @Firefangledfeathers - to impose a block or another appropriate sanction. This conduct goes against the collaborative principles of Wikipedia, and if allowed to continue, it sets a harmful precedent: that editors can engage in racialized profiling and battleground behaviour with impunity, so long as they cloak it in vague accusations. This behaviour is disruptive, targeted and escalating. Enough is enough. I would have taken this to the appropriate noticeboard if Khirurg had not already been warned in this discussion alone, only to resume that same behaviour soon after so that they may target another editor "
of the same persuasion
"... Botushali (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)- OK. Firefangledfeathers has full-protected the article for a week, which is exactly what I was going to do. And I strongly second him on this going to AE.
- I would also suggest that, when that full protection expires, we put the article on 1RR for the time being.
- If Khirurg continues casting aspersions during the protection, or proposing the same unbalanced take on the lede that Botushali has pointed out, then he will be blocked as AE under CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
I strongly second him on this going to AE
How can an article dispute be reported to AE? Do admins evaluate the content dispute or the behaviour of the editors? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)- This is seeming to be more about the conduct involved ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, OK. I thought that you were talking about the content dispute per se. It would be great to have AE evaluate the conduct of the editors, but seeing here how 2 admins just keep giving warning after warning to the same editor about the same "tag-teaming" and "background" comments without solving anything, I am not sure how much AE will be able to evaluate 7 or 8 editors. Anyways. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- This, especially for someone relatively new to this, is more complicated than the usual dispute. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- In the Demographics section, the last ref of the article has an error. It needs the closing tag (</ref>) to be added. It would be helpful if you did that, so for readers the article does not end with confusing text. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Done [35]. Sorry it took a while ... I was busier than I expected IRL yesterday and as such took to bed earlier than I had thought I would. Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- In the Demographics section, the last ref of the article has an error. It needs the closing tag (</ref>) to be added. It would be helpful if you did that, so for readers the article does not end with confusing text. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- This, especially for someone relatively new to this, is more complicated than the usual dispute. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, OK. I thought that you were talking about the content dispute per se. It would be great to have AE evaluate the conduct of the editors, but seeing here how 2 admins just keep giving warning after warning to the same editor about the same "tag-teaming" and "background" comments without solving anything, I am not sure how much AE will be able to evaluate 7 or 8 editors. Anyways. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- This is seeming to be more about the conduct involved ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
What happened?
Hi @Daniel Case, I'm just asking, why did you a semi-protecting a Volvo Cars page? I'm feel objected to the semi-protection on that page. I hope you can answer my question I've been asked for. Thanks. Rizky Juliandief (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- I said when I protected the page that it had a long history of disruptive editing which had led to several protections so I would be protecting it indefinitely this time.
- You could go to WP:RFPP/D and request the protection be lifted, although I doubt that would succeed. Perhaps a request to drop it to pending changes might work, but I make no promises.
- Failing that, it will take some time and effort on your part, but once you have made 300 edits and gone 50 days from your first edit a couple of weeks ago, you will gain extended-confirmed rights (But don't try to do that by making a bunch of minor edits to random pages or something like that. You'll get caught. Get those rights honestly.
- Also, the talk page is not protected, and you may post edit requests there, like this one from almost two years ago, if there are specific changes you think should be made. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: It's 500 edits/30 days. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever I think it is I always get it wrong
. Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever I think it is I always get it wrong
- @Daniel Case: It's 500 edits/30 days. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
NYC: May 7 WikiWed + May 10 WikiCurious
| May 7: WikiWednesday Salon @ Prime Produce | |
|---|---|
 You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan. This month's WikiWednesday will be focused on digital safety for editors. Guest digital security trainers will join us to lead this session. All are welcome! Please bring a laptop or the editing device of your choosing for hands-on training that will guide you through steps to take to make yourself safer online. While there will also be an online participation option, the meeting will not be recorded. Meeting info:
| |
| May 10: Wikicurious – Amplifying Media Art with Rhizome | |
 You are also invited to join the Wikimedia NYC Community and Rhizome for a community memory-focused edit-a-thon in the Financial District. All Wikipedia and Wikidata enthusiasts are welcome, new and experienced! Please RSVP on Rhizome's event page to gain entry to the venue. Meeting info:
All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the Wikimedia NYC Code of Conduct and Photography Policy. | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)