User talk:Boynamedsue

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are making presumptions about the sources at my disposal and relying solely on one. Suffice to say I can back that up. WCM_email 14:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Wee Curry Monster Well instead of being cryptic, why don't you add it somewhere people can see. You know, in good faith, like? In wikipedia we can only go on what users actually link or cite not arcane knowledge they allude to. I'm not being funny here, I genuinely believe Dickson is not notable because of what is in the article and the sources I've seen. It's not an article of faith. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I drafted this some time ago, you may or may not find it helpful.

Contemporary accounts

Captain Onslow's report and orders are in the British Archive at Kew Gardens. Rear-Admiral Baker’s orders to Onslow, and several different versions of Onslow’s report on his visit to Port Louis, are in PRO Adm 1/2276, and in PRO FO 6 500, pp. 96 (orders), and 116-124 (Onslow’s report as sent to British chargé d’affaires Philip Gore in Buenos Aires; Onslow's orders were clear.

Onslow's report documents his efforts to persuade them to stay, many wanted to leave as the Falklands were a harsh place to live and the Gaucho's had not been paid since Vernet's departue in 1831.

Pinedo (An Argentine source)From Pinedo’s testimony at his trial later in 1833, AGN Sala VII, Legajo 60, p. 22: “… los habitantes que quisiesen voluntariamente quedan, que serian respetados ellos y sus propriedades como anteriormente…”) corroborates this:

I ask you to note that the two eye witness accounts corroborate.

The Complete Works of Charles Darwin online includes the diaries of both Charles Darwin and Captain Fitzroy. HMS Beagle visited the settlement in March 1833 and again the following year. In March 1833, Fitzroy documents his meeting with Matthew Brisbane, Vernet's deputy, who had returned to take charge of Vernet's business interests. Fitzroy also documents his efforts to persuade the settlers to continue in the islands. Both Darwin and Fitzroy document their meetings with the settlers supposedly expelled 3 months earlier.

Brisbane brought one Thomas Helsby who also kept a diary and documented the residents of Port Louis. Residents of Port Louis This pretty much co-incides with Pinedo's account in January 1833. All without exception members of Vernet's settlement.

There is also Thomas Helsby's accounts of the Gaucho murders, when disgruntled Gaucho's ran amok and murdered Vernet's representatives.

Neutral

Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26.

Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Emphasis added

Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland story, 1592–1982. A. Nelson. p. 30.

David Tatham (2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham.

[1] The Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Source for the Argentine Government position

[2] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands

Note specifically the claim made is that the settlers were ejected. Note also Gustafson above specifically rebuts this claim as many academic sources do.

Not to mention the schizophrenic nature of what Argentina claims.

[3]

On the one hand its claiming the settlers were expelled, in the same document it refers to the settlers left in the islands.

• Boynamedsue, I really need you to stop referring to the Anderson case and that Clarin article. As an admin, I consider this a serious violation of
  WP:BLP, and below I will leave a templated note indicating just how serious this is on Wikipedia. If you need an article like that, with all of its implications (not to mention a picture of an ID, with all kinds of information), to prove a point about citizenship or whatever, then that point is not worth making. Please use more proper sources, from more reliable publications, without having to go into individual examples of living people. The BLP applies everywhere, including article talk pages and user talk pages, so please don't bring this up anywhere on Wikipedia anymore. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:BLP, and I would stress that no reference to any individual was ever entered in the article. It is also worth noting that EL Clarin is considered to be a reliable source on the Spanish wikipedia, and there is no reason not to think it should be here either. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. It may well be that Clarin is accepted elsewhere, and it may well be that it is acceptable here. I was just struck by the picture of that ID--that seems to me to be a pretty blatant disregard for international standards of journalism. Be that as it may, the material is not appropriate here, at least that how it seems to me. It is possible that other administrators disagree with me, of course, and that is a matter that could be discussed, but speaking also as an editor, I would not accept such...legalistic? statements on naturalization etc. be based on such an article. I understand the matter is complicated, which I think is all the more reason to source it differently. Anyway, thanks--I appreciate your cooperation. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any future discussion will be productive.

Your position is that because the Malvinas are considered part of Argentina under its law and also their law recognizes jus soli, that people born in the Falklands are Argentinian by birth. Jus soli requires birth withing territory not just claimed by the state but under its control.

Also you continually confuse someone who is born a citizen with someone acquires a right to claim citizenship at birth. These are two entirely different things and we cannot use a source that claims one thing to support another.

If Argentina provides birthright citizenship to people born in the Malvinas or gives them an unconditional right to claim citizenship, then there should be legislation or an executive order showing this so that passport officers would know whether to issue passports. Failing that, there should be a conclusion legal opinion. In comparison, I can provide you with the legislation that proves people born in the Falklands are British citizens: The British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983. And I can also provide a history of their citizenship status as well as legislation that provides a right for people born in the Falklands who have not acquired citizenship to apply for it.

TFD (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your latest comment to be under the comment of mine you appear to be responding to, to avoid confusion. Hope you don't mind. AmateurEditor (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC) No problem at all, I agree it's a better place, thanks. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you mind if I share with you a maddening example of a certain user’s modus operandi?

This is what I’m talking about (and this, and this, and this, and this). Contrary to consensus here.

The latest rationale is totally bogus, by the way. The fact that politicians from city A in country B emigrated to country X does not qualify city A for categorization under country X. By that standard, a Category:Politicians from Nairobi should be placed under Category:British politicians, because of Peter Hain.

Anyway, the pattern is always the same: said user (1) does something objectionable, other user (2) reverts, user 1 reverts again, writes walls of text about even the most minor matters, until user 2 eventually gives up and finds something better to do, like stare at a ceiling. I recently had to run a weeklong poll just so I could add four words; look at the sheer amount of text expended! It’s been going on for years, too. I wish something could be done... — Biruitorul ^Talk 04:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Biruitorul. I think it constitutes disruptive editing, as the main goal is to wear down the other party and enforce an individual's POV without any reference to wikipedia's policies. When he tries it on pages watched by large numbers of people, it gets reverted after very quick RfC's. But when it's Eastern European stuff, he often forces his POV in through sheer bloody-mindedness. Not sure what to do about it tbh. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other really dodgy thing he does when he has found a nice little unwatched page, is to threaten to delete large quantities of sourced content if he doesn't get his own edit through. So he will argue there is no consensus for 500 words if his 15 words don't appear, or for a paragraph if one word is different from his preference. Effectively he holds large tracts of text hostage as a negotiating tactic. Like I say, something should be done, but who is going to bell the cat? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour seen here is

three-revert rule or not), they may be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and potentially blocked from editing by an administrator. I see BTW that this user seems to have a long history of being notified of edit warring by other users, which can potentially feed a case for consideretion of disruptive behaviour by administrators. Place Clichy (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Biruitorul:,

Biruitorul, what you described above is exactly my experience at Talk:Germans and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups. If someone wants to take it to ANI, I'd certainly add my non-administrator's comment there. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is definitely a case to be made here, or at least there should be, considering the sheer number of user hours being burned up. I'm a terrible wikilawyer, so I'm probably not the right person. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Rsk6400, I notice the use of the "if you don't do what I say, I'll delete your text" tactic on that talkpage too. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the notification, Boynamedsue. While it looks as though there’s nothing further for me to say right there, this episode will be useful for future actions. — Biruitorul ^Talk 13:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, check out the Mafia-style tone here. Sounds almost like a threat, makes me want to ask “or else what?” — Biruitorul ^Talk 13:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to him, the tone thing is more to do with his slightly incomplete control over different registers of English, there's no intent there. I am more worried about what happened to Azure94, hopefully, given Ymblanter's generally fair response, there will be less possibility of this kind of situation arising in the future. It is worth looking at those discussion pages, for your scrapbook. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It really is true that some people are fundamentally incapable of changing their ways, even in the face of disaster. Sad. — Biruitorul ^Talk 16:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting that ANI discussion. I was a bit late in joining, but it'll feel like a heavy weight being lifted if some remedy will be found. He is / was really eating up time and energy. Maybe I should take WP a bit less seriously, but there were nights when I didn't sleep well. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I am exactly the same. I lost sleep on several occasions due to the sheer frustration of having to either debate endlessly with KIENGIR on the talkpage of a locked article, or give up and leave a racist POV in the article of an ethnic group who were sent into gas chambers within living memory. I'd second your thanks to Biruitorul. Also, thank you for your contribution, it really rang a bell, the refusal to justify a position was the most frustrating thing... Boynamedsue (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you and to Biruitorul for your untiring work. Although banning someone is not something to make you feel good, I think it is better for WP. Boynamedsue, your advice to KIENGIR on their talk page yesterday was an example of fair play which I will try to learn from. And having the presence of mind to spot Securitate and understand its meaning in the middle of such a wall of text ! --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate both of your kind remarks. I’m glad this episode is over, ready to move on. This was not a step I initiated lightly or in haste. I actually had not been to ANI since 2016, when I reported the same user. (Much aggravation would have been saved had there been consensus back then for a restriction, but better late than never.) However, things really were spinning out of control, and it simply was the right time to act.

I think the 20-0 pro-ban vote, mostly by users who don’t know one another, speaks for itself. The oft-mentioned boomerang failed to fly back. Anyway, we can now breathe easier, undo some damage, and no longer fear even our most minor edits being dismantled. Best of luck going forward. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was surprisingly easy, if a little sad to see him lose his head so completely. I think his problem was the sheer number of users who had been stung on the Nazi Germany page. He has been doing this kind of thing successfully for years in backwaters, picking on inexperienced users. If we hadn't been watching it is likely his bullying of Azure94 would have driven them offsite through frustration, god knows how many times something similar has happened over the years. I feel bad to take something from someone in this way, but he is incapable of interacting in any other way. If he had even had the sense to lie about being contrite, he could probably have stayed on the site, but he is unable to admit the possibility he might be wrong. It is the only way, it was never going to stop. Anyway, it's over, and we can relax, take care and thanks again to both of you. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said that if you had known how it would play out, you would have requested a

There we go, I can't help feeling that this is a systemic weakness in the way we deal with this kind of behaviour, but I suppose things are designed with the assumption of good faith and rationality. I guess my pushing it so far wasn't entirely rational either. Anyway, thanks again for your work on this. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you noticed, but the RFC was closed, saying that there was nearly unanimous consensus for Option A, noting that the only real objection had been from a user who was subsequently banned. So continue editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zakarpattia Oblast § Recent edits. Azure94 (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Well, most of your sources will be in (gasp) Hungarian. This is a general overview of the Roma in wartime Hungary, though it does make some mention of the annexed territories. This, under 1941, gives some statistics. This, under Doboz, speaks of a massacre of Roma in Nagyszalonta/Salonta. This is a whole book on the Porajmos in Hungary, again with mention of Nagyszalonta; more here.

You’ll probably have to fire up the Google translator; I don’t really read Hungarian myself. Even if the information is somewhat sketchy, I hope it’s a useful starting point. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Northern Subject Rule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brittonic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Women's Republic. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see that I gave you a specific use-case/context? If you are bothered about particular use-cases, does this interview count towards WP:N? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, are you still interested in the peer review for Dinogad's Smock? I can leave some feedback if you wish. Zetana (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll leave some comments later today. Zetana (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been reading the [survey you started on the Jewish Chronicle] regarding its reliability and suitability for referencing on Wikipedia. The outcome and summary seem very unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons.

1) the bar the IPSO Regulator places on publications is extremely low and the threshold for investigations very high. See also Will the Independent Press Standards Organisation Ever Uphold Any Standards?

2) the people who run and support the IPSO seem to have strong connections to the political Right

3) the cases keep piling up against the Chronicle with the IPSO finding against the Chronicle for breaching its code at least 28 times and sued successfully 4 times. IPSO faces calls to launch first standards investigation into Jewish Chronicle Jewish Chronicle’s Libel Payouts were a Small Price to Pay for Smearing Corbyn and the Left

We really need to know how this compares with other publications. I performed a few comparisons on the IPSO site eg Daily Telegraph, and it is very poor for factual accuracy in relation to its circulation, possibly a statistical outlier. The nearest equivalent which deals in religious-political affairs is 5Pillars which is regulated by the more rigorous IMPRESS. This was investigated once and the complaint was dismissed.

4) the Jewish Chronicle seems to enjoy considerable support from editors, which support it with positive ratings, but without much evidence to support them.

Those giving a top mark came up with 'reasons' such as

it's a major newspaper and the complaints are not so significant

why these "should this source be banned forever for being baddy-bad-bad and saying nasty things about people I like

Longstanding organization...amount of complaints & contents not particularly significant

it's as reliable as any other newspaper on these topics

it is regulated and complies with regulator's decisions, 5 upheld complaints leading to corrections doesn't amount to an awful lot

Isn't there a Wikipedia rule which recommends that evidence free or factually invalid views are not to be given significant weight in these Wikipedia discussions/surveys?

5) even if we take these 'favourable' views at face value, the average rating on the 1 to 4 scale used in this survey (for Left & Muslim issues) comes to 2.05. which places it at Option 2: 'Unclear, or additional considerations apply' Yet the summary says 'it's somewhere between a weak consensus that it's generally reliable and no consensus' which I don't think reflects the ratings given.

Do you think it worthwhile having this assessment re-reviewed by an experienced editor which can give some weight to the opinions which bear some relations to reality and the Chronicle's successive failures to meet the standards of the 'light touch' IPSO regulator?

The Chronicle is still rated in the Wikipedia 'green' reliable category in [Sources], although it suggests in-text attribution is used for its coverage of certain topics'. Surely, at the absolute minimum, a distinct category needs to be shown for political views, although given it's very poor record this is hardly satisfactory.

Andromedean (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC) Andromedean (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andromedean. I think the problem here is that the voting will always have a significant political element, in the UK it seems to be accepted that false reporting is not a big problem when the victims are left-wing. In addition, any of the users attracted to this topic are very politically committed to defending the validity of right-wing or pro-Israel media and this is unlikely to change. It is quite clear that if this was a publication that consistently libelled and falsely reported on doctors (say), its use with regards to the medical profession would have already been prohibited.

I tend to agree that too much weight was placed on extremely flawed opinions by the closer, and the intervention of socks was also a factor. user:selfstudier is considering opening a new case, in view of the interventions of Cathcart and the new cases of libel, but I think they are waiting for IPSO's response to a letter from 9 left-wing victims of the JC's libels and false reporting. Unfortunately, unless we have exceptionally strong evidence, organised political voting will likely muddy the waters again. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a little more before going back to RSN although I agree that the close was let's say it politely, rather lenient.Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re Cathcart, yes I think his latest is here. His count for JCs breaches has now gone up to 33 in 3 years. The JC is perhaps the worst example of a more general problem of bias towards RW and pro-Israeli publications. I think we need to back up any RSN with a call to a wider range of editors, and closely examine the rules for using evidence based ratings in any discussion and survey. I think professional secondary source fact checkers and assessors such as Media bias/Fact check, should be used as part of such assessments (although the JC is excluded from assessment from this specific assessor). As expected I have come under attack when suggesting this in the past, because it helps to moderate the excesses of Wikipedia self selection, which can be as meaningless as a Twitter poll. Perhaps a more general discussion on this subject is required? --Andromedean (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Stevan Harnad and I've been a non-anonymous occasional editor of WP since 2005, but I have never mastered the technical details of remedying systematic vandalism. I created the Hungarian Spectrum page in 2020, but it almost immediately began to be attacked by what I infer to be a coterie of patroling trolls who police WP pages related to Hungary and particularly pages that have any bearing on the current Hungarian government. They are many, and I am one (and a full-time university professor) so I unfortunately lack both the time and the knowledge and experience to try to undo the systematic damage they are doing. The latest instance is Hungarian Spectrum as of November 30 when its founder and daily author, Eva S. Balogh, died suddenly. The Hungarian troll patrol now seems to be systematically bent on minimizing her legacy, beginning with trying to remove any mention or reference to her death, on the pretext that "WP is not the place for obituaries." I would be grateful if you could either intervene, or draw it to the attention of those who could intervene. Many thanks, User:Harnad (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC) User:Harnad (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC) User:Harnad (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Harnad uses the WP for disseminating his political views and promote himself, check the Talk Page of his own bio. BTW, he himself created his own WP Bio in French... His latest project is to eulogyze his close friend, Eva S. Balogh on the net. This is the WP,not a site dedicated for the memory of deceased persons.--176.77.136.98 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you check the Page History. you could find that I was not the only one, who found that it is off encyclopedic content.--176.77.136.98 (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything 176.77.136.98 says above is false, and most of it is repeating false things that prior anonymous Hungarian vandals like 176.77.136.98 have posted whenever I edited a page about Hungary that had anything to do with the current governing party or the current prime minister. They (under various anonymous URI's) do this all the time, and not just to my postings. In fact false innuendo and attempts at character assassination are the hallmark of the work of this team, often under the pretext of exposing "POV pushing" (where POV-pushing is anything said that is critical of the Hungarian government and its leader, or favorable to anyone who is critical of the Hungarian government and its leader, in this instance Eva S. Balogh, the founder of Hungarian Spectrum, on the occasion of her sudden death, which these vandals would prefer to pass without notice. But I unfortunately do not have the time or the resources to try to counter them. User:Harnad (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Éva S. Balogh as a leader of opposition, I, Harnad, as a university professor" etc. clearly indicate that u overestimate your importance, which is a clear violation of the notability principle of the WP. Then this "I am continuosly persecuted by Viktor Orbán" attitude and your canvassing on the HS.org to track me down are breaching the assuming good faith policy. You were close friends, you flood the internet, the WP with yourself, and with the stuff of your friends. You were the one who have just admitted that u use WP to criticize the Orbán-government. I am not the only one who rejected your posts. Are we all Orbán-fans? The whole WP is a big conspiracy for Orbán? --176.77.136.98 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed the spacing indents.) No reply to fact-less, mechanical, personal innuendo (except to note that it is very characteristic of the signature M.O. of smears-for-substance trolling, especially in Orban's Hungary). The WP default assumption of good faith (

WP:AGF) is a valid one, initially, and for the first few iterations, but to persist in faith blindly after the contrary evidence and pattern become obvious and mechanical would be purblind, along the lines of credo quia absurdum User:Harnad (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd just like to interject and bring attention to how our anonymous IP vandal tried to contact the infamous permabanned user KIENGIR, in order to canvas help for his cause --Azure94 (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at the edit history for Hungarian Spectrum will confirm that KIENGIR has already dipped into the Hungarian Spectrum entry in the past. (KIENGIR is now banned, thanks in part to the tireless and conscientious efforts (in other cases) of Azure94). User:Harnad (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Welsh exonyms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dinogad's Smock, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tyne and Newcastle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Funk Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fogo Island.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't often do this but I'm going to ask you to stop contacting me on my talk page. The last straw was templating me for edit warring when you have edit warred unconstructively to remove tags and are needlessly personalising a content discussion again. If you need to discuss content, do so on the article concerned.

Note, I won't be retaliating with a template warning tag but you can take this reply as an indication of my intention to report your behaviour appropriately if it continues. WCM_email 10:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not engaged in any edit-warring whatsoever, indeed I have left the text you edit-warred into the article in place in order to avoid doing so. You have restored two misused tags against the guidelines displayed on the very page the tags lead to, this lowers the quality of the article. I have in fact been very careful not personalise the discussion. My advice would be to take a step back as I feel any report would lead to a

WP:BOOMERANG situation, given I have done absolutely nothing wrong. As per your request I will not be contacting you on your discussion page. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi there, just a note about the {{by whom}} maintenance tag you removed earlier today. That was one of several that I had put in to illustrate problems with the article that I was discussing on the GAN review page. It was just one of several illustrative examples I added at the time. The reason why I added the tag to the "Prior to the crash, the system had shown signs of deterioration, with general concerns being expressed about its maintenance" sentence is because it does not identify who is expressing concerns about its maintenance. That's the problem with writing in the passive voice; the reader is left to interpret the context of who the subject of the sentence is from the context of the sentences around it. Unfortunately, in this article, no context is given, and it's important to identify if it was independent structural engineering consultants, government regulatory officials, opposition politicians, local media, or surly teenaged bloggers who had been expressing the concerns about the maintenance of the system. The linked source may explain who is saying that, but the article doesn't, which is why I used that as an example of needed copyediting in the article because WHO is saying that is in many cases as important as what they are saying. Hope that explains things for you. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a misunderstanding of the use of "by whom" tags here. The use of the "by whom" tag is intended for unattributed opinion, not for passives which lack agents. The fact that concerns were raised is not an opinion, it is a factual statement supported by sources. It may be that the article could be improved by adding an agent, in which case feel free to read the source and add them if they are present. However, a "by whom" tag is incorrect in that particular case. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Manual of Style (

MOS:PASSIVE

), while allowing some exceptions, suggests that the passive voice "should still be avoided when it is not needed".

The {{by whom?}} tag militates against vagueness and against magical explanations. In-line citations do not always resolve such deficiencies - especially if they lack quotations. Does a referenced author hold the stated view? Or does said author simply record that some unnamed person in darkest Slovakia once held that view for a short period of time? Or even: does the referenced author clearly and specifically express the view of 99.7% of recognized experts in the relevant field? Perhaps we should introduce a {{passive voice crime inline}} tag to supplement {{by whom?}} .

The verb "to be" has its uses - especially when making dubious claims. Unfortunately, it can lead to ambiguity or to dogmatism.

WP:MOS

recommends "using straightforward, easily understood language". Encyclopedic language, in fact.

- 131.203.251.134 (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP user, I welcome your decision to finally engage in discussion after a number of notices were left at your various user pages. The manual of style is rather clear that passives are encyclopaedic, and indeed, that very page uses a large number of them.

There are very many cases where a passive is preferable to an active verb. The most obvious being to maintain the focus on the object of the action. In the article on John Lennon "John Lennon was shot and killed by Mark Chapman" is infinitely preferable to "Mark Chapman shot and killed John Lennon". Also, when the agent is obvious "Mick Jagger was arrested in London in 1973" is far superior to "The police arrested Mick Jagger in 1973". I have had to undo dozens of your edits which have made similar changes, and I'm sad to say, at certain points the weakening of the prose approached vandalism.

As a linguist, the sentences 'the verb "to be" has its uses - especially when making dubious claims. Unfortunately, it can lead to ambiguity or to dogmatism' lead me to question how it is that we can be doing our job so badly. It would be incumbent upon us to educate the general public out of such bizarre nonsense, but obviously we are failing to do so. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedian wishing "to maintain the focus on the object of the action" may indeed elect to use a passive construction - this might have advantages within (say) complex sentences. However, a Wikipedia article on (say)

WP:BOLD

) to edit mercilessly (as the saying goes) may re-focus (possibly temporarily) on the subject of an action - potentially resulting in additional details and clearer, more lively expression. Does converting a passive-voice construction to active voice remove any information? Can such a conversion add value?

What an excellent example: 'Also, when the agent is obvious "Mick Jagger was arrested in London in 1973" is far superior to "The police arrested Mick Jagger in 1973".' The "far superior" example informs the reader that an arrest occurred, but remains vague about the circumstances. It may seem reasonable to assume that police made the arrest - but even so - which police? The Metropolitan Police? Scotland Yard? The Vice Squad? Some drug squad? The secret police? Some military police? A local Constable Plod with an established record of corruption? Or did someone make a citizen's arrest - without any police involvement? In some such cases, identifying the arresting party may become important, or even simply interesting. A small amount of precision might help the reader flesh out the context and avoid some of the vagueness. But very many passive-voice constructions perpetrate vagueness - the sort of vagueness which the {{by whom?}} tag also abhors.

The concept of "weakening of the prose" by disfavoring passive-voice constructions may involve personal preferences. One school of thought associates the passive voice with weakness - note for example "If lively, evocative verbs are better than inert, weak ones, it follows that verbs in the active voice are better than their passive counterparts." (page 88) Do Wikipedia guidelines offer an opinion on the matter of "weak" prose?

MOS:PASSIVE

does state the general rule: the passive voice "should still be avoided when it is not needed".

- 131.203.251.134 (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The passive is very often needed, maintaining focus on the subject of the passive being one such case which is specifically mentioned in MOS:PASSIVE. In cases where the subject of the passive verb is also the subject of the article, it is almost never wrong. As for your question regarding who arrested Mick Jagger, if the distinction was genuinely important (it usually isn't) we could explicitly state the agent "by the Metropolitan Police" without weakening the prose.

In terms of the style guide you quote, the text is not written for encyclopaedic language, which, like academic prose, uses the passive much more frequently. Even so, the text is merely the opinion of one person, which they do not follow themselves. Go through that book and see how many passives the author uses, try pages 39, 62, 81, 87, 100, 101, 103, 104, 125, 127, 193, 245, 323, 348, 363.... and given I only searched for three common passive terms and stopped a third of the way through the third one, I can safely say that every single page of that book contains a passive verb form. Many of these could easily be rephrased as active verb forms, but the writer does not do so because they judge that passives are better in these cases.

The problem with what you have been doing is that you have been implementing blanket changes to passives without considering these factors, this has damaged many articles. In addition to this is your bizarre exception to the verb "to be", which doesn't seem to follow any rule in the wikipedia MOS. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have apparently yet to find a Wikipedia guideline on "weakness" - or an answer to the queries as to whether converting a passive-voice construction to active voice necessarily removes any information - or whether such a conversion potentially adds value.

I apologize for giving only a single example of a school of thought which associates use of the passive voice with weakness. More than one generic or specific guide propounds the idea that active-voice constructions generally appear "stronger" and passive-voice equivalents relatively "weaker". For example:

* "In the active voice, the stronger form, the subject of the sentence takes the action of the verb. ... In the passive voice, the weaker form, the subject is acted upon."

* "The active voice is also stronger and more compelling than the passive voice. In fact, combining the active voice with strong verbs, limiting the use of the 'to be' verb, will create more persuasive and memorable language."

* "The passive voice also weakens the message."

* "The active voice reduces wordiness and makes your writing strong and interesting. The passive voice is more formal and impersonal, makes your text wordy, and is often unclear in meaning."

And so forth.

Encyclopedic language - like much formal text, even style-guides - can fall into an unnecessary habit of passive-voice use. (I myself can write sloppy English on occasion.) Even George Orwell resorted to passives: "[...] despite his advice to avoid the passive, Orwell's essay ['Politics and the English Language'] employs the passive voice in about 20 percent of its constructions." ([4]) So your statistical overview does not surprise me - nor does it invalidate the considered opinion of many advisors who recommend - in general - the active voice over the passive. The Wikipedia Manual of Style concurs: it notes common use of passive-voice constructions, even in encyclopedic prose and in focus issues, but in general advises editors to avoid them.

I wonder whether academic prose - in the same way as theological discourse - inherits part of its partiality for passives historically from the Latin language, whose passives come in concise morphological forms which may affect style.

Allow me to sum up: Passive-voice verbs have their uses - and thus "blanket" substitution would fail. No Wikipedia guideline on "weak" prose has emerged. Maintaining focus on the subject or object remains a matter of individual preference - like so much else, including alleged "damage" allegedly caused by edits and including the use (or otherwise) of bland verbs like "to be".

MOS:PASSIVE

remains in force: the passive voice "should still be avoided when it is not needed".

- 131.203.251.134 (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify, sometimes replacing a passive verb with an active is justified, but the way you are doing it contradicts the MoS, which is clear that the passive is needed in many cases. Your other alterations find no basis in even a misunderstanding of the manual of style, and are simply your personal aversion to the verb to be.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS does not prescribe passive-voice usages - it merely notes a limited number of cases in which editors may choose to prefer them. Thus:

• avoiding an
  WP:MOS
  suggests (not requires) "rephrasing to use passive voice may be preferable".
• avoiding
  WP:MOS
  profers as one of several possible alternatives: "The passive voice may sometimes be used instead". ("May" not "must".)
• "in encyclopedic material, where its careful use avoids inappropriate first- and second-person constructions, as well as tone problems. Passive voice should still be avoided when it is not needed [...]." Here the
  against unneeded passive-voice constructions
  .
• keeping "the focus on the subject instead of performing a news-style shift to dwelling on a non-notable party"; where
  WP:MOS
  notes a stylistic trap - one which editors can often avoid with a little re-writing. Generally, Wikipedia consigns non-notable parties to an un-Wikilinked limbo, but they may still play a role in fleshing out an article.
• "to avoid leaping to certain-sounding conclusions from uncertain facts"; here
  WP:MOS
  highlights the standard Wikipedia requirement for verifiability, a guideline surely familiar to all but the most casual Wikipedia editors.
• minimizing "how-to" instructions in
  medicine-related articles
  : "Instead describe the guidelines and procedures in a reader-neutral manner, perhaps by using passive voice"; where the word "perhaps" suggests passive use as an option, not as a requirement.

On the other hand, we also find other Wikipedian recommendations against using the passive voice:

• in
  video-gaming
  articles: "Use active voice and avoid passive voice."
• In a former section of the Manual of Style: "Certain weasel words require a sentence to be in the passive voice [...] Most critically, editors should not use passive voice constructs to avoid attributing words or actions to the appropriate speaker or subject, or to omit any other important detail from a sentence." - (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Clarity)

Overall, Wikipedia recommends using active-voice constructions, while noting/permitting a limited number of passive-voice uses.

Did I miss any important Wikipedia policies/guidelines on voice preferences?

The

prescribe or proscribe

use of the verb "to be" - it does recommend in general terms "straightforward, easily understood language" (rather than convoluted, potentially vague passives or arrant assertions). If you can point to specific policy-strictures on my editing, please do: it might help me to avoid causing wrath which can appear - to me - unjustified. Personal preferences will inevitable creep into edits (and into reversions) - the Wikipedia mission remains to produce understandable, concise and clear text.

- 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your wall of text shows you are able to read the MoS with regards to the passive, without demonstrating any basis, I note, for your bizarre personal aversion to the verb to be. However, your editing behaviour frequently violates any reasonable interpretation of the above guidelines. Particularly your reversal of passive constructions designed to maintain focus, to which you have added an interpretation not present in the MoS.

Please make the above screed your last post on my talk page, it is clear you are committed to your decision to make wikipedia worse, I don't think there is anything more to say. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boynamedsue, You reviewed Levantine for GA in July 2021. Since then I improved it a lot and after promoting it to GA I recently nominated it for FAC. I would love if you could have a second look at the article and provide some feedback. Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added and clarified considerable content and added sources in these articles and made the subjects the focus of statements to improve the articles. I tried to be accommodating to your repeated edit that the subjects were UK peers with what I thought was a compromise that encompassed your edit without tautology. However, you then reverted the lead to a version with content you clearly didn't support in your previous edits. You suggest there is a "content disagreement" between my edit and yours but the only difference in content was your inclusion of a statement that the subjects were British peers with a link to UK peerage article. However, I included those points and link in my last edit, so there really was no "content disagreement". I note you have indicated you have no strong opinion on the notability of the subjects. Please consider what is really notable about the subjects and that my latest version attempted to encompass your edit. Thanks & regards. 115.42.10.126 (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my message on your talkpage. Content discussions should be on the article talkpage. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paddy Pimblett 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/Paddy Pimblett (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.

Cassiopeia talk 23:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there @Boynamedsue, I see you reverted a couple of

It seems we have a different understanding of this issue.

Here's how I understand it:

• an English high school teacher in 1941 writes: "these three great papers set the foundation for mechanics".
• Somebody on Wikipedia writes: "This paper is regarded as one of the three most important papers in mechanics. [cites above]"

For me, this is clearly very subjective. It is not a fact.

A fact would be: "a high school teacher in 1941 considered this to be one of the foundational papers of mechanics."

I find these kind of authoritative statements very misleading and uninformative, as it at first glance implies something very important has been said, when in fact it is just one person having a subjective opinion.

How do you see it? Maybe I misunderstood. :) 'wɪnd (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also

• WP:NPOV
• WP:Embrace_weasel_words#When_not_to_embrace 'wɪnd (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled what the problem is here, if you feel there is opinion which should be attributed here, just attribute it. This is usually a better course than tagging. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to clarify. My intention is to understand, I'm new here. You clearly seem more experienced.

If I understand you correctly, you say:

1. If an opinion is stated with a valid source, then never tag.

2. If an opinion is stated which does not seem like a

WP:NPOV

, then add attribution. For example, I would write "a high school teacher in 1941 considered this to be one of the three foundational papers of mechanics."

Did I understand you correctly? 'wɪnd (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if so, the tag seems to have been appropriate here, no? An opinion was stated without attribution. 'wɪnd (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the difference between opinion and fact is not as clear as all that. The whom tags are there to stop vague claims and the opinion of one person being passed off as a factual statement. So if, for example, the vast majority of specialists in a field consider something to be true, but the thing itself is fundamentally unknowable, then we can use "is considered" without attributing it. An example of that is here.

That also goes if the source is reliable and uses language similar to the phrase, so if the text says "It is thought that Columbus's third ship was painted blue" then we are ok to use language like "Columbus' third ship is thought to have been painted blue" and it should not be tagged, because a reliable expert has said exactly this.

If the statement looks to you like it might be the opinion of one particular writer, then you can simply attribute it to that person. If it looks like it is not a particularly useful thing to say, or the writer is not sufficiently notable to include their view, then you can simply delete the information. If a person is published in Nature (which I believe is the person you are referring to) then whatever jobs they may or may not have performed during their lifetime, the best way to introduce their opinion would be along the lines of "Joe Bloggs, writing in the journal Nature in 1941, stated that...". Nature is a very good source and more or less confers notability on any view it publishes.

In terms of the last example, I made a judgment call in removing the tag and the hedging (is considered), my view was that the work was "major" was not an opinion, given its importance and length and the bibliography of Archimedes. I don't think "major work" is an opinion there, except in the fact that "major" is an abstract concept of importance apportioned by humans which can not be scientifically measured. I don't believe the contrary opinion is seriously held (I may be wrong there, but that obviously doesn't enter into the question of why I removed the tag). The whole article is unsourced there, which is a much bigger problem, there are tags which go at the top of the page for that.

Does that make sense?

Boynamedsue (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue I appreciate you laying out in such detail your thought process. It took me a little bit to digest yours and others' information, but now clarity is emerging, as for where my opinion and the consensus might differ.

At first, I felt a bit put off by how you removed the the tags and first answered me, since I needed more kindness and respect. But now I see that you're actually very thoughtful, have sound opinions, and do deeply care. Thank you, I do very much appreciate you helping me see that.

The three texts I found most helpful were

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. For example, arguably, Nature is a very reliable resource for cutting-edge peer-reviewed research, but not necessarily for history of science. 'wɪnd (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@'wɪnd You are welcome, I apologise for being a little too short in my first answer to you. I thought you were an editor who had much more experience on wikipedia, as people don't usually get round to things like tagging until later on in their careers. If I had checked your history I would have taken the time to explain the way I saw things first time round. I wish you all the best for the future. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am contacting you because of a discussion about etymology on another website, Final Fantasy Fandom. That wiki gives a definition of etymology, followed by a link to Wikipedia etymology page (their page here), and then features 2700 etymologies (list here), almost all of them being similar to these three:

• Etymology of absolute zero: Absolute zero is the coldest possible temperature. More formally, it is the temperature at which entropy reaches its minimum value.
• Etymology of fire: Fire is the rapid oxidation of a material in the exothermic chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various reaction products.
• Etymology of Shiva: Shiva (also spelled Śiva) is a Hindu god. The Hindu Shiva once saved the world by consuming poison, giving him blue skin around the area of the neck and throat. [etc. etc.]

Are these three examples etymologies, or not? Since you are an active member of Wikipedia Linguistics Project, your opinion could solve the discussion (if you prefer to avoid any involvement, just write it, I will understand). Thank you in advance for your time and attention. --Abacos (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abacos, that's a really interesting question.

If we look at the FF wiki page which defines the FFwiki etymology category like this "Etymology is a section of coverage and namespace on the Final Fantasy Wiki. It is used for the etymology - the study of the origin of words - of terms in the Final Fantasy series, to explain where the names of terms in the Final Fantasy series originate and show where influences are drawn from." - well, yes, all those "etymologies" would fit the definition. Whether that exactly squares with the way the word is used in linguistics, I would say probably not. An etymology would look at the past iterations of the word and trace its history back as far as possible, the etymologies on the ff wiki seem focused on giving a precise definition of what the term means outside of the FF universe rather than the history of the word.

However, a case could be made to say they are etymologies, in the sense that, if someone asked me the etymology of the word

etymon

, Irish "pota", meaning pot, but it is kind of an etymology. The FF wiki etymology pages are giving that information, sort of, even though it is not their main focus. They do give the last step of the path that took the word into the FF universe, so a case could be made that etymology is not entirely incorrect as a description of what that series of articles do.

Might I enquire as to the nature of the debate about this on the FF Wiki? Boynamedsue (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your nice answer. A short summary of the debate is: my position is that FF-etymologies are not etymologies, because en etymology is the history of the form of a word (or the history of the phonological changes of a word), while the position of FF Fandom is that etymology is just the origin of a word. They refer to the Wikipedia Etymology page as their only evidence, despite the fact that it contradicts them. Therefore, I provided further evidence from other websites (the Online Etymology Dictionary, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, the Wiktionary), and they accused me of "acting as though you are the arbiter of the definition of the word "etymology"". --Abacos (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abacos Sorry for the late response, I've been on holiday. Well, I think to a degree you are probably right in the sense that this is not what a linguist looks at as etymology. But on the other hand, there is no ready term available which means "definition of a word immediately prior to its adoption into another language/jargon/sphere", which is what the people at FF fandom want, so choosing "etymology" is not that bad an option. It's not right linguistically, but fandoms alter the meanings of words all the time. In your place I would probably take comfort in the fact you are right, as shown by the answers other wikiproject members have given you, but accept that this online community is taking the term and giving it their own meaning. This happens a lot with words which are borrowed between languages, a language belongs to a culture and therefore a word's meaning can shift to suit that culture's needs. I suppose subcultures (of which fandoms are a variety) must work in the same way. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the passive voice issue and wish you luck with it. As a fellow EFL teacher, the editors who needlessly change stuff to active voice have always peeved me. One tiny point, it's 'with regard to'. 'Regards' are good wishes. That's another pet peeve. :) NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was unable to find the cited book on line, but I trust that your change is accurate. pburka (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pburka, you are welcome. Here is the link for future reference, it is page 172. --Boynamedsue (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone makes a claim that flies in the face of everything known of dialectology in general and Romance dialectology in particular. They need to supply a very good source or correct the claim. The tag invites anyone who wishes to 'discuss'. I can put up a little notice in talk to start that along. Meanwhile, please leave the tag. The feature dubious-discuss is Wikipedia's, established for good reason, including warning ingenuous readers that the statement might not be trustworthy. It's meant to be used. Thanks. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You literally are drive by-tagging. You tagged with^{[dubious – discuss]} and then didn't discuss. If you use that tag, you should always leave a reasoned argument on the talkpage for why it should be there, based on the content of reliable sources. If you had done so, the tag wouldn't have been removed. If the reality is different in reliable sources, you could read the reliable sources and edit the text so it reflects them and add them as citations, this is much more constructive than tagging. Driving by and dropping tags on articles is of no real benefit to the quality of the article, and if you don't take the time to justify them, them others have no obligation to leave them there. -Boynamedsue (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let's drop the drive-by nonsense, which can just as well be claimed, somewhat less erroneously, to immediate deletion of a purposeful tag. As for actual substance, I don't disagree that it would have been better for me to have elaborated a bit of explanation in talk. I do disagree that a warning of 'dubious' is of no benefit, as stated clearly above. We can bicker endlessly over this: "if you don't take the time to justify them, them others have no obligation to leave them there", and apply -- or not -- the same principle to not just harmless tags, but to misinformation in actual article text, or modify it to something like "If you don't understand why the tag is there, leave it alone for the attention of those who do". But like this back-and-forth now -- one peremptory declaration vs another -- , such bickering is a waste of time. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking on Google Scholar, it seems exceptionally common to describe Bearnese as a form of Gascon, I would suggest that you find a source for your point of view, or the tag's going to disappear. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Béarnais is a form of Gascon. No quibble whatsoever with that. The text claims something quite different. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So in that case why did you tag instead of fixing the text? If you had invested the amount of time you have spent on my talkpage complaining about my removal of your drive-by tag in improving the article, the text would actually reflect exactly the language you wish to see. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. I do now see the external link I missed earlier when I called your quote uncited, so I will strike the word.

2. I truly do not understand the dislike of Denisova you seem to display. Nor do I understand how it would somehow be more respectful to say that “official x says that rapes were reported in city X, but official x was fired from her job.” Maybe there is room for civil discussion there.

3. When a government official makes a statement about something, they are, to my understanding, a primary source. They can be quoted but secondary sources are preferred, and considerations of weight apply, such as whether the remarks are on a topic that is within their expertise and/or jurisdiction. In general, a reporter tends to assume that a Ukrainian general is an expert source on the Ukrainian military, for example. This doesn’t mean they speak the truth and nothing but the truth, which is another question of weight, sure. But if you have reason to not believe them then this needs to be cited and the question becomes whether the controversy is integral to the topic of the article and notable enough for inclusion.

For example, somebody who wanted to support a statement about the emblem of the Azov Battalion used a reference to a Deutshe Welle article about a man arrested in Belarus for wearing a Marvel Punisher T-shirt because the policeman thought it was the emblem of the Azov Battalion. Clearly the policeman is not an expert on the emblem of the Azov Battalion, and while Deutsche Welle is a fine source, the article was about the lawsuit over the arrest not the emblem of the Azov Battalion.

But Denisova’s job was war crimes. My thought is that she is material to the war crimes article but not pivotal to it. Her dismissal can’t be ignored but it also isn’t as important as war crimes reported by secondary sources. It would, in my opinion, trivialize these rapes to inject her into every sentence about them. This is why *I* have been getting angry with you. There have also been suggestions elsewhere, not by you afaik, that all statements by Ukrainian officials need to be “verified”, as though they were naughty children who clearly might lie. But you should not be on the receiving end of irritation caused by someone else. So if you have not done this, I am sorry about that.

4. Let’s agree that the topic is upsetting

5. Let’s process that Wikipedia may ^weigh* but does not *verify* reporting by news sources.

6. I’d also like to mention that when I ask about language issues, this is not intended as an insult. I spend most of my time in Wikipedia on language and machine translation. My expertise in French, and I have made cautious forays into Spanish and Portuguese because we seem to lack speakers of those languages. I do not claim to speak Italian though, beyond the ability to recognize it, and perhaps its topic, and it gives me a headache. I do sometimes, even more cautiously, attempt to remediate machine translation from other languages. Anyway, I can see that slang might lead to misunderstandings, and will try to avoid it when talking with you as you requested

7. I am glad you are now saying “in part” because of her rape statements, but I can’t make a binary agree/disagree statement about that, because I believe that the administration felt that her time was better spent elsewhere, not, as you seem to think, that “unverified” is a euphemism for “untrue”. If you care enough about such crimes to be offended by discussions of them, perhaps you are aware that they are often dismissed and are at best difficult to prove.

I am posting the above in all humility it hopes it helps. Elinruby (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this, and your edit summary. What content would you say was removed? John (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really remember. From looking at the diff before the one you link, nothing stands out. It might be that the format that the user uses for references could have caused me to miss some information that was added after the new format citation? Boynamedsue (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not misgender me with "they". My pronouns are published, so please use them accurately. Elizium23 (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for any offence caused, but this was not a case of misgendering, it was a use of "they" for an individual whose gender I was not (and still am not) aware of. This is standard English usage which I will continue to follow. As this is clearly important to you, I will be happy to edit the comment to reflect the pronouns of your preference should you advise me of them, as they are not immediately clear from a quick scan of your userpage. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your careful and thoughtful recent edits on Modafinil, curing a bad case of tagging bloat amongst other simplifications. I've been ignoring my watchlist for a few weeks, so it's good to know that Wikipedia is working exactly as it should, with another editor catching what I missed. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot DAP, all the best :) Boynamedsue (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike out the word "sniveling" as this, ironically, constitutes a personal attack. I would advise you to stop editing in areas you feel passionate about for a while, because your edits and attitudes are very much falling foul of

WP:BATTLEGROUND --Boynamedsue (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Romani people in Hungary, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello here is a very interesting article about them:

https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2721940/view Nafteta (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Nafteta, that's brilliant. I'll look at it and see if I can add something about them to the article, unless you want to try yourself? --Boynamedsue (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up, this user has confessed to being a sock puppet of banned editor Nalanidil. TagaworShah (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:TagaworShah. The ban was nothing to do with the question of Horahane Rroma was it? It does seem reasonable to include information in the Romani people in Romania article, but if there is something else going on I will proceed with caution. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure, all I know is that Nalanidil was banned for disruptive editing and that included information about the Horahane but if you want to add information from the source in your own words, go for it! TagaworShah (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to help me with Rfca neutrality. Mikola22 (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello Boynamedsue: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа! ~ Meri Kirihimete!

Hello, Boynamedsue! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a

Happy New Year!

Hello Boynamedsue: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Boynamedsue,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Joseywales1961, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people (UK), for deletion, because there's already a page about that topic at Gypsies, Roma and Travellers in the UK. Please don't be discouraged; we appreciate your effort in creating new articles. To avoid this in the future, consider using the search function to find pages that already cover what you want to write about.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Joseywales1961}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Josey Wales ^Parley 19:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted already with the other article bing deleted, thank you Josey Wales ^Parley 19:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edit here [5]. I actually now realise that I only added the tag because I misread the text as saying "It has been recorded that the Jarawa and Sentinelese languages are mutually *intelligible*." So my bad, and thanks for your work on Wikipedia resolving over a thousand tags.^{[verification needed]} -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, that was actually a correctly applied tag, and it is now fixed. "Not mutually intelligible" is much stronger than what the source says and it was

WP:WEASEL words. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Your evidence at Venezuelan politics is currently over your word limit of 500 words. At my count you are about 700 words.

If you are planning on any other evidence, you will need to request an extension to your word limit. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz:Hi, thanks for telling me. Do I not count as an involved user? As I understood it that is 1000 words.--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are only a "party" if you are listed on the main page of the case under the parties section. Everyone else, even if considered traditionally involved, are subject to the 500 word limit. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers @Dreamy Jazz:. I've cut it down to 500ish now, should be fine? My only concern is the last 16 diffs which are based on claims which are in sources but have been surreptitiously deleted. Obviously from the diff, it may not be clear what the text in the source is. Will I get a chance to explain this down the line if necessary?

BTW, do you have any idea what has happened with WMrapids? Can't find any mention of them in any of the usual noticeboards where people might get blocked. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trimming your evidence to 500 words. If the arbitrators have questions about the diffs, they will ask them if they feel the need to do so. WMrapids was blocked based on

checkuser evidence (as denoted through the reason for the block). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]