User talk:Chrisahn

Task-focused interface discussion

I responded to your comments. Would be good to get additional input from you in light of the updates. Beatmik (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorporating the DoD Guantanamo names

I saw that you wrote that the DoD names hadn't been posted to our article. I think we have to do this with caution, because the DoD list is marred by many errors.

I will put a more detailed note on the talk page.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 19:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Joshua Bloch

Someone asked on IRC; the verbose biography as posted earlier today had some personal information which was probably a bit more than intended (family details, etc) so I nuked the dubious revisions for them. Nothing too exciting, I'm afraid, pretty routine stuff... Shimgray | talk | 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was around when these revisions were still online - I don't remember seeing anything in them that is not in the current version....??? Chrisahn 22:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty minor stuff by such standards, as I recall - personal names? - but a justifiable worry. No large chunks of text, though. Because of the way deletion works, I can't compare diffs to find out. But the chap in question was very worried, he seemed to have been talking to the other editor in question, and it didn't seem like too much of a big deal...

November 2009

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article DBpedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DBpedia

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is DBpedia. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DBpedia. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

DBpedia

Good idea pasting it over, thanks! --Jonovision (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Money as Debt

In my opinion, it's bad form to remove references, even if you think they are not reliable, during an AfD. Please let the other editors see the references and decide on their suitability themselves. An editor in the previous Afd thought the Atlantic Free Press reference was acceptable and so do I. By removing it, you may bias the AfD. Please put your thoughts about the sources in the AfD rather than removing them. Yworo (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Sorry.Chrisahn (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money as Debt (3rd nomination)

I wish to thank you for you recent comment at the AFD, and agree that is sad that some folks believe in some of the most ludicrous concepts imaginable. But folks do have the right to believe in nonsense... and as long as the article does not promote the film's content as science or economic fact, and continues to state that it is simply a veiwpoint created by an animator, we will be okay. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

IP block exemption

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chrisahn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm frequently at Sankt Oberholz café in Berlin, whose ISP seems to be blocked. That's cool as far as I am concerned, but I'd still be able to edit when I'm logged in. I understand that I have to ask for IP block exemption. Could you please exclude me from this IP block? Thanks! P.S.: Here's the start of the message I'm seeing: Editing from 80.237.128.0/17 has been blocked (disabled) by DeltaQuad ... ˜˜˜˜

Decline reason:

We can't do it this way. You should either find another place to log on, or wait for the block to expire, and go request it at WP:IPBE. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks for the quick response, Daniel. I can't edit your talk page, so I hope you will see this.

I'd like go request it at WP:IPBE, but WP:IPBE#CONDITIONS points me to WP:APPEAL, which says the preferred way to appeal a block is to use the {{unblock}} template, but you can also contact the blocking administrator via email to request unblocking or alternatively submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Do I have to go through UTRS?

P.S. as for find another place to log on - of course there are other places, but I often work at this place. It would be sad if I couldn't edit WP for hours on end. wait for the block to expire - it expires in 2015... :-( Chrisahn (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Chrisahn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'd like to request unblock again. See above. The reason given by Daniel Case - "We can't do it this way" - is extremely short. Did I do anything wrong? I'm an editor with good standing, and I'd like to be able edit Wikipedia even if others at the place where I work are Wikipedia vandals. :-) Chrisahn (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

IPBE granted. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I have never used proxies or made disruptive edits, and I won't. I installed HTTPS Everywhere to make sure that my account is safe in open Wifi networks like at the place where I work. Chrisahn (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tecumseh's Confederacy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I know you're a bot and won't read this, but anyway... I'm just starting to use the visual editor. It's pretty cool, but in this case, it confused me. I thought I had selected a non-disambig page for the link, but apparently I hadn't. Thanks for pointing this out, DPL bot! Well done! Chrisahn (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Money as Debt for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Money as Debt 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/Money as Debt (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.

Talk:American History X

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments quite clearly states:

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.

Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

Which of the examples applies in this case?

Chrisahn (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC) ==

• None of the passage you selected applies. what DOES apply is further down (keep reading): "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: It is still common to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) and test edits, as well as harmful or prohibited material as described above." the portion removed "...or is Wiki just an ovary for Republicans and racist ideology??" doesn't even make sense, nor does it contribute to the improvement of the article. It's part gibberish (not making sense) and part rant. In short, it is completely unhelpful and removing it isn't out of line. Why do you feel it needs included? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the words aren't very civil or helpful, but I wouldn't call them gibberish. It's fairly easy to see that the writer probably meant "outlet" instead of "ovary". A few lines further down, there's this sentence: "-5000 miles from home on a public computer not logged on my name." Just as nonsensical. Should we delete it? I think not. Chrisahn (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

And I think so. His poorly worded, POV response to a comment made 4 years ago doesn't help at all. That comment should have been archived long ago except that nobody has set up an archive yet. The sentence provides no value whatsoever and solely expresses his political POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw this exchange on the recent changes page. Considering how old this comment is, and that it is not a personal attack, it could have been left alone. Really, the best thing to do is to create an archive, add time-date stamps to the unsigned comments, and archive all these old discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: We have a different understanding of WP:TPO then. I again reverted the deletion initially made by an IP. This discussion is already about 50 times longer than the sentence in question, and I hope we can just leave it at that. Chrisahn (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently we do have a different understanding. And if you can give me even the slightest value for that comment, I'll leave it alone. But "because it's there" doesn't cut it. I think I set up the archive correctly. (it's been a while) The bots should sweep it all up soon. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

So your policy is "if a comment doesn't have value, I am free to delete it". Is that correct? Chrisahn (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for your comment

Hi! I see that you commented at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/London_Buses_route_549. You may be interested in commenting at this new Article for Deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Chrisahn. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

List of sex gangs

Sorry, you can't use A3 on a properly constructed list. The purpose of a list is to contain links to articles, and that is what this does. One part of A3 is for articles that only contain links that are on the net - that is often a form of advertising or promotion. Lists of articles are a part of the indexing system on Wikipedia, and while some can be regarded as 'listcruft' (when they are lists for the sake of making lists, this one does bring together a load of articles with common factors. Peridon (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

A3 applies to an article that "consists only of external links". There is no text, 27 external links, 11 links to other Wikipedia articles. While that's not "only" external links, it's over 70%. Chrisahn (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I was right that it shouldn't be deleted, though. Thanks for sorting it out and removing the stuff that didn't belong. Peridon (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not a good list. It should be organized by location at least. Directing the user to a (definitely incomplete) list of ALL group rapes (in alphabetical order?) is not nearly as relevant as how it was before, where it showed all of the ones in the UK. This should be reverted or at least sorted by location. Or perhaps a separate list for group rapes in Britain (and it's very likely that that list will grow). Patric.m (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Sure, go ahead and group the list by country. Be bold. Or maybe create new pages List of sexual abuses perpetrated by groups in the UK, List of sexual abuses perpetrated by groups in the US, List of sexual abuses perpetrated by groups in Europe etc. Chrisahn (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, you should probably discuss this at Talk:List of sexual abuses perpetrated by groups where others can find it. User talk pages are meant for messages concerning a user, not an article. Chrisahn (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point, cheers. Patric.m (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Chrisahn. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Lightning

I'm not a native speaker of English about that "10 GW of energy". Also I can read "3 million volts per meter", that's right, but still no info about amperes.--Carnby (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Carnby! Thanks for your message.

The problem with "10 GW of energy" is not related to language, but to physics. Watt is a unit of power, not of energy. Saying "10 GW of energy" is like saying "10 km/h of distance".

I agree that not all the info you added is already in the article, but the source you gave is very likely a self-published source and thus not a reliable source and not allowed. Sorry. If you find a better source (maybe something like Scientific American?), we could add the data to the article. It should probably be added to the existing data about amperes etc., which already has some info about amperes, but not about volts.

(Just for the record - we're talking about this edit.) Chrisahn (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, the best place for discussing the content of an article is the article's talk page, in this case Talk:Lightning, where others will see the discussion. It's unlikely that others will join here on my user page. Feel free to create a new section on Talk:Lightning, or move this discussion (including my response) to a new section on that page. Chrisahn (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Chrisahn. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Deborah Bone

Deborah Bone?? What makes you think an article that has existed for years suddenly needs to be deleted? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I've declined the speedy deletion; there are at least two credible claims to importance. Remember that this is a much lower bar than notability. Fences&Windows 01:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm still surprised. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

16

About this edit summary: the edit is fine (why the IP wants to complicate things?) but in fact 16 is an element of every finite field, as is every integer. (Sometimes it has a simpler name, like "0".) --JBL (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! The article finite field says "a finite field is a field that contains a finite number of elements". In that sense it's not true that every integer is an element of every finite field.

If I'm not mistaken, one could say that the elements of a finite field are the integers 0..p^k-1. That's why I wrote that 16 is not an element of every finite field.

But if we treat a finite field as a set of congruence classes of integers, then every integer is an element of one of these congruence classes. In other words, every integer is an element of an element of any finite field. I guess that's what you meant, and of course I agree.

Or one could say that every finite field has an element for which "16" is a valid name (but that name does not necessarily designate the integer 16). Anyway, we basically agree. I'm just being picky. Chrisahn (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that the integer 16 is an element of an element of every finite field, but what I meant is the last thing you wrote (that the symbol "16" represents a thing that is not an integer but is an element of the field -- I guess I shouldn't have said "as is every integer"). Anyhow, what's the internet for, if not for cat videos and being excessively pedantic about things that don't matter?  :) Happy editing, JBL (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and I can't find even an irrelevant little mistake in your response that we could squabble over, so I guess we'll just have to agree to agree. How disappointing. ;) Chrisahn (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Fight Against the Right. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I clearly indicated on each of my edits why I deleted that particular part of the content. There simply is no content on the page that passes Wikipedia's criteria. Also see this message from 2013. But ok, I won't blank it. Chrisahn (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Animal-industrial complex

I saw you (as did I) deleted some of the recent spamming of Animal–industrial complex being added to any and every "animal" article without regard to whether or not the topic is even relevant. The animal rights people have been expanding their "wallpapering" of Wikipedia. I can't quite pinpoint what is the policy that is being violated with this, but it sure doesn't seem right. Do you have any insight? Normal Op (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It depends on what's added where. I sympathize to some extent with the animal rights movement, but my opinions or beliefs are as irrelevant as anyone else's when we're editing Wikipedia. We must not let our opinions guide our editing, and we must not abuse Wikipedia trying to push our agenda, whatever it may be.

I'd say the article Animal–industrial complex (and to a lesser degree Critical animal studies) violates WP:NPOV in general and WP:UNDUE in particular, possibly even WP:FRINGE. As far as I can tell, the term animal–industrial complex isn't relevant and the article should be deleted.

Regarding "See also" sections - MOS:SEEALSO says: The links in the "See also" section should be relevant. The word relevant links to MOS:BUILD, which says: Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?" As far as I can tell, the concept animal–industrial complex is rather a fringe idea, so it almost never should be included in a "See also" section. -- Chrisahn (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything you wrote. The Animal-ind complx article is rather new and came on my radar because they added it to something on my watchlist. The article was very esoteric and almost impossible to understand. Now they've added it to the Template:Animal rights, and are adding that template plus "see alsos" to every article related to animals, especially animal production for consumption articles. I'm about ready to take it to the Village Pump to see what the rest of the WP community thinks about it all. I think I'll do some more trimming before I do that, though. Thanks for the input. Normal Op (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems they have added Animal–industrial complex to Template:Meat (along with about a dozen other AR and ethical vegan articles) so that trying to determine which pages link to AIC produces a list of 713 articles! In reality, there are probably 28 articles left to check. Normal Op (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I didn't know about the insource search parameter. I'll have a look. -- Chrisahn (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing. I love that search method and use it regularly to find all occurrences of, say, a nonRS website. I keep a sample search bookmarked in my web browser so it's always at my fingertips. Normal Op (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Good job on catching those SYNTH passages in the AIC article. Normal Op (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there's been lots of garbage on that page, e.g. unrelated and/or misquoted sources. I tried to clean it up as much as I could.

I also removed lots of spurious links to that page. I think the links that are left are OK.

But I still think the article should actually be deleted, just like Category:Animal industrial complex was deleted soon after it was created. -- Chrisahn (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree it should be deleted as a FRINGE topic. But no one can accuse us of not doing any BEFORE work (I put in my few hours work about 10 days ago). Maybe give it a few weeks and then nominate it for AfD if no better sources show up? Normal Op (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring in Discrimination template

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rasnaboy (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Awarded for your meticulous work in cleaning up several articles recently. I like your style. Normal Op (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Value stream management

I'm working on the body of the Value stream management page, including references, now. I'm the author of the Project to Product book, which describes the body of work, and this page is all original content and good references describing the new discipline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatmik (talk • contribs) 21:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I replied on your talk page. -- Chrisahn (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for tagging Draft:Value stream management. :)

Snowycats (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Help

Hi Chrisahn ! I am User:Helppublic Recently, one Article viz., Royapettah created by me was accepted as an Article for Creation. I am in the process of improving the article. Meanwhile one User: Rasnaboy, edits the same article. But I feel the User deletes most of the article Subheadings and data and copyedits from other articles (I feel so), and adds images related to articles such as Thousand Lights Mosque, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, and Royapettah Clock Tower, Chennai. So, I reverted the images and data irrelevant to it. Now, the User send a message to my talk page and blaming me as edit warring. In this regard, I request your suggestion. Thank you. --Helppublic (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

My edit on Abuse of power

Hey Chrisahn, I see you reverted my edit on Abuse of power. I'm working on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, which uses a bot-generated list of links to disambiguation pages. Because Abuse of power links to Abuse of Power, it shows up on that list, even though the link to a DAB page in this case is intentional. That also means that different editors working on the project will keep needlessly looking for this DABlink in the future, because it stays on the list. However, making it link instead to Abuse of Power (disambiguation) stops the bot from reporting the link; it understands that the DABlink is intentional if it explicitly links to a '... (disambiguation)' page. That was the purpose of my edit. Hope that clears it up! Lennart97 (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I suspected something like this, but didn't quite understand it. I reverted my revert and added a note so that others hopefully won't revert again. :-) -- Chrisahn (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! Lennart97 (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Convert

Not being picky ago, but since you seem to know about good talkpage behaviour: [1] this is not the way to do it. And since you ask me what I think: ... ask me then. -DePiep (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with my edit or my comment. I made a suggestion about conversions between bits and bytes. The suggestion was misunderstood, the thread got deranged into one of these age-old discussions about WP:COMPUNITS. I'd love to add this conversion functionality, but I'm afraid if people think this is about WP:COMPUNITS, it will never happen. That's why I politely asked to close the discussion. When I have time, I'll start a new approach for this suggestion. I archived the discussion. See Template_talk:Convert/Archive 2#Bits and bytes. Please don't add it to the talk page again. Thanks. -- Chrisahn (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You know it is disputed, still you reverted. That is called WP:editwarring. (To be clear: you are not the one to decide about closing a discussion you are involved in -- started even). -DePiep (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

No, you cannot editwar and discuss. So please restore the previous version, the one without your superiour edits. After that, you can argue. -DePiep (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Input Welcome on Discrimination talk page

Hey there Chrisahn. Any input you have is welcome on the Talk:Discrimination#Adding Species section since you've covered this a few months ago during the Discrimination Template discussion and were referenced as an editor by the OP of the section (and you've thanked me for my edits on the topic), you may have something to say on the topic, perhaps help resolve the dispute or anything. Delayed Happy New Year by the way. Sdio7 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a slightly updated copy of my comment from Template talk:Discrimination. Of course, the common meaning of the word "discrimination" hasn't changed since that long and detailed debate in October 2020, so I hope we can put the new discussion to rest soon. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Chrisahn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@Drmies: I think there's a misunderstanding. Please have a closer look at what I deleted here. Here's a quick timeline: Walrus had started a meta discussion, and I responded. Now Walrus removed my response, but kept Walrus's initial comments. It's fine with me to remove that meta discussion, but then we must remove all of it, not just my part. Removing only my comments is not OK. So I went ahead and removed the rest of that meta discussion. I simply finished what Walrus had started. Please unblock me. Thanks.
As for the comments I had struck because they didn't provide any arguments, I already said here, here, and here that this was a misunderstanding and an error on my part. I won't strike such comments again.

Accept reason:

Unblocked--but with the caveat that "meta discussion" is not a term I subscribe too. I have faith that no further disruption will follow. Happy editing. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyone looking for why the thread was moved by me, can see my response in the thread above. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You're saying the discussion starting with your "note" was off-topic, and I agree. That whole discussion, including your initial "note", was off-topic. Now you removed my comments, but you kept your "note". That's not OK. I simply finished what you had started: after you had removed my response, I also removed your "note", because it's off-topic. That's all. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn, I understand that this edit where you tried to remove my comment led to the block. VQuakr has also tried to explain this to you in the long thread. Yet you continue to claim that you did nothing wrong with your removal. In the unblock statement, you have not mentioned that you will no longer attempt to remove it if unblocked. Please clearly confirm, if you still intend to remove the note and complete your "unfinished" business. Walrus Ji (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walrus Ji: When you deleted my comments from two sub-threads, you violated WP:TPO. (You tried to justify your action by WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, but you misread that policy, as I explained here.)

The two sub-threads were: 1. The thread about your note "Chrisahn seems to have taken it upon himself...". 2. The thread about your sentence "No more pussy footing, grab em". The subjects of these threads are quite different, so let's look at them separately.

1. The thread about your note "Chrisahn seems to have taken it upon himself...". I agree that the note and the thread it started is off-topic. It doesn't add anything useful to the discussion about a new page title. I can think of three ways to deal with it:

1. Remove it completely. I think that would be the best solution. (If you want, you can of course move its original content to your talk page and link to it.)
2. Restore it to its state before you deleted it. I think that would be the worst solution.
3. If you insist on keeping the off-topic note in the discussion about the title, I'll add a short comment to explain what happened. The whole sub-thread would then look like this:

• Note: User:Chrisahn seems to have taken it upon himself and is actively striking off comments that he does not like. He is neither an admin nor has any basis to do that. Accordingly I have reverted him. Others might want to keep a check on his actions on this thread. --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I had struck (as in struck) three comments that were not sustained by arguments except per User X. I thought striking such comments was common practice, but I was wrong (striking is only allowed for duplicate comments by the same account, and a few other rare cases). Walrus Ji reverted these comments to their original state, which was the right thing to do. Thanks. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

2. The thread about your sentence "No more pussy footing, grab em": All comments (yours and mine) in that thread are on topic – we're talking about your arguments for the title "insurrection". Please restore this sub-thread to its state before your deletion. (If you want, you can move the extended discussion we've had here to your talk page and link to it.)

After we've put this whole mess behind us, I'll remove everything related to it from my user talk page. If you want to keep the content of #Meta discussion about my !vote or #Meta discussion about the note, you can move it to your user talk page. (Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding: Do not copy anything else from my talk page to yours.)

Which of the three solutions for sub-thread 1 do you prefer? — Chrisahn (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn, replied at the bottom of the page, where new comments are placed. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment from involved admin: I support unblocking, although I think Chrisahn should back off a bit and take a breather from that particular talk page. It's just a debate about a subtle non-momentus one-word change to the title of the article, in which the original title, the proposed title, or another alternative are all adequate. If the name changes or not, it isn't final, and isn't the end of the world. After a week or so, another debate will start. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I had already reduced my involvement with the discussion when that silly fight between Walrus and me started. And I agree with the rest of your comment. I've said something similar a few hours after the start of the debate:

We can't have another move request while this one is open, so I'm afraid we'll have to wait seven days until it fails, and then we can have a new request that meets WP:NCE and has a better chance of succeeding. Well, so be it. As you said, the current name isn't terrible. We can live with it for another 14 days.

:-) — Chrisahn (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Please explain why you blocked me. You wrote: "Disruptive editing--continued removal of comments from article talk page after the rules were explained." I understand that my striking of comments was an error and disruptive, but that had long been reverted when you blocked me. Later Walrus Ji removed several of my comments from the talk page because they were off-topic (I agree), keeping only an initial note (by Walrus) and a link to the original content (that Walrus had copied to my talk page). I simply removed the remaning note by Walrus (which was off-topic as well), but I kept the link to the original content. I don't think that was disruptive. EDIT: But it would certainly have been better if Walrus and I had tried to find a consensus on how to deal with that off-topic stuff before deleting each other's comments. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

For disrupting the talk page. But I appreciate your last comment, and will unblock. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! (The term "meta discussion" was introduced into this debate by Walrus to describe a thread that had supposedly gone off topic, so I used it as well. But as we saw here, it's hard to find consensus on whether something is a "meta discussion" or on topic...) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn, in case you have not noticed yet,No other Admin or page watcher (among the hundreds I reckon) reverted my edit where I MOVED your WP:OFFTOPIC comments from the Article talk to your user talk. I take it as a consensus and silent agreement with my decision to MOVE the off topic comments. VQuakr even tried to explain it to you, why my comment that was left was not off topic. I humbly request you to drop this now and move on to more productive work. If you want any of my comment that are still on that page removed, you should ask an admin to do it for you, rather than doing it yourself. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

VQuakr didn't state an opinion about whether any comments were off-topic. The conversation between VQuakr and me was about a different question. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Walrus Ji, you've pinged me a couple of times here; I don't think there is any need for you to keep doing that. I don't think there is anything for me to add to this section: more non-admin opinions here aren't going to help anyone, and the playful jab-trading tone I took earlier with Chrisahn isn't really appropriate to continue now that there has been admin action. VQuakr (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

VQuakr, noted. Chrisahn for the same reasons, please do not expect any further response from me on this talk page or this issue. Walrus Ji (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walrus Ji: That's fine with me. If you change your mind and you want to add anything here in the next 24 hours, that's OK. But after that (starting 24 hours from now), DO NOT EDIT MY USER PAGES IN ANY WAY. In particular, DO NOT ADD ANY SECTIONS TO MY USER TALK PAGE. (Of course, I'll stay away from your user pages as well.) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions violation

Your edit here is a violation of the discretionary sanctions at Donald Trump, which prohibit reinstating controversial edits within 24 hours after they have been challenged. You are aware that they were challenged because you commented at one of the talk page discussions about them. Please self-revert, or you risk being blocked. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)