User talk:Elinruby/Archives/2020/September

Car Wash from 40,000 feet

Hi, Elinruby, I was wondering if you could take a 40,000-foot view of the situation with the Car Wash suite of articles, and see how they look to you, and whether they need some adjustments? I say "suite of articles" now, because there's the main article, Operation Car Wash, and then the two articles we worked on in draft, the "Offshoots" article, which was released in January, and the "Phases" article, which was just released Sunday. And then, there's the new nav template, {{Operation Car Wash}}, which is partly a translation of pt:Template:Lava Jato and partly a redesign and extension of it. These seem like the "Big Four". There are a few additional supporting articles, like Odebrecht–Car Wash leniency agreement, Brazilian Anti-Corruption Act, Caixa 2, Condução coercitiva, and I may have forgotten some others.

This frees me up to go back to the French Drafts still open: Draft:Government of Vichy France and Draft:Liberation of France, (and one German/French one: Draft:War guilt question—which is a really fascinating topic—the French article on it is a "Featured article" and worth a read). I recently released Sigmaringen enclave, which was fun, and instructive. I'm also open to expanding Brazil coverage in areas outside of OCW, but you know a lot more than I do in this area, so was hoping to hear your thoughts on all this. Mathglot (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Decided to open this up on the article talk page for wider input. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Operation Car Wash § Status of Car Wash articles: where to from here?

@Mathglot: possibly Tuesday. Need superficial skimming today and will be tied up tomorrow. But yeah, didn't forget any of that and will do a session soon. Elinruby (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

No rush. Just an addendum, to mention that the former Draft, now article, Government of Vichy France, is available in mainspace. Plenty of stuff still to do on it, including integrating it better (more in-links), as well as tidying and consistency between different sections. I'm working on getting redirects set up, that will connect the four French Vichy government articles to the four "government" sections in the article. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

BLP warning

I have removed material from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pío López Obrador that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written pursuant to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. Fram (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fram: I will notify you if I decide you are worth reporting. Most likely, since you appear to conflate reliable sources with sources you have heard of, and this is a serious problem. AGF that you care and are not being paid by the hour. Meanwhile, you do realize that I have nothing to do with this article, right! I was there because I was working the uncategorized queue ;) But now I *am* going to take an interest, because now you are not only ignoring reliable sources in Spanish, but on English as well. Ta ta.

Elinruby (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Pio Obrador

Thanks for your support. The article is very short, and I have expressed my opposition to its removal.Calmecac5 (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

They are not reading the Spanish. If they understood it they would not be saying it has nothing to do with Brazil Elinruby (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

oh hey. I just recognized you from Operation Car Wash. I am going to go see if I can link in to this from one of those pages.Elinruby (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - Sanctions related to BLP information

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:William L. Mercereau on a Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project invites you to join us again this October and November, the two months which are dedicated to improving content about the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly list your username under the participants section to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap fillers - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:22, 22nd September 2020 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

War of 1812

Various comments you have made to me or about me can be seen as personal attacks. Could you please avoid commenting on other editors and stick to commenting on article content on article discussion pages and content noticeboards. In addition to hurting people's feelings, personal attacks are a distraction from discussions about article content. TFD (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: says the man who called me a liar and deluded. You don't seem able to see the issue with this behaviour and that's an observation, not an attack. How about you answer a question about your sources sometime? Read the policies you are citing? These are specific examples of observed behavour, not personal attacks. I actually agree that a topic ban may be in order, since everyone else in the article seems able to discuss. Elinruby (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest cooling it. There are a lot of folks on noticeboards that can or know someone that can swing a ban hammer. We might disagree but sheesh who wants that?Tirronan (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't want that for anyone and I probably do, but I don't want to go there. What I want is for this article to be accurate so how about let's edit collaboratively and find a point of agreement. Any of the following for example: Canadian history, is that a thing. At all. And I am being told that no it isn't. Or hey, is it ok to discuss military strategy on an article contained in three military history categories. The answer is that yes, we do a lot of that actually and for some reason we aren't allowed to use military strategists as a source? Does that makes sense? I have God help me edited enough military history articles to know one when I see one. So solving that one would be a start. I just added this to US foreign relations, btw, and there are a few others it should have. Sovereignty law for sure if there is one Elinruby (talk) 05:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Since the issue has not been resolved, I have brought it to ANI and you may reply there. TFD (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

War of 1812

Your recent editing history at War of 1812 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. TFD (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not just do a second revert within twelve hours? I'm actually declining the edit war you are trying to bait me into. Take it to a noticeboard of you disagree. But I am busy right now, sorry. Elinruby (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The part of BRD you are not getting is "discuss" -- try again. Elinruby (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Elinruby, you can safely ignore this misplaced user-warning template.

User:The Four Deuces, I have responded to you at your Talk page about misuse of warning templates. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)