User talk:Darouet/Archive 5

Article opinion
Hi,

Since I said I will stop commenting on the WIV page I will write to you directly here. I wanted to have, if you have a bit of time, your scientific opinion about the paper we discussed. Since you are an expert in the field, I want to know if you think the results they had are credible, and maybe a bit of what it could imply. The main result, if I understood correctly is that there is no evidence for an intermediary host. That the virus was already well adapted when it entered the market in Wuhan. This strikes me because before this article and before all the fuss around the sample destroying and the mask hoarding I was believing what everyone else believes, that the jump happened at the marker from a pangolin. From what you know about the virus, do you think that an incident involving an employee could have happened? Because I found interesting evidence online about mobile geolocalisation data that could lead to think there was an incident in october around the WIV. For about a week there was no traffic around the center at all, as if they had implemented roadblocks and such. It's from NBC, and they say experts have doubts about the results. I want to try to replicate their results and see if something like that could have really happened. I found the tencent public geoloc database and I will start crunching numbers soon on my computer but I wanted to have a second opinion. I will leave links to both documents I reference here.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.073262v1.full.pdf https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/report-says-cellphone-data-suggests-october-shutdown-wuhan-lab-experts-n1202716 Geoloc report: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6884792-MACE-E-PAI-COVID-19-ANALYSIS-Redacted.html

Thanks! PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * China's national holiday is in the beginning of October. People get an entire week off. The fact that the people who wrote that analysis didn't know this basic fact about China tells you something about the reliability of the rest of their analysis. It's like finding fireworks on the 4th of July suspicious. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * China national holiday was Oct.1-Oct.7 https://publicholidays.cn/2019-dates/
 * This report says that the window for the incident is Oct.6 - Oct.11 with absolutely no traffic on Oct.14-Oct.19. Why didn't you look at it before writing your comment? PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * That overlaps with the national holiday, and many people go on longer vacations. This year's holiday went through Tuesday of the second week of October. It would not be at all surprising or uncommon for people to take advantage of that and take vacation on Wednesday-Friday. It would be much more surprising if people did more than the minimum necessary work to keep the lab going over the holiday.
 * The report you're citing has been heavily criticized, for not knowing about the Chinese holiday schedule, for basing its conclusions on a tiny number of phones, and for falsely claiming that a conference was canceled. There's a lot of poorly grounded, wild speculation floating around right now, which I hope will not be incorporated into Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi evidence for an intermediate host between humans and bats is equivocal: we need to sample a greater diversity of coronaviruses in bats and other animals to make such a determination. That's part of what the WIV has been trying to do, not just recently, but for many years. It's theoretically possible that the virus emerged from the WIV but scientists consider the likelihood of that scenario to be vanishingly small. Instead they expect the virus to have evolved in nature, like every other coronavirus known to have jumped from animals into humans in the past. The reason this is so much more likely outside the laboratory is that the number of coronaviruses outside the lab, and the number of their interactions with human and livestock, are almost infinitely greater than those occurring in a lab. I recommend that instead of searching for conspiracy theories to explain the origins of the virus, you read what scientists have to say on the topic. This is the best place to start, but you should read the scientific articles themselves, which are free. -Darouet (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, You seemed to have assumed I am searching for conspiracy theories. Please be respectful if it was the case. I know that the interactions outside of the lab are very much likely to occur. But because of the thick smokescreen the Chinese government is seemingly placing between the western scientists and the Wuhan samples, I started to have legitimate doubt. It was recently revealed in the news lately that they purposefully destroyed early samples of the virus. It was also stated that they shut down the institution that released the genome of the virus. The American secretary of state is saying that there is evidence (which cannot be verified of course) that the virus originated from the lab. The Chinese government spokesman tried himself to push the US virus conspiracy theory. And they have been strongly rejecting the demands for an independent investigation. With all these informations, it is normal to express doubt about the transparency of the Chinese government. Someone that has nothing to hide would not have acted that way. This is all. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Fatima bint al-Ahmar 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 04:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Palaiologos 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 17:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Natural sciences Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hurricane Barry (2019) 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 02:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Saida Muna Tasneem on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Fatima bint al-Ahmar/GA1
Hello, sorry for bothering. I notice that the Fatima bint al-Ahmar review is still open for a while after my last response. Do you plan to do another round of review, or are you ready to make a decision? HaEr48 (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you that's very kind of you! Have a good day and stay safe. -Darouet (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 20:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Killing of Manuel Ellis
Hello! Your submission of Killing of Manuel Ellis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Demagogue&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Killing of Manuel Ellis
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

About "Killing of Manuel Ellis"
Hello, Darouet!

I saw that you reverted nearly all of my changes to the article Killing of Manuel Ellis, stating that "Almost none of those changes are helpful." I disagree, naturally, and I am going to elaborate on my intent in a couple of instances.


 * 1) I uncapitalized the word "Church" in the sentence: "He reportedly called his mother, brother and sister separately after leaving the church." In this sentence, "church" is not a proper noun and I see no reason it should be capitalized.
 * 2) Towards the end of the article, there is a sentence that begins: "Members of the Ellis family and officials from the NAACP said they wanted more information on Ellis's death and reform..." This seems misleading to me, as though they wanted information about Ellis's death and Ellis's reform.  I maintain that my edit: "Members of the Ellis family and officials from the NAACP said they wanted more information on Ellis's death and called for reform..." makes the meaning much clearer.

These are perhaps the most clear-cut examples of why I think my edits were improvements.

Other more debatable points (in rough order from more meaningful to more trivial):
 * a) I still think that the lead paragraph is overly long and could be shortened. And it is a fact that much of what's there is repeated-- often verbatim-- later in the article.
 * b) I think that describing Ellis as African-American (or black, or Black) within a notable sentence is preferable to pulling this fact out into a stand-alone sentence: "Ellis was black."
 * c) I think that including mention of his children is not necessary; this fact is irrelevant to his death, the subject of the article. I understand why one might want to include this fact-- it heightens the poignancy, tragedy and pain of his death, but it seems to me to be a non-neutral addition to an encyclopedia article.
 * d) In the medical examiner's statement, I see nothing that the word "further" adds to the meaning. In fact, I think that each of the four changes I made to this sentence lends clarity.
 * e) I modified the punctuation of the witness's recorded words to be more grammatical.

I will admit that I suspect that you reviewed my changes very perfunctorily. I do not plan to make further edits to this article. I think that my edits fixed one error and added clarity in several other places. If you agree, I hope you will restore my edits. Or improve even further on them! - Jkgree (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The Grayzone
Re: your post at RS/N, I questioned DreamLinker's linkage to both DSA (beyond ridicule in a RS/N discussion) and the infinitely unhinged Idrees Ahmad during the last RS/N discussion on The Grayzone. No one bothered responding to or citing my refutation of DL's verbal diarrhea post, and some (even established users such as Buidhe) even cited DL in their !votes! Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 15:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks in that RfC, there were many votes in favor of options 1, 2 or 3, and there was no consensus for 4, deprecation. It was shocking to see so many extraordinarily poor sources presented as evidence against the Grayzone. My suspicion is that the RfC close will ultimately be overturned by a new discussion, but I haven't had the time to initiate this process yet. -Darouet (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can ask around for proof of their editorial controls. As to how unhinged Ahmad, he described Alan Kuperman, who provided testimony to the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee in preparation for their HC 119 (report on the 2011 military intervention in Libya), as a "neocon fabricator", which is more of a projection of himself. Mehdi Hasan tweeted ( albeit in response to someone else ) there was no substantive basis to question the fundamental conclusions of the Committee, and look at Glenn Greenwald's assessment of Ahmad. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 15:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - ANI
Hi Darouet. Please consider joining the discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I'm trying to get all the disputes and edit-warring under control. Are you aware of other spillover around this dispute in other articles? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rerum Germanicarum libri tres 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 11:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cai Lun on a Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 01:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Shooting of Greg Gunn&#32; on a "History" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 16:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Phraates IV&#32; on a "History" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Natural sciences Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Paranthropus robustus 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 00:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Natural sciences Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Charles Corydon Hall 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 11:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Natural sciences Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Australopithecus bahrelghazali on a Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 04:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Natural sciences Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Lek mating&#32; on a "Natural sciences" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Natural sciences Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Garudimimus&#32; on a "Natural sciences" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 23:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Zak Smith on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Winona Ryder&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 16:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Jeffrey Epstein&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 11:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Question
Hi, Darouet - re: WikiProject Countering systemic bias - is it a worthy endeavor? Atsme Talk 📧 16:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks for your note! I think it might be one of the most important projects here at Wikipedia, but sadly, I've hardly contributed to it. Most of my work on this front has been the creation of a few articles describing settlements, political events, or natural history in sub-Saharan East Africa. I have a lot more to do there.
 * In general, my biggest concern is that we hardly manage to represent the relatively narrow diversity of viewpoints found in the United States, the UK, Canada or Australia... and those countries combined amount to c. 6 % of the world's population. This imbalance is reflected in the fact that almost every small village in the UK has a Wiki article about it, but towns with tens of thousands of people in sub-Saharan Africa, and for much of the developing world, don't have an entry. The imbalance naturally extends to nearly every aspect of Wikipedia. The new craze of deprecating English-language and international news sources, rather than using our old RSN method of level-headed commentary on a case-by-case basis, certainly represents one of the most worrying trends at the moment.
 * Of course, this bias is to be expected, and most if it I presume is not the result of malice. Wikipedia itself will contribute to solving the problem in the long term. But we should have a more active editorial emphasis on the international character of Wikipedia. The turn away from the parochial, the familiar, even the official: this characterized the first encyclopedic project of Diderot.
 * Sorry for the monologue :) Hope your editing projects are going well! -Darouet (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do so agree with everything you just explained, and appreciate your "monologue".😁 You are a natural for that project, and if I can help, count me in. I have always appreciated your sentiments, the manner in which you express yourself, and our mutual respect despite our having opposing views from time to time. I see it as the result of being able to keep our biases at login, and for me, it was a blessing to have had 35+ years of hands-on practice doing just that until it became second nature. Speaking of practice, I'm reminded of a modified slogan I used back when I was a scuba instructor: perfect practice makes perfect. It doesn't seem like much, but it speaks volumes. Oh, and there were a couple of other modified slogans I came up with..."panic kills" which did make the impression it was intended to make. For laughs, I'd slip-in the occasional where there's a Wills, there's a way (a play on my last name). Anyway...if I find some extra time, I will certainly explore the possibilities and ways I can contribute productively to this project. Happy editing! Atsme Talk 📧 17:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you are too kind Atsme! My contributions here are a tiny drop in the bucket compared to yours. In my experience, scholarship and kindness are crucial here, and thankfully that can be found among editors with what I assume are many different political backgrounds.
 * I could never manage scuba diving by the way: the best case scenario would likely be death even under optimal conditions. Panic would be the first item on my agenda! Strangely enough — excitingly, actually — diving is being used in my field more than it was previously (I don't know that researcher personally). In the mean time the closest I've gotten to the ocean recently is Blue Planet II... -Darouet (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John and William Merfold
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John and William Merfold you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you let me know how I can help! -Darouet (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made a first round of comments at talk:John and William Merfold/GA1. On the whole, nice work! Eddie891 Talk Work 13:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

ONUS
Hello Darouet, FYI, there have been many disputes over the years over the interpretation of WP:ONUS at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, with some on the current page just recently. Personally, I believe that once consensus has been achieved for added text, ONUS is fulfilled, and removing that text (in the middle of a dispute) before achieving a new consensus would be a violation of WP:NOCON (and WP:ONUS in spirit). I believe that the policy as written, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion", refers to newly added text which does not yet have consensus, not text which had consensus and whose inclusion is now being challenged. I believe that if consensus text is removed, that edit should be reverted, and it would be inappropriate to reinstate the edit which removed the text. I don't know how many more experienced editors share that interpretation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

, you might also like to know that there isn't a consensus on what WP:ONUS means. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 09:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Muhammad Iqbal&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Involuntary commitment&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 16:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Devi Sridhar&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Meh
I'm not up for getting into a sniping session on AE, but srsly? You should know by now that no drama process on Wikipedia allows anyone to restrict scrutiny to the specific editors they want removed. If you don't see that the problems on that page are bigger than SPECIFICO then that's fine, but you know you can't stop others from doing so. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey Guy, that's true, and I agree with you that the problems at Julian Assange are bigger than SPECIFICO. At the same time, I ask that editors abide by discretionary sanctions: not because this resolves all problems, but because it tends to promote discussion and engagement, rather than edit warring. I know you're a smart and very capable person, and I'm not meaning to get on your case too hard. I just had to mention you because, since you added DS to the page, admins, and editors like myself, have to look to you for support — but you've expressed views regarding Assange and DS that open the possibility that DS may be enforced selectively. I understand that your goal is to, among other things, promote reliable sources on Wikipedia, and though we sometimes disagree on the specifics, I strongly support that goal and your efforts to further it. -Darouet (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, in certain arenas I've seen that your advocacy there has been phenomenal. -Darouet (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And as an example, here is an instance Guy where we disagreed, but I 100% understand your perspective, and think you were probably right in the end. -Darouet (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do believe you're acting in good faith according to your best analysis of the siutuation, but I also get the strong feeling that SPECIFICO is dug in because he feels that if he walks away then POV-pushers will get their way - and I have no doubt that Thucidydes and the others feel the same way in return. I think it needs fresh blood all round. The continued battles there are not benefiting anyone, especially the reader. Just my $0.02. And yes, people do listen to me ($DEITY knows why), so I also usually keep away from that page. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not how things are supposed to be handled. The confusion among editors is beyond the pale, and not conducive to productive editing. Add to that, (sorry Guy), admins who have a very strong & dominant POV, & involvement in the topic area. We will continue to have major issues, like we are seeing now, as long as this type of behavior is allowed. Let's cut to the chase and eliminate the problems, beginning with POV pushing. Darouet's position is absolutely correct, but at the same time, there is mass confusion among editors regarding Awilley's custom sanctions in that topic area which are tainted by POV, inadvertent or otherwise. Deny it all you want, but it exists, and so do the consensus issues, not to mention the RS fiasco but I will not litigate the latter here. BRD/1RR/CR should not be malleable and neither should enforcement of them, so if we're serious about such sanctions, then enforce them. If not, and the intention is to enforce them according to an admin's preference, it's time to get rid of them all together, and stop using AE to support a particular ideology.  Atsme 💬 📧 19:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The place to adjudicate all these concerns would be ARCA. The DS have had some good effect, but with a lot of collateral costs and damage. It places undue burdens on the very small numbers of Admins who volunteer at AE and as I think we all know the definitions of revert, consensus, and other foundational principles are matters of good-faith disagreement even among very experienced editors. And that's before we get into RS and DUE issues. At the least some thoughtful condideration of Arbcom's DS approach would be helpful.   SPECIFICO talk 13:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it needs a full-blown ARCA case. I see -0- benefit in DS AE that normal admin actions can't resolve. DS AE creates confusion and prevents other admins from reversing an action.  Atsme 💬 📧 16:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's now also a discussion on the talk page of Admin Swarm. I think this all needs to be consolidated in one place and as to all relevant issues. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

I wish
Seriously, I wish I had your manner and grace. I can't help but tear-up when I read some of your brilliantly executed comments - succinct - with the beauty in brevity that you command. Wow! And I do so appreciate your honesty. You are very special, Darouet. Thank you for all you do. Quite frankly, even if you had gone the other way, I would've paid very close attention, thanked you for your honesty, and would have quietly modified my approach...but I think you already know that - maybe it's intrinsic knowledge not unlike two dolphins communicating thousands of miles away. Just call me Flipper!  Atsme  💬 📧 19:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for your very kind note, though others had better comments, I thought. Rather than further dwell on the spectacle of humanity that is AE, I suggest this wholly unrelated text — "Clevinger was guilty, of course, or he would not have been accused" from Clevinger's Trial — hope you enjoy it. -Darouet (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow! It's sad being able to relate to it, but the similarities made me laugh. Thx for sharing.  Atsme 💬 📧 23:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Orville Hungerford&#32; on a "History" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 04:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Natural sciences Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Tropical Storm Ampil&#32; on a "Natural sciences" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 09:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Natural sciences Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Purple-crowned fairywren&#32; on a "Natural sciences" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 10:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Tommy Robinson (activist)&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 15:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

R.H. & S.E. Bartley
Are you still intending to dispute the highly partial and rather inept Camarena close? I would appreciate being kept informed when you do so. Cambial foliage❧ 21:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * done - and notifying you as you've requested. -Darouet (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
This comment of yours should be moved elsewhere (its own subsection below the long-closed rfc maybe?). As a courtesy, I'll give you 24 hours to do it yourself. 78.28.44.204 (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John and William Merfold
The article John and William Merfold you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:John and William Merfold for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Slow as Christmas!!
Thank you so much ! Hope you're holding up well. Any new diving projects? Did you see this quirky octopus movie? Happy holidays and New Year to you and your loved ones. -Darouet (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Conrad Black&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment, and &#32;at Talk:Cyrtophora citricola&#32; on a "Natural sciences" Good Article nomination,  and &#32;at Talk:Flag of Raleigh, North Carolina&#32; on a "History" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 15:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Tether (cryptocurrency)&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Question for you
If an admin approached you for approval to nominate you for RfA, would you? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 20:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey that's very kind of you to ask — I know I wouldn't be able to do it. There are two main reasons — the first is that I don't even have time right now for my favorite thing at Wikipedia, which is content creation. I think about a few articles a week that I'd like to write, but I don't have time to do it. If I don't have time to write those articles, I definitely don't have time to admin. The second reason is that all the things I do right now don't require admin responsibilities. If there were ever a time where I was intensely involved in specific anti-vandalism efforts and those would be aided by admin responsibilities, I might ask; but I don't foresee that happening any time soon.
 * I hope that doesn't come across as lazy or shirking my responsibilities here — I know how much others put into the project and I do want to help them as best I can. But if I don't have the time myself, I can't ask others to invest it on my behalf. -Darouet (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A National Merit for you!

 * Thank you ! Hope I can do more soon. -Darouet (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Byzantine–Venetian treaty of 1277&#32; on a "History" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 10:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Natural sciences Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Peloneustes&#32; on a "Natural sciences" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 00:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Drew Pinsky&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 into Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Diannaa - I've now pasted notices at both pages . You can see that my edit summary when copying the information — "Highly relevant, from SARS-CoV-2. You can learn so much from Wikipedia!" — was quite explicit, informing editors that the information was coming from our Wikipedia article for SARS-CoV-2. But I could have been even more explicit still, and will certainly leave notices on the relevant pages when doing this in the future. Thanks for your help. -Darouet (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In the future, if you could use the exact article title in your edit summary and wikilink it, that would be perfect. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, Diannaa. -Darouet (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John and William Merfold
Hi, I hope you're OK with me giving the article some attention, which has languished in the doldrums for a month or so. I'll tackle the issues raised in the review in a few days, unless I see you have restarted work on them. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC) I have been an awful colleague, failing to reply in the hope that I might work further on the article, while also failing to do so. You are very generous, offering to help, and I will be grateful for all you do. I noticed that some of the edit requests involve adding more detail or specific page references from the book by Michael Hicks, "The Wars of the Roses." Do you have access to that book? It's a phenomenal reference for the period and gives context to the Merfold brothers. With best wishes for the New Year, -Darouet (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, the book is now linked within the article (also here), so it's not a problem. Regards (and Happy New Year), Amitchell125 (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John and William Merfold
The article John and William Merfold you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:John and William Merfold for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Quad
Hi Darouet, I have seen your response to my structure comments. I need some time to write out the response and don't have it right now - will likely be later today. Cheers, speak soon, Morgengave (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:L. L. Zamenhof&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment, and &#32;at Talk:Republican Party (United States)&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment,  and &#32;at Talk:JP Sears&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment,  and &#32;at Talk:Ring chromosome 22&#32; on a "Natural sciences" Good Article nomination,  and &#32;at Talk:Calvin E. Lightner&#32; on a "History" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Moldavia&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 10:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Elon Musk&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Le Van Cho for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Le Van Cho 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 Articles for deletion/Le Van Cho 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. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)