User talk:Dervorguilla

MIT Crime Club


This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of MIT Crime Club, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: "MIT Crime Club". It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)}}

Speedy deletion nomination of MIT Crime Club
A tag has been placed on MIT Crime Club requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of MIT Crime Club for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MIT Crime Club 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/MIT Crime Club 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
Hello Dervorguilla. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article MIT Crime Club, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 23:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good points, Cindamuse. I think you can understand why I took pains to include the most relevant information in my User Page.

"Special Interests … • MIT Crime Club (past member & project-team advisor) Full Disclosure of Interests I declare that neither I nor any member of my immediate family has a significant financial interest in any … entity discussed in my edits or in any competing … entity."


 * The Club’s activities have been reported on at length by the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Boston Magazine, and PI Magazine.


 * I have no current affiliation with the Club. And I don’t attend its meetings.  I do seem to have a relatively encyclopedic knowledge of the “factual information [in] third-party articles” about the group.


 * If the articles are authoritative and the information is factual, should it get published? --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledgment of COI
I do have a real or seeming COI: I’m a past member and advisor of the group, and I’ve sponsored projects led by other members. Fargen (June 2009) and Schwartz (Sept. 2009) have identified me as “one leader of the group” and as “the club’s ringleader these days.” (The information is no longer current; I haven’t been a leader since Jan. 2010.)

In accordance with WP:COI I’m going to (a) submit a proposed edit for review on the article’s talk page along with a Request edit or (b) file a request for comment. I’ll be doing so for one year or, if appropriate, indefinitely. (The policy does not apply to noncontroversial edits.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Swartz deletions
Would you please reply to the concerns I've expressed here? Thanks. David in DC (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(Reply thread here.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Aaron Schwartz (2nd nomination)
Can you please explain what you are trying to do with the article Aaron Schwartz? If you don't believe that Schwartz played a Czech officer in a movie when he was 4 years old, and a forensic pathologist when he was 6 years old (and I don't believe that, either), then why did you add that information to the article? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Warning about edit warring
Your recent editing history at Aaron Swartz shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yworo (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Intentionally adding misinformation to articles and knowingly misusing sources
These are both grounds for immediate blocking. You know that don't you? Do it again, and I'll take it to WP:ANI. Yworo (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Aaron Schwartz. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Because of Devorguilla's change of their unblock request after my decline, in my view Devorguilla reverted four times in the article. I make this point for Devorguilla's benefit; again, they would do well to read very carefully the WP:3RR policy and, in particular, what constitutes a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Also remember that you are not entitled to three reverts; you can be edit-warring, and were, with fewer. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Out of compassion, I'd like to point out that you were blocked for 24 hours at 00:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC) and it is now 01:49, 18 February 2013. Have you tried editing? :-) Yworo (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In the interest of clarity but particularly editor education, first, I never acknowledged that Dervorguilla did not revert 4x, and in my comment after the decline, I said she had, although I will acknowledge that one of the reverts is hypertechnical (the third) and would probably not be counted as a revert by most admins. Second, I think it's great that she reread 3RR, but her analysis of it is incorrect, in particular with respect to the first edit. Dervorguilla is implicitly invoking the BLP exemption from edit-warring. That's generally a very difficult exemption to use ("What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.") and in this case doesn't apply - at least I wouldn't accept it. So, at best, Dervorguilla reverted 3x, and as Bushranger correctly notes, she was blocked for edit-warring, not for breaching 3RR, and she was blocked based on the discussion at WP:ANI, which is why I noted in my decline that her edits were disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * “You can still be blocked for edit warring … should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.”


 * Good point about the behavior.


 * Dervorguilla begins editing in January ’08. No behavioral disorders.  Somehow she and  David in DC end up at the top of the Frequent Users list at Aaron Swartz, along with  HectorMoffet and  MarkBernstein.  On January 19 a visitor stops by and immediately goes to 3RR with  Nomoskedasticity (who comments: “I prefer not to go to the limit of 3RR as you have, so I won't revert for now.”).


 * On February 14 the visitor comes back and makes a string of flawless punc/fm edits. Two days later he reverts  MarkBernstein at the top of the page, gets reverted by Dervorguilla, and goes to 3RR again — while warning everyone on the page — twice — that he intends to keep on reverting.  This after Dervorguilla shows him and some other sophisticated editors that the hatnoted stub had been an unexploded bomb (UXB) from day one.


 * 22:19, 16 February 2013‎ Yworo . . (+34)‎ . . (the problem is not with the hatnote, but the article pointed to; don't shoot the messenger, fix the problem)


 * 08:20, 16 February 2013‎ Dervorguilla‎ . . (-34)‎ . . (Undid revision 538517811 by Yworo. REDFLAG, says he began working as an actor at age 4. (In 'Eleni,' as Czech Officer.))


 * 05:30, 16 February 2013‎ Yworo . . (+34)‎ . . (WP:SIMILAR, don't like it? Change Aaron Schwartz or nominate it for deletion; as it stands, a hatnote is correct)


 * 03:50, 16 February 2013‎ Dervorguilla‎ . . (-34)‎ . . (rm 'For the actor, see Aaron Schwartz.' Schwartz isn't an actor. Erroneous BLP, see Talk. Do not revert.)


 * 23:13, 15 February 2013‎ Yworo‎ . . (+33)‎ . . (disagree, commonly confused spellings, recency of addition has no bearing on the usefulness of the hatnote)


 * 23:08, 15 February 2013‎ MarkBernstein‎ . . (-33)‎ . . (Remove disambiguation tag; it was only added recently and it seems unlikely that many people will find it useful)


 * I’m not giving away any secrets here, folks. The problem is not with Yworo.  He did get the stub fixed.  It might even end up being more authoritative than the Swartz article.  ;)


 * Meanwhile could you please explain to me how to get this page rewound? I’d be much obliged. -- Dervorguilla (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep it up
If you keep up your disruptive editing, I'll be quite happy to get you blocked again. You may want to be aware that the length of block doubles every time. An indefinite block isn't that far away for you. Yworo (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

AN/I notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Improper_use_of_alternate_account David in DC (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring, as you did at Aaron Swartz. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Apology and explanation
I chose the worst possible way to try to help you in a totally unrelated matter. I apologize. Please review my interaction with the admin you contacted here. here. David in DC (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

plip!
For not closing your tag and shrinking half a page's worth of text. I think you may have been right about needing a break. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Aaron Swartz
Again. 8-(    Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
It was lovely to see you this weekend. Thank you for all of your efforts on the Aaron Swartz article, and the backhistory w/ the MIT police. (Are those docs appropriate for wikisource?) And thank you for sharing and working with us at the hackathon. I'm sorry I didn't have time to sit down and go over the article; unsurprising that it is still controversial. Ideally we would sync the tl;dr and timeline with the public articles, though they aren't in themselves citable.

Warm regards, – SJ  +  10:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing on Right Sector
Hi Dervorguilla, just wanted to thank you for your continued work at Right Sector. There hasn't been enough written yet by various mainstream/academic sources (it being a recent phenomenon), but you've done a great job making the article more professional! -Darouet (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As have you, Darouet!
 * What would you say to an RfC on the “neofascist views” question? Or to a new (sub)section that illustrates both the historical and the more current descriptions of the group in the press?
 * (For brevity, should we limit it to high-circulation periodicals?)
 * As I’ve said, you’re welcome to go beyond 3RR on reverting my edits, since I make so many of them and you’re usually the first one to spot the errors! Perhaps we should both make even more edits – but smaller ones. (So as to keep from vexing our readers.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing mainstream "neofascist" views description from Right Sector?
Hi Dervorguilla, in this edit you removed text and sources from the lead stating that Right Sector's political views are described as neo-fascist. This is despite the fact that we had a long discussion here on the talk page about it, to which you contributed, before arriving at a version we were all happy with. Previous versions included commentary from Die Welt, Le Monde Diplomatique, and Time (magazine) in addition to other sources like The Nation and The Guardian. In this edit you remove one on the basis of WP:CITEKILL while simultaneously noting that the view is a major one and therefore should be accorded WP:DUE weight. I think you should return the description to the lead citing major European papers, or otherwise explain your change on the talk page. -Darouet (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * An extremely important point, Darouet! :) Coming up, an explanation AND a two new relevant subsections on the article page. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The Time article’s still in the text! Simon Shuster, “Exclusive: Leader of Far-Right Ukrainian Militant Group Talks Revolution with TIME,” Time, February 4, 2014 (“Dmitro Yarosh, leader of the far-right militant group Pravy Sektor, says…”). --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Luhn, the author of the article in The Nation, appears to have stopped suggesting that the group is neo-Nazi or neofascist. He’s now calling it a “Ukrainian ultranationalist paramilitary group.” (As does the subject group itself.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Le Monde Diplomatique “is a journal of opinion,” not fact. So says Le Monde. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Haaretz has a paid circulation of 130,000 in Israel and maybe 15,000 in the US so it’s not a “major publication” in terms of size or extent. It’s the newspaper of record in Israel, so it’s a major publication in Israel. It does not appear to have had any correspondents in Kiev. Also, the accuracy of the cited article has been questioned. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The most current Guardian article calls it a “far-right Ukrainian nationalist group.” The authors also mention an incident where two Sektor boys were shot to death by pro-Russia demonstrators. Something to do with a “well-planned provocation by pro-Russian activists.” --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Check this: “Under the Guise of ‘the Right Sector’ Is Being Prepared a Provocation near the Verkhovna Rada,” Pravyy Sektor, March 31, 2014, 19:02. “Reliable sources received information that provocations by youths claiming to be members of our movement are being prepared for tomorrow morning outside the Verkhovna Rada and the Cabinet. There is evidence that these impostors [are] in fact Russian ‘guardsmen’, members of radical organizations [that] operate freely in Russia.” --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a statement from Right Sector itself, and might be true, or might not be. I wouldn't be surprised either way.


 * You're quite right about TIME: my mistake. As to Le Monde Diplomatique however, I spent a year in France, and it's my understanding that it's one of the most highly respected political journals not only in France but throughout all of Europe. I could be wrong though and I'll ask about it at WP:RSN. -Darouet (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it seems that the TIME quote was changed, so that now it says nothing relevant to the article. The original quote, which can be found online, refers to Right Sector's politics as quasi-fascist. I hope it wasn't you who changed it? -Darouet (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We agree, my dear Darouet, that the source in question (Le Monde Diplomatique) is indeed an RS and a highly respected mainstream publication. But is it a “major” publication compared with the six others listed? Meaning, is it as great in size, extent, or importance?
 * From Dictionary.com:
 * “major”
 * [def. 1.] Greater in size, extent, or importance.
 * Synonyms
 * The adjectives capital, chief, major, principal apply to a main or leading representative of a kind.… Major may refer to greatness of importance, number, or quantity.
 * Would LMD even seek to be as great in size, extent of circulation, or importance (consequence) as the Russian News & Information Agency, Agence Press France, the Guardian, BBC News, Reuters, Time, or the Associated Press? Or would it prefer to be greater in quality?
 * Some identified major publications (at NEWSORG):
 * Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, or the Associated Press….
 * Some major publications that are high-quality RSs (adapted from RSVETTING):
 * Journalistic entities known to have good fact-checking operations
 * Der Spiegel, the New Yorker, Time, and the Economist (book-review section).
 * One must also inquire as to whether the cited article is an ‘analysis’ (NEWSORG again):
 * News organizations
 * "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact…. Analysis [articles] … are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that … author but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
 * --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems quite clear that Le Monde Diplomatique is a major journal and reliable source, comparable perhaps to the American journal Foreign Policy. It's published under the aegis of Le Monde, one of the world's great news organization, and its editorial reputation seems clearly to be high. Clearly, if the notorious Time is a major, reliable source for foreign policy, Le Monde Diplomatique clears the bar.  In context, it is a much weightier source than Time. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * We agree, MarkBernstein, that Le Diplo eclipses Time in the weight and quality of the analysis it offers. Could you edit NEWSORG so that it pemits analysis to be considered reliable as a source for a statement of fact? Many thanks. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * no edit is needed. Just as an characterization n in Kennan's famous Containment article in Foreign Policy cam be relied upon, there is no bar to relying on an this --especially as there seems no reason for doubt. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Would you agree, MarkBernstein, that Time is greater in global ‘size’ than Le Diplo by 3,200,000 to perhaps 300,000? And in ‘extent’ as measured by number of reporters on site? And that the Guardian — one of the cited “major publications” — now calls the subject group “ultranationalist” or “far right nationalist” rather than “neofascist”? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Christine Haughney, “Magazine Newsstand Sales Plummet, but Digital Editions Thrive,” New York Times, August 6, 2013:
 * Time’s [total] subscriptions rose … to 3,240,000.
 * Dylan Byers, “Time Magazine Still on Top in Circulation”, Politico, August 7, 2012:
 * The Audit Bureau of Circulations released … a list of the top 25 magazines by paid and verified circulation.… Time stands alone as the one magazine dedicated even in part to political coverage.
 * Andrew Beaujon, “New York Times Passes USA Today in Daily Circulation,” Poynter, April 30, 2013:
 * Newspaper Name: Total Average Circulation
 * Wall Street Journal: 2,380,000
 * New York Times: 1,870,000
 * USA Today: 1,670,000
 * Los Angeles Times: 650,000
 * Emma Knight, “Steady Circulation Figures Disguise Rising Weight of Digital Subscriptions in U.S. Newspaper Industry”, World Association of Newspapers & News Publishers, October 31, 2012:
 * When print and digital are combined, the Journal rises to the top … as the country’s most widely circulated daily newspaper, with an overall average circulation of nearly 2.3 million…. Across the pond, digital subscriptions at the paywall-protected Financial Times … outpaced its print circulation … and have now reached 310,000.
 * “Presse Payante Grand Public - Presse Quotidienne Nationale - Actualités - Actualités Générales,” Mon Classement Presse, OJD (2013):
 * National Daily Press, News, General News
 * Dissemination or distribution total
 * Le Figaro: 330,000
 * Le Monde: 300,000
 * “Presse Payante Grand Public - Presse Magazine - Actualités - Actualités Générales,” Mon Classement Presse, OJD (2013):
 * Press Magazine, News, General News
 * Dissemination or distribution total
 * Paris Match: 630,000
 * Le Figaro Magazine: 430,000
 * I Comme Info: 300,000
 * M Le Magazine du Monde: 260,000
 * Le Monde Diplomatique: 140,000
 * --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Le Figaro Magazine: 430,000
 * I Comme Info: 300,000
 * M Le Magazine du Monde: 260,000
 * Le Monde Diplomatique: 140,000
 * --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Identifying reliable sources is not a matter of figuring out total circulation. For instance, the British tabloid National Enquirer has a distribution equivalent to the newspaper The Daily Telegraph, and 5-10 times that of The Independent, even though both latter newspapers are regarded as high quality sources, and the first is not at all.
 * If one don't recognize a paper as either authoritative or not on the basis of one's experience with the news more generally, a good way to check on Wikipedia's view is to look on the reliable source noticeboard, where editors frequently ask about sources. There, you'll see that Le Monde Diplomatique is regarded as one of the highest quality publications in the world. -Darouet (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right to point up the "circulation ≠ quality" issue, Darouet. It appears you're not the only one who's interested in the distinction. In the UK, the circulation-auditing agency divides newspapers into three classes: "popular" (tabloids); intermediate; and "quality". And the 5 biggest popular newspapers happen to have more paid subscriptions than the 5 biggest quality newspapers. So the term "major newspaper" could be arbitrarily limited to the 1 or 2 biggest quality newspapers.
 * The good news is that two of the three biggest (and sketchiest) tabloids were recently closed down. So the quality newspapers may be climbing the charts! --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Shuster quote
Hi Dervorguilla, this is already available on Right Sector and Talk:Right Sector, but here's the full paragraph from the Shuster article, found with this link:

Hope that clears things up. -Darouet (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Kitten of Courtesy
For Talk::Right Sector

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC) 

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Right Sector". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  21:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution for Right Sector
Hi Dervorguilla, I've just opened a dispute resolution case here on the dispute resolution noticeboard. You can see that I lay out my case there. The link I provide allows you to make a statement as well. I hope we can resolve our disagreement. -Darouet (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Nabak-o-note
I hope that this message finds you well. I have extended the Patriot of Ukraine entry (it turned out that all the mainstream media are using an incorrect term - the "Patriots of Ukraine"), so, please check it out at your free time, since I noticed your interest in the Euromaidan and the Ukrainian radicals. Best, --Nabak (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Spelling correction on Right Sector
Howdy.

I see you reverted my spelling correction ('Euromaiden'->'Euromaidan') on the article Right Sector with the edit notice "Undid revision 608878640 by Topbanana (talk); many thanks, Topbanana – but I was the one who made the sp mistake, shouldn’t I be the one who has to fix it?". I see also that you later reinstated the change with the edit summary "fix own sp mistake".

It is not necessary to do this. Once you have submitted text to an article, it (spelling and all) no longer 'belongs' to you - anyone can edit it, hopefully futher improving on your own work. Even if all your own contributions are eventually overwritten, your work will always be visible in the article's edit history.

Although in this case my change was a trivial spelling correction, reverting someone else's contributions to an article with the intention of re-submitting them under your own name might be seen as attempting to claim credit for their work. Please be careful when reverting.

- TB (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged. Thanks for pointing out, TB. --Dervorguilla (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks,
For this edit improving Right Sector. -Darouet (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MIT Crime Club logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:MIT Crime Club logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notification, Stefan2. The image was removed from the MIT Crime Club article on 21 February 2015 (revision 648122993) and is not being used in any other article. It may accordingly be deleted. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Translation of YPG motto
I'm confused regarding your edits. Why are you editing the motto, so that it makes no sense?

In your first edit, you wrote:

"YPG marches though the earth and sky tremble"

You wrote that because YPG is *light* infantry, but that doesn't even matter. That's not why the motto is used.

And your second edit... Why translate every word? That motto makes no sense then. In Kurdish, it is supposed to mean what I initially wrote, which is:

"The earth and sky trembles, as YPG marches on"

It can also be said as:

"As YPG marches on, the earth and sky trembles"

Please elaborate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewrano (talk • contribs) 14:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi again.


 * 2: But the motto is not to denote what the YPG literally is. You could say it is just a motto to boost the morale of the fighters. It shouldn't be connected to light infantry, alarming enemies etc. It's not to be taken literally.


 * 3: I see your point.


 * 4: Has much to do with the 2nd point.


 * For the rest of the points, I'm starting to understand what you mean. OK, so no use of 'as'. What do you propose then? Maybe use walk instead of march? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewrano (talk • contribs) 13:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1: These are not my words, but a friend of mine. "The prefix 'di-' conjugates infinitive verbs (e.g. hejîn, meşîn) in present and present continuous tense (dihej-, dimeş-)."


 * 2: "YPG ..." sounds best.


 * 3: It's important to know that "meşîn, meşîyan" is not only translated to "walk". You linked a translator site. It also outputs "march". But Version A definitely is the best to go. So either A or B:


 * A. “YPG walks, and the earth and sky tremble.”
 * B. “YPG marches, and the earth and sky tremble.”


 * I prefer B.
 * Dewrano (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay. That makes sense. So either translation A or B. You said B sound more natural. But I'm not sure how good "goes" sounds in this context. It might be more correct in English, but I don't know. It just doesn't sound good for a motto. Or it might be just how mottos are in the English language.


 * I think the final decision is with you. I agree on either A or B. I don't think heavens is a good alternative. Dewrano (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Perfect! :-) I see that you are focusing slightly on Kurdish-related Wiki pages. Get ready for a lot of headache. :P Dewrano (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Listed by Forbes
My edit summary was not 100% correct, but my revert was correct, I think. The way you changed it was grammatical, but the other way was okay and actually better. It's kind of tedious to read "Trump [verb]" and "He [verb]" over and over again, and that's why I wrote to avoid that here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I suppose that's what I get for trying to be "granular", Anythingyouwant. (Sigh.)
 * You're right about the tedious style. So the next step was going to be, I move the first (half of the) sentence up to the end of graf 1. (But you got there first!)
 * Do you agree that the restructured text would be better than the original? If so, would you mind doing a 'courtesy self-revert'? --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would consider a courtesy revert if you show me the final version that you want.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Anythingyouwant: Here's what I've got in mind at the moment.
 * Step 2
 * ...He is chairman of The Trump Organization, which is the principal holding company for his real estate ventures and other business interests. He is listed by Forbes as one of the world's wealthiest people.
 * ...He has also made branding deals that feature his name on properties in which he has minority or no ownership. Trump and his businesses, as well as his three marriages, have received prominent media exposure. He hosted The Apprentice, a popular reality television show on NBC, from 2004 to 2015.
 * Step 3?
 * ...He has also made branding deals that feature his name on properties in which he has minority or no ownership. He hosted The Apprentice, a popular reality television show on NBC, from 2004 to 2015. His three marriages have received prominent media exposure.
 * --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)'
 * As you can see, I'd be removing "Trump and his businesses [have received prominent media exposure]." I think it's common knowledge (by definition). It's true, but it's not particularly helpful to the reader. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If your main concern here is that we say "Trump and his businesses have received prominent media exposure", then I disagree with you. The lead needs to summarize the article body, and media exposure is a major feature of the article body, including two entire sections ("entertainment media" and "popular culture") plus numerous other mentions (e.g. "revolutionary ability to attract free media attention").  Feel free to make a proposal at the article talk page though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If your main concern here is that we say "Trump and his businesses have received prominent media exposure", then I disagree with you. The lead needs to summarize the article body, and media exposure is a major feature of the article body, including two entire sections ("entertainment media" and "popular culture") plus numerous other mentions (e.g. "revolutionary ability to attract free media attention").  Feel free to make a proposal at the article talk page though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice
Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

August, 2016
Please do not edit war articles, particularly articles such as Hillary Clinton, which you did after receiving the above notice regarding discretionary sanctions. You have added a tag three times that I have challenged as a serious WP:BLPVIO to suggest that Hillary Clinton may have been charged with a crime. What on earth are you thinking here? - Wikidemon (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I tagged the questionable phrase for [citation needed] (not for [dubious]).
 * A questionable claim about a living person must be well sourced. WP:BLP. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump
Ouch! You've used a template to send a to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. Calton | Talk 04:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Calton. I noticed that you recently removed some content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like 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.

--Calton | Talk 04:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Revert
I think that's the first time that I've ever been amused by being reverted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Please check the source immediately after your "failed verification" tag (Farley). Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked. But do review Template:Failed verification, which says, "you should tag the information as not matching the named source."
 * And, alas, the information doesn't match the named source.
 * Can you suggest a better way to fix this, Anythingyouwant? I'd be happy to consider it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the problem is. Doesn't Farley mention Kenya and the grandmother?Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump
Hi, Dervorguilla! I want to explain why I hatted part of your response to me at Talk:Donald Trump. The part I hatted seemed to be about some issue you had with a comment of mine from six weeks ago. It wasn't relevant to the talk page discussion and it interrupted the flow of your comments about the "birther" paragraph. Since it seemed to involve just the two of us, I think it would better belong on one of our talk pages. Was there something you felt we should discuss? --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't realize
that when you say something like. As any interested editor can see,... the implication is that IF the editor in question doesn't see things your way, he or she is not "i nterested". Since your response was directed only at me, I just wanted to say that I took offense. It may not have been intended, but I would characterize my "read" of As any interested editor can see.... as normal. Buster Seven   Talk  14:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I wrote, "As any interested editor can see, [DrFleischman] demonstrated good faith by making an effort to thoroughly discuss the matter in question." And I think we both did see (or at least appeared to see) that he was demonstrating good faith.
 * I was saying that you were interested, not that you weren't. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Donald Trump. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ''Warning is in regard to this edit:. Also keep in mind that this article is under discretionary sanctions. Based on the amount of disputes on the subject and length of time the disputes on the subject have gone on, your reversion of the photo while discussion is occurring could be seen by editors and administrators as provocation and easily lead to a block. Definitely not cool, definitely not smart, definitely disruptive.'' -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * [WV ]: I categorically deny your accusations. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Deny all you want. Putting the image being heatedly discussed for days back into the article before discussion and consensus is reached was stupid, possibly pointy, and definitely disruptive.  Even if you truly meant no harm, you have been around long enough to know it was the wrong thing to do.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  23:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * On 12 September 2016, WV was "blocked for disruptive editing". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Your B1 vote
I'm not striking the two out-of-process votes, including your B1, but I just wanted to make sure you understand that it's very likely to be discarded as both out-of-process and inconsequential. So you will have wasted a vote, sort of like casting a write-in for Bernie or Ted in November just to make a statement. If that's your intent, no problem. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point, Mandruss. The statement it actually appears to make, though, is that the editor doesn't want to comply with the applicable rules. Which was not my intent at all. I've corrected accordingly. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Generals
FYI, VM took the Generals out, but left Trump U in.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, he did take them out. After he got caught. The risk-taking edit was where he put them in. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

WP cycle
Ok, so 12-18 is an empirical observation. But what is a WP cycle? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's SPECIFICO's terminology, not mine. He may mean the average time for any given information or any given sentence to be removed from an article. --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi D, what's going on with the Trump photo issue? I just looked at the talk page and saw the hatted content where it earlier appeared to me we were getting to a resolution. Where are we at with this now? SW3 5DL (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi SW3. It looks like a survey is still in progress.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Why did you edit for someone else?
I'm puzzling over why you would think it's appropriate to edit for someone else as you did here. If MichaelVadon wants to participate in the run off vote, he can do it himself.- MrX 21:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I was acting as MichaelVadon's representative. (Black's Law Dictionary, s.v. "agent": "Someone who is authorized to act for or in place of another; a representative.") --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I know. What I don't know is why you would think that's a good idea.- MrX 21:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I've been given no reason to think it isn't. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It most definitely is. I'm a little surprised that this has to be explained, but perhaps see WP:CANVASS and WP:MEAT.- MrX 22:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Information from the Pic E filedesc: description="Mr Donald Trump New Hampshire Town Hall on August 19th, 2015 at Pinkerton Academy in Derry, NH by Michael Vadon"; author="Michael Vadon". --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Is he unable to use the wiki editor? That's the only reasonable reason I can think of. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I have no idea what Im doing when it comes to editing these Wikipedia pages and would prefer someone else with experience do it. I dont want to mess anything up here and so I leave it up to others who are more knowledgeable. Thanks again. Mike   — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelVadon (talk • contribs) 14:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @Dervorguilla: That's a non sequitur.
 * I suggest that you revert your edit, or would you prefer that someone at WP:ANI explain it to you?- MrX 22:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Quoting Michael Vadon, e-mail messages to Dervorguilla, September 17, 2016; September 18, 2016:
 * "I'm not sure how to place comments into the wiki thread and hope you can place these into it."
 * "So you can put my vote and comments in the thread or just tell me how I can do it. I don't want to mess up the thread with my editing as I've been known to do on occasion so I think you are best to place my comments."
 * --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thot plickens. I would suggest you format the content for him, email that to him, and write instructions for the edit. He reviews your content and does the edit if he approves. How hard can it be. I wouldn't have a problem with that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to know if MichaelVadon contacted Dervorguilla out of the blue, or if Dervorguilla contacted him. - MrX 22:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Dervorguilla, I'm Dennis, one of many admin here. I'd like to notch it down and just explain why you can't do that, without assuming any bad will on your behalf.  Doing that is called "proxy editing" and is disallowed here.  One reason is that we can't verify the vote because they aren't here, and second, discussions aren't votes.  If you want to discuss, then show up.  There are some exceptions that Arbs and admin use for non-content, but those are rare events and heavily verified.  Just imagine, I could go to an AFD that is all KEEP votes, pick a list of names that haven't edited in a long time and say "Bob, John, Tom, Jill and Sue all say to delete for failing WP:GNG".  I could lie through my teeth, but you couldn't disprove it.  It would be too easy to game the system, so we don't allow it for anyone on content discussions.  I hope this explains it.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * - Please say whether this precludes emailing him formatted content for him to review and copy-and-paste. That would leave the CANVASS question outstanding. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unquestionably, that would be canvassing, which is not allowed. MichaelVadon shouldn't participate now, as unfortunately, the well has been poisoned. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me add that theoretically, it could lead to blocks and striking of votes, but as long as MichaelVadon doesn't participate, I would just call this a learning experience and not make a bigger issue of it. Call it a learning experience.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've struck the vote myself, for your convenience. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your attention to the matter. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Addressing your comment, "He reviews your content and does the edit if he approves. How hard can it be." See User:MichaelVadon, "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name." --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Addressing your comment, "That would be canvassing..." It would not be canvassing. From WP:CAN:
 * "An editor ... can place a message ... on the user talk pages of concerned editors...
 * * Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic
 * * Editors known for expertise in the field"
 * (WP:APPNOTE behavioral guideline.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Cherry picking editors who agree with you is canvassing. You can read the words and massage them all you want, I've been here 10 years and know how the community interprets it, and how the community interprets it trumps the words of the policy every time anyway. To give you an example: if an article goes to AFD for the 2nd time and you notify ALL the editors that participated in the first AFD, that is fine (probably a good thing, in fact). If you notify only the KEEP voters, that is canvassing. The "expert" clause is a dangerous one and is seldom used because experts often have as much POV as non-experts and we don't have a formal definition for "expert" here. It isn't just as simple as reading a few lines. My previous administrative statements and actions stand. You are welcome to go to ANI and protest there. There is a section already open. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Addressing your comment, "...if an article goes to AFD for the 2nd time and you notify ALL the editors that participated in the first AFD, that is fine..."
 * Yes. And what if I notify all eleven editors who participated in the New pics, Revert war warning, Finally a good pic, or Suggestion re photo discussions but not the runoff election; all editors who cast spoiled ballots (one); and the Wiki editor most known for expertise on Pic E, per its File Information section?


 * 12:33, 17 September 2016 . . User talk:User:Graham &lrm; (→&lrm;Voting for lead picture at Donald Trump: new section)
 * Please stop making edits in my name. (Apologies if I've done this edit wrong; I don't usually participate in talk pages. Feel free to get in touch.) Grahamtalk/mail/ e 18:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been making edits in my name, not yours. (12:33, 17 September 2016; 03:29, 20 September 2016.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just there, above, where I've changed it into plaintext, is a signature that purported to be mine. I don't know who put it there, but it was not me. Grahamtalk/mail/ e 05:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 12:35, 17 September 2016 . . User talk:Writegeist &lrm; (→&lrm;Voting for lead picture at Donald Trump: new section)
 * 12:37, 17 September 2016 . . User talk:Jack Upland &lrm; (→&lrm;Voting for lead picture at Donald Trump: new section)
 * 12:38, 17 September 2016 . . User talk:Objective3000 &lrm; (→&lrm;Voting for lead picture at Donald Trump: new section)
 * 12:40, 17 September 2016 . . User talk:EvergreenFir &lrm; (→&lrm;Voting for lead picture at Donald Trump: new section)
 * 12:41, 17 September 2016 . . User talk:Steve Quinn &lrm; (→&lrm;Voting for lead picture at Donald Trump: new section)
 * 12:42, 17 September 2016 . . User talk:Christian75 &lrm; (→&lrm;Voting for lead picture at Donald Trump: new section)
 * 12:44, 17 September 2016 . . User talk:SW3 5DL &lrm; (→&lrm;Voting for lead picture at Donald Trump: new section)
 * 12:46, 17 September 2016 . . User talk:Yopienso &lrm; (→&lrm;Voting for lead picture at Donald Trump: new section)
 * 12:47, 17 September 2016 . . User talk:Ddcm8991 &lrm; (→&lrm;Voting for lead picture at Donald Trump: new section)
 * 12:48, 17 September 2016 . . User talk:DarthBotto &lrm; (→&lrm;Voting for lead picture at Donald Trump: new section)
 * 00:33, 19 September 2016 . . User talk:Prcc27 &lrm; (→&lrm;Voting *against* Pic C or E: new section)
 * User contributions for Dervorguilla
 * (Pic C's author participated in the election on 10 September 2016.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC) 05:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for notifying me. Yes, let's not proxy vote under any circumstance. Also, while meatpuppetry may seem subjective, I don't believe it was appropriate to call for a vote I'm this instance. Otherwise, the AN/I thread seems overkill and unnecessary. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 05:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Any opinion on this? I note that he edited the wikipedia to state that he has "no idea how to edit the wikipedia". My personal opinion: WP:CIR. In any case perhaps you could state the admin position in reply to him there, or honor his request yourself. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said, we don't allow proxy voting on content. If they can log in and give permission, they can log in and vote.  The rest, I'm not going to get in an argument about semantics.  Simply put, if over half the people think it is canvassing, then it is sanctionable. The power to block and sanction is derived from consensus, not the admin bit itself.    Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User Dervorguilla - possible CANVASS/MEAT issue. Thank you. - MrX 23:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Discussion closed 10:14, 21 September 2016. No WP:PROXYING found; no WP:CANVASS; no WP:MEAT. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Forbes
This footnoted source fully supports the lead, doesn't it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The lead says, "He is listed by Forbes among the world's wealthiest 500 billionaires." Where does the source (" Forbes 400 2016 ") say anything about any "500" billionaires? ---Dervorguilla (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC) 23:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The source says "Donald Trump on Forbes Lists....#324 Billionaires (2016)". Since 324 is less than 500 we can say in the lead that he's in the top 500.  That's a nice round number, much easier for readers to digest and remember than 324.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * See Lunsford ("Fallacies of Argument").
 * "Non sequiturs occur when writers omit a step in an otherwise logical chain of reasoning, assuming that readers will agree with what may be a highly contestable claim."
 * Here, you may be assuming that readers will agree with your claim that "500" is easier to digest than, say, "400" (or "1,000").
 * Another problem: Forbes lists Trump as among the world's 1,836 billionaires, not as among "the world's wealthiest 500 billionaires". I haven't found a "Forbes 500" list anywhere on the Web (including the pipe-linked article, The World's Billionaires ). --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC) 23:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See this link. We need to distinguish Forbes 400 which is a strictly US ranking, from The World's Billionaires which is a worldwide ranking.  Let's put in the precise worldwide number, okay?  496.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That particular data point (#496) is from today's dynamic (daily) edition of the "Real-Time Billionaire's List", not the static (yearly) "Billionaire's List".
 * The static "Donald Trump" profile page says "Donald Trump on Forbes Lists: #324 Billionaires (2016)".
 * The static "World's Billionaires List" page says:
 * #324 | Donald Trump | $4.5 B | 70 | television, real estate | United States
 * The "RTB" data are ephemera. Today, #496; tomorrow: # 501? . --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC) 10:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC) 23:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It changes, but attaching "As of October 2016" takes care of the problem. It's much more current that way, instead of using the static version.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That "much more current" version is published daily ("October 17, 2016"), not monthly ("October 2016"). --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought you might say that. 🙂 I have no objection to inserting "17" and I agree American style "October 17, 2016" is best here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Not in the lead. See MOS:INTRO. Briefly summarize the most important points covered in the article. Avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions. Save greater detail for the body. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't it an important point that he's one of the 500 richest people in the world?Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You'll need to look up some independent mainstream sources and see what they have to say. I can't help you any further. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe this will work.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the same source, not an independent one. May be time for a wikibreak. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The reliable source says Trump is in the top 500. Why does it have to be a source independent of Forbes?  We're saying Forbes puts him in the wealthiest 500, so why on earth can't we cite Forbes?Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * See my reply above. Thank you. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That reply said "I haven't found a 'Forbes 500' list anywhere on the Web". But I have found such a list.  It's titled "Forbes Billionaires: Full List Of The 500 Richest People In The World 2016".  Right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Has any mainstream source other than Forbes mentioned the "Forbes 500" list anywhere on the Web? --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know, and I don't think that's necessary to support what we say in the Trump lead. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Zizek, Trump and Iron
Point is, people don't about content anymore. Its all about personal POV. If you don't like a certain statement, you either find a comma, that hasn't been sourced or describe actual sources as being contentious or just comment that a famous historian used in a certain article is not an expert for the field she wrote about (in case of Iron, the gang wants to delete any reference to biblical useage of iron and iron technology). I just had a quick look through the references at the Trump article - there are about 600, most of them press clippings and none with a doi. The article mentions the Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump but doesn't cite anything out of it. OK, one of Gwenda Brail's biographical books has been quoted once. We do not even have his weblinks. A search for [https://scholar.google.de/scholar?start=10&q=%22donald+trump%22+politics+doi&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5 (donald+trump%22+politics+doi) on scholar provides about 2000 entries of actual studies. None of them went into the article. Zizek got deleted quickly. That is something the project should be ashamed of. Polentarion Talk 17:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on what you've shown me, Polentarion, Žižek is likely to feel validated by the quick deletion. The project is supposed to reflect "mainstream" thought; and neither Žižek nor Trump is mainstream. For their side to win, the mainstream's had to lose; so the majority of editors had to be on the losing side politically. Was beginnt, beginnt im Blut (as the Chancellor would say).
 * Anyway, I would advise that you write up some compromise language, add a third source, and post the revised information along with a clear edit summary, per WP:CON. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't found the quote, is it Bismarck chancellor wise? I take my time but will do as you say ;) Thnx! Polentarion Talk 11:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's attributed to the Iron Chancellor. I can't find the quote either, so he may have used slightly different wording. In English, "Whatever begins, begins in blood", or, "All that is borne, is borne in blood". --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 *  Was beginnt, beginnt im Blut? I dealt with some blood related cultural topics, including Blood sausage in 2009. I guess that the quote is a sort of interesting lead, but I doubt Bismarck (the Blood and Iron (speech) is behind it. I haven't found a direct equivalent. Imho it may have been a mixture of the actual biblical blood covenants, e.g. Leviticus 17:11 (for the life of the creature is in the blood) till Luke 22:20. (this is my blood, for the last supper) and a heritage of pseudoceltic/pseudogermanic continuity legends (in the Frazer/The Golden Bough style) from the 19th century, e.g. related to the 1920ies renaissance of Meister Eckhart. Maybe User:Yngvadottir has a better idea. I would love to find an Austrian light hearted origin: 'In Linz beginnt's', the city slogan of Linz rhymed similar but bloodless ;), Wiener Blut (operetta) was a Johann Strauss operette, the cinema version a Nazi box office success, postwar aired in the GDR and USA as well and seems to have an ongoing impact.Polentarion Talk 23:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't track down that quote either. We have an article on the Nazi film, unaccountably at Vienna Blood (film); for a while I was working on those films, but the library lost/misshelved a whole stack of the necessary books, and besides I was getting sick of the preference for using translated titles whether or not the film was ever released under an English title. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Something like Wiener Blut! /Eig'ner Saft, /Voller Kraft, /Voller Glut. /Wiener Blut, /selt'nes Gut, /Du erhebst, /Du belebst /Unser'n Mut! could have been in line with the quote in question. Thnx for the quick answer anyway! Polentarion Talk 18:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I started to write an essay on my user page. I would be happy if you could provide me with a feedback. You are aware of my Trump section and could read as well Pegida German talk page section. Both address the same problem. Polentarion Talk 10:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you delete something for me?
Hi, Dervorguilla! I see that you are online right now. Could you take a look at my message at Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia? There is something that needs to be deleted from that article because it violates BLP, and I shouldn't do it per 1RR. Nobody else seems to be around at that article. Would you be willing to remove it? I have already explained to the author why we can't have it there. If you'd rather not that's OK. I suppose I could do it myself and call it an emergency. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I owe you one. --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep it up
Good work on the Ben Swann page, was disgusting how editors tried to smear him so fast. Inspired me to start my own wiki account, though I'll probably stick to the accounting/finance sections.

MindTheGAAP (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
Hello, I'm Scjessey. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Donald Trump that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Kushner
Hi, you pinged me and then wrote: "I've deleted the 83-word graf about the Kushner development. Maybe you could go ahead and add Proposal #3.1 (218-word version) with the understanding that it will (most likely) be gradually but radically shortened over the next few months (perhaps to as few as 61 words) as events unfold?" Did you mean to ping me? I don't think I was involved in that discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I hope you're doing well. It's nice to see you contributing!Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump
I don't think it's merely a question of competence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe not. But let's hope that's all it is... --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, I tweaked the survey after you already !voted, in response to a correction by Coffee. I hope this is no problem, but please let me know if it is.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nicely done! --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please also consider that the mere fact of mentioning false or controversial statements in the lead indicates that the number was unusual or notable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Trump 2
So leave it for now, or revert to your version? SW3 5DL (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Trump 3
I have added a new Option C to the most recent survey at the Trump talk page. I think everyone will find it appealing, so please comment about it and we can be done with this. Thanks.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx
Dervorguilla, thanks for your comments recently at ANI, and also last year at AE. Under the circumstances, me leaving that BLP seems best. Your comments both times were spot-on, however. Cheers.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
Please correct the policy vios *now* per your note. --Neil N  talk to me 13:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump lede section
Why are you making edits to the lede section, when you know it is the consensus product of many months of extensive discussion? and there are numerous current discussions about modifying the lede going on at the talk page? Please participate in those discussions if you want to see changes in the lede. Do not make them unilaterally. --MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am referring specifically to changing "while losing" to "despite losing". Consensus and POV policy are against "despite," because it seems to imply that he shouldn't have won. I have reverted that change. --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Mightn't", not "shouldn't". I'd seen an analogous usage at "Despite - Definition for English-Language Learners from Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary":
 * despite, prep. Without being prevented by (something) — used to say that something happens or is true even though there is something that might prevent it from happening or being true. {"The law has yet to be passed, despite the fact that most people are in favor of it."}
 * Compare with "While - Definition for English-Language Learners from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary":
 * while, conj. 3. In spite of the fact that; although. {"While (he is) respected, the mayor is not liked."}
 * Also, note that while is a conjunction, not a preposition. So the phrase "...while losing the popular vote" = the clause "...while he was losing the popular vote". (Analogy: "He has won election because winning the College vote.")
 * While we know what we're trying to say here, some recent immigrants may not.
 * Nonetheless, it looks like many of our associates are happy enough with the phrase "...while losing..." I'm happy to cooperate. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing
Please STOP disrupting the Trump talk page to prove a point, or whatever the hell you are trying to do with your vague policy examination there. If you keep going down this path, I will be taking it to the administrators. You've been warned by several editors about this, so there is no longer an excuse. Don't forget activities on that talk page are subject to discretionary sanctions. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I categorically deny your accusations. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not an accusation. It's a fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To the contrary. Some illustrations:
 * WP:POINT intro: "When you have a point to make, use direct discussion only. [Don't] try to discredit ... a policy or guideline ... or [an] interpretation thereof by ... applying it consistently ... to prove a point in a local dispute [or by] trying to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way."
 * My comments were direct. I applied no policy or policy interpretation to any local content dispute where the community as a whole didn't agree that my action or presentation under that policy or interpretation was reasonable.
 * WP:TALK#Topic: "Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article... Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal."
 * My comments focused on ways to improve the article. On 02:31, 21 June 2017, for example, I added this relevant material to the ' A contemporary illustration [partly completed] ' subsection: "If JFG had chosen to add a statement about it to the article, I could have removed it just for POV; but then I would have had to begin yet another discussion."
 * WP:POINT#Examples: "Do watch recent changes and fact-check anything that looks at all suspicious."
 * On 7:08, 21 June 2017, I fact-checked the suspicious statement that "The Washington Post later reported that ... the FBI started investigating whether Trump had obstructed justice," and tagged it for "". On 08:21, 21 June 2017, I added the corrective statement that "The Post's allegation was later contradicted by ABC News." The community agreed that my action and presentation were reasonable. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * tl;dr. And everyone disagreed with you, and your entire thread of lectures was archived. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To the contrary.
 * I applied no policy or policy interpretation to any local article content dispute where the community as a whole didn't agree with me that my action and policy presentation were reasonable.
 * On 02:31, 21 June 2017, for example, I added this relevant material to the ' A contemporary illustration ' subsection: "If JFG had chosen to add a statement about it to the article, I could have removed it just for POV; but then I would have had to begin yet another discussion." On 7:08, 21 June 2017, I fact-checked the suspicious statement that "The Washington Post later reported that ... the FBI started investigating whether Trump had obstructed justice," and tagged it for "'" (POV). On 08:21, 21 June 2017, I added the corrective statement that "The Post's allegation was later contradicted by ABC News." The community agreed with me''' that my actions and presentations were reasonable.
 * Most importantly, it looks like "everyone" agreed with me that we can improve the article by double-sourcing or removing any disputed facts about Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are deluded. You used an article talk page to give generic lectures to Wikpedians of considerable experience, and disruptively edit-warred to make sure your misuse of the talk page remained visible. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Per TALK#TOPIC, I've been focusing on the most relevant policy passages; and, at 00:44, 21 June 2017, I objected to specific content that was proposed or reasonably expected to be proposed. The proposed content was added nonetheless. At 5:13, 23 June 2017, I objected, citing one of those passages. At 05:41, 23 June 2017, the community sustained my objection.

Contemporary contributors to Talk included TheValeyard (with 248 edits), Casprings (with 5790), Power~enwiki (with 2671), Joobo (with 1449), Archway (with 2170), and NoMoreHeroes (with 75), not all of whom may categorize themselves as "Wikpedians of considerable experience". --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Jared Kushner
I think "Position established" seems better and more scholarly than simply "new office". For example, John Jay, Jefferson Davis, and even Nicholas II of Russia uses the same/very similar terms, being "Monarchy abolished" or "Seat established/abolished" in those cases. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad you pointed this out. I was trying to model the entry after the most analogous 'predecessor' entry listed in the Infobox officeholder template examples:
 * Assumed office  6 May 1999
 * Preceded by  (new constituency)
 * 'Position established' does sound a bit more authoritative. But Chicago Manual of Style says "All items in a list should be constructed of parallel elements". Both "6 May 1999" and "(new constituency)" are noun phrases, whereas "Position established" is a standalone sentence.
 * I clearly do need to change the formatting, from "New office" to "(new office)". Let me know what you think of it now. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's an improvement I can accept, but I still think "Position established" is the best term to use. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We'd be deviating from the parallel-elements requirement for list elements. (Chicago ¶ 6.121.) We could escape from this requirement if we reformat the nonparallel element, so: "(position established)". But none of these options are ideal. As given in the infobox, the question is: "Whom was Jared Kushner preceded by?" The answer is: "He was preceded by no one". (Not, "He was preceded by position established" or "...by new office".) Per CMOS, the correct entry for an empty cell in a table is "n/a", with an explanatory footnote at the end of the table. Thoughts? --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to stick with "(new office)" for now. I think it is good enough to provide the information that the office is newly established in an academic way - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I do too. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Consensus at r/The_Donald
Is there a need to review? Your RFC seems like the best way to proceed. I will comment there shortly. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Your comments on the Roy Moore talk page
I don't want to clutter the Roy Moore talk page any more with this, but I fell it necessary to address what you wrote.


 * He said that your comment was disingenuous, not that you're disingenuous. VM takes great care in wording his comments. But at this point it looks like the matter can be safely dropped. :) --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

When you say that someone's comments are disingenuous, you are saying that the commenter is disingenuous. It is as impossible to separate a commenter from his comments as it is to separate your breath from your life. I took particular offense to his comment because I had just posted that, after understanding the matter further, I agreed with the reverter's actions. He then thanked me for being able to change my mind. At that point, I felt the matter was settled. Then VM took aim directly at my previous comments, which I had already agreed were mistaken. I take particular pride in being able to overcome my biases (which we all have) and be objective when confronted with evidence to the contrary of my assertions. VM's attack stung particularly strongly for that very reason. And it was a personal attack, whether or not you think it was. He make take great care to word things so they appear to be neutral, but they were not.

I won't bother you with this further. I wanted you to understand my position and perhaps to see that criticizing comments criticizes the person making those comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txantimedia (talk • contribs) 05:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * That's his M.O., Txantimedia... And your response was the normal human response. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Knowing that will help me ignore what he says, should he take a similar tack in the future. Txantimedia (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thx
Thanks for your note. By the way, regarding Black’s, see here, to confirm your quote. Cheers.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center
Unless you want to start seeing aggressive archiving of the talk page, knock off your edit-warring. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Explain. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Yemen drone strike
Do you know if there is an article about the drone strike that killed Havard and Jones? Perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drone_strikes_in_Yemen#2002 because the next is in 2010. -Oranginger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranginger (talk • contribs) 04:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Cooke, "Al-Qaeda Releases Propaganda Video", gives 2013 as the date and Hadramout as the location; and that location is also mentioned in "List of drone strikes in Yemen". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Re. the page you link to
Has a nice section, "Not to be confused with ... "; which includes" Given you obviously looked at the edit history, and likely noticed the discussion on my talk page, I don't see any reason for reverting when it was a simple and straightforward fix. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Poorly written content that can be improved, such as text containing many grammar errors. See Basic copyediting.


 * The discussions have become so labyrinthine and complex, stretching across dozens of pages, and have otherwise become such a massive time sink that some contributors abandon editing. (Ryan, &quot;Wikipedia Is at War over the Coronavirus Lab Leak Theory&quot;) You can see how it looks like you may be one of the people inadvertently causing this problem. –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you're telling me I'm causing a problem when this simple fix should never have required a revert at all (and I had obviously mentioned the discussion on my talk page and pinged the relevant editor in the summary, specifically to make it easier to navigate - you could just have come to my page and said that it reads like nonsense because of a misplaced stray word). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That editor (Jr8825) did just what you're saying I should have done. He tried twice to get you to fix that problematic wording. It didn't work.
 * Your edit summary says I should have followed the relevant editing policy. That policy emphasizes: If you can't fix a problem, remove it. I did just that (and it worked). –Dervorguilla (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * He came to my talk page and asked me to fix it. I did, albeit I left a stray word which nobody noticed for a few days, until you came down like basically a ton of bricks for this petty detail. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * No, you didn't "fix it". You wrote: "The presence of the furin cleavage site ... largely outweighs disadvantageous immune responses from B-cells concerns triggered by the genetic sequences..."
 * Ryan reported that these talk pages have become a massive time sink for editors. You may be proving him right. –Dervorguilla (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're conveniently ignoring the bit that goes where you put [...] and which makes the sentence quite clear. Anyway, since you seem to be intent on making your talk page such a time sink, I'll withdraw to other less silly business. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion: The system worked. Jr8825 and I got RandomCanadian to fix his problematic edit (on his third try). And I got him to cheerfully withdraw from my talk page. –Dervorguilla (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's the full text of that problematic sentence (which to RandomCanadian is "quite clear"): –Dervorguilla (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you seem intent on pinging me yet again; here is the whole sentence, with the minimal changes it required (even highlighted, since you seem to be having difficulties with this):


 * See, one single stray word which had not been removed upon altering the sentence. Now please leave me alone, especially if you want to keep feasting on your victory [sic.: for lack of a better word]. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my victory, though. Jr8825 helped out. And you did too, ultimately. So it was Wikipedia's victory. –Dervorguilla (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Important message
— Paleo Neonate  – 19:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)