User talk:DigitialNomad

=

Welcome!
  Hello, DigitialNomad!  Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  Getting Started

Tutorial Learn everything you need to know to get started. Introduction to contributing • Editing

• Referencing

• Images

• Tables

• Policies and guidelines

• Talk pages

• Navigating

• Manual of Style

The Teahouse Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips 
 * Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
 * It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
 * If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
 * Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
 * When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
 * If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
 * Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Happy editing to you too!
 * I’m just seeing this now., wish I’d seen it at the time.
 * I had to completely block out Wikipedia for a few months as it was impacting my mental health. Pages related to Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are very frustrating in their blatant edit agenda. It’s relentless and the biggest perpetuators are the longterm editors. There is a page I would love for you to take a look at if possible. I value your expertise and dedication to the guidelines.
 * It’s the Archetypes (podcast) page and and most of the edits are by an account that has the exact same pattern on every page relating to the couple. Basically it’s filled with tabloid stories & things people have said about the couple, obscure hashtags on social media, picks out the most negative reviews of her podcast and leave out all the neutral or positive published in even larger publications(NYT, WAPO etc…) and on and on. On every single page relating to the couple. This the reason I just had to step back, I could not cope with the relentless nature of this veteran editor, and the constant ambivalence by good faith editors, as this veteran account continues to do the same thing over and over again, probably hoping that out of 10 edits, only 8 will be removed, before you know it, their pages are a dailymail fever dream, the very tabloids Harry is suing for phone hacking….. this is all after Harry in open court said that the onslaught on him by the tabloids is a victim intimidation tactic, they want him to drop a landmark case that will be precedent setting.
 * I would really appreciate it if you can take a look. I’m trying to get better too. Thank you for all you do to restore. DigitialNomad (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

To the Ladies of the Camillas - beware the ides of March!
In the week of International Women's Day, could you publicise the misogyny surrounding Meghan by copying the following over to Talk:Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle? I would do it myself but the page is protected.

Aloha27 arrived from outer space to support the above administrator, whose similar allegation at 08:58 yesterday received short shrift - the content he deleted was put back and it's still there


 * Discussion copied from now-protected talk page as there is an ongoing discussion on this very topic at Reference desk/Humanities Readers may wish to take the opportunity to raise this issue there to get expert consensus on the matter


 * A possible way round this is suggested by a current discussion at Reference desk/Humanities.  The relevant passage could be amended to read as follows:

The Church of England sources commented that this was not a legally recognised marriage ceremony because "two witnesses are required at any wedding, in church or otherwise." The sources did not cite any statute, case or critical work to support this claim. A spokesperson for the couple again confirmed that they exchanged "personal vows", and the private event was not claimed by them to be a "legal" nor "official" service.

Just to give a heads up here in view of SSSB's edit summary, the allegation by Favonian links to VXFC (see the IP's block log.)  The case went to the Arbitration Committee, which ruled that VXFC is a sockpuppet of Flow234. Favonian does not have access to CheckUser data. 2.97.22.58 (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the input so far. I'm working my way through the evidence and would draw your attention to this very relevant comment from an administrator on the noticeboard:

Widr removed the response of the editor who was notified of the discussion. The last time this happened was at 01:16, 2 December 2022 when Rosguill removed the response of AndyTheGrump, who was notified of the discussion at 23:43, 1 December 2022. The discussion played out fairly as AndyThe Grump restored his comment three minutes later before anyone had commented.

The situation here is markedly different. You initiated the ANI discussion at 16:15, 21 January 2023. The editor who was notified responded at 16:21. Following Widr's removal there was a comment at 16:25 and the discussion was hatted. Widr saw to it that the notified editor would not restore the response by blocking at 16:24. He is not a regular at this noticeboard - his previous comment there (at 14:42, 27 September 2022) was to disclose that he had blocked in a thread requesting a block. If he were acting in good faith he would have done likewise on this occasion, but he said nothing. Moreover, his block reason (Long-term abuse) did not tally with the facts (the comment he deleted read "It's hardly suspicious, when accusations are being made about an editor, to keep abreast of developments").

Given the unusual circumstances I took a look at Widr's previous use of the administrator toolset. At 12:48, 29 October 2021 he blocked himself for vandalism. He unblocked one minute later. On 20 October 2022 a report in the Daily Mail noted:

"The BBC reported that anti-Muslim slurs were heard from inside the bus. The BBC had interpreted the phrase as 'dirty Muslims', but Jewish groups insisted it was Hebrew for 'call someone, it's urgent'.   Earlier this year the BBC apologised after it partly upheld complaints about its reporting, admitting it had not met its own 'standards of due accuracy'."

"Ofcom has criticised the corporation for failing to 'promptly' acknowledge a 'dispute' about the audio, making a 'serious editorial misjudgment' by failing to report on air 'at any point' that the claim about 'anti-Muslim slurs' had been disputed."

A statement has been made in Wikipedia's voice that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's spokesperson has accused them of lying. This claim has been disputed. The failure to report that there is a dispute is a serious editorial misjudgment, which could lead to media comment that Wikipedia is racist. Even 11 year-old comments can result in intense public coverage of Wikipedia (for an example see User talk:Anthonydevolder). 2.97.25.205 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking behind "WP:BMB (VXfC) SPI", two of the filer's last three allegations were rejected. The "evidence" (see his talk page) related to the other two IPs involved, not this one. Why this IP was found to be "evidently" guilty (although none of the evidence relates to it) is unclear. 2.97.25.205 (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The amount of evidence not being produced is inversely proportional to the amount of acronyms being used in edit summaries.  Asked for evidence, SSSB hides the fact that he has no evidence by referring to these edit summaries.   It's just been confirmed that 2.218.227.45 is not a sockpuppet. 92.31.141.13 (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think you realise the seriousness of the situation.  I suggest you read up your editorial responsibilities, starting with this passage from Quoting out of context:

Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as "quoting out of context". The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context per se (as all quotes are), but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words. Comparing this practice to surgical excision, journalist Milton Mayer coined the term "contextomy" to describe its use by Julius Streicher, editor of the infamous Nazi broadsheet Der Stürmer in Weimar-era Germany. To arouse anti-semitic sentiments among the weekly's working class Christian readership, Streicher regularly published truncated quotations from Talmudic texts that, in their shortened form, appear to advocate greed, slavery, and ritualistic murder. Although rarely employed to this malicious extreme, contextomy is a common method of misrepresentation in contemporary mass media, and studies have demonstrated that the effects of this misrepresentation can linger even after the audience is exposed to the original, in context, quote.

---

What seems to be happening here is that people are using the allegations that the Duke and Duchess lied about the date of their marriage as a coatrack on which to hang further spurious allegations. An effective way you can counter this is to add to the relevant articles the information that on 21 October 2022 a case was filed in the High Court to confirm that the ceremony of 16 May 2018 was legally valid and the ceremony of 19 May 2018 was legally ineffective. This information was elicited via a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Justice - you can cite as a source the reference number, which is 230417063. 78.146.99.84 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Why is any of this information necessary on a Wikipedia page? All the stuff about the wedding date makes no sense on Wikipedia. DigitialNomad (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This seems to be explained at Notability.  The allegation by Borton that Meghan lied about the date of her wedding received significant coverage in reliable sources.   It is apparent that it was a lie to protect the Archbishop - both Borton and Welby claimed that the law relating to royal marriages is the same as the law relating to the marriage of non-royals.   Both are proved to have lied because they both drew up the licence which expressly made it clear that the law relating to royal marriages is different from the law relating to the marriage of non-royals and enumerated what the differences are . 78.146.99.84 (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)