User talk:Jontel/Archives/2021/February

Discussion at Talk:The Holocaust § RfC - First sentence in lede
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Holocaust § RfC - First sentence in lede. warmly, ezlev.  talk  17:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree Garden
I am not happy with Creation vs. Later history, - that time was still creative, just differently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes review at Michael Rosen
How come your edits are not autoreviewed even though you are ECP? See this diff, which I had to approve. Just making sure it's not some technical issue. Best, Caius G. (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Caius G. Thanks for approving it and mentioning this. I can see my Rosen edit of 8 Feb 2021 was automatically accepted but not the two today. I shall
 * try to find out why. Jontel (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at my edits, it may be that a virtual alarm bell was 'rung' by my making a large deletion today on that article, or because the deletion was the same as a previous deletion subsequently reverted. Jontel (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I first thought upon seeing this RFC listed at Pending_changes that ORES flagged it and deferred your edit, but WP:Deferred_changes says that this is proposal lies dormant. Caius G. (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Michael Rosen page info says it is not protected.[] Jontel (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * While the Pending Changes protection reason shows up when reviewing pending changes, it does not show up in the protection log. Perhaps you should submit a phabricator ticket? It seems to be a bug. Best, Caius G. (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, so here are two things. The padlock in the top right of the article shows the 'subject to review' rule but this is treated differently from other protections and does not appear in page information. Regarding my issue, I asked teahouse and an editor addressed perceived vandalism on 14.2 by reverting to my version on 8.2. So, I have been manually reverted. You can follow this here; []
 * Regarding it being on hold, "Wasn't pending changes protection dropped?

Yes and no. Pending changes protection was deployed on a trial basis in 2010. In 2011, pending changes protection was dropped as a mechanism for protecting pages, until a consensus agreement on its deployment was reached. There have been a series of discussions on using the feature and it was put back into service on December 1, 2012. Since then only pending changes level 1, affecting the edits of new and unregistered users, is being used. As of January 2017 there has been consensus to drop pending changes level 2, and as a result only level 1 is now used." Pending changes Jontel (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think the explanation CaptainEek gave at the teahouse works out, but best to keep it there perhaps. Caius G. (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

David Miller
Hi, I am Durham Analytica. It appears you are engaged in a long-running edit war to erase all controversies and condemnations relating to David Miller. While Biographies of Living Person must be treated very carefully in edits, it is equally important that their lives are represented in full. I have looked at your editing history and you appear to be editorialising rather than maintaining a free encyclopaedia for a diverse audience. You have deceptively edited a section I have contributed to which I interpret as being influenced by internal Labour party factionalism rather than objectivity and balance. Example 1, you have removed all references to antisemitism despite reputable citation. You have misrepresented the MP for West Bristol's condemnation of Miller as being an endorsement of Zionism rather than a denunciation of anti-Semitic statements. You should refrain from further vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durham Analytica (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Durham Analytica Hi, Thanks for reaching out. We agree on a lot, such as that BLPs must be treated very carefully, that their lives should be represented in full in terms of significant developments, and that Wikipedia should be edited for objectivity and balance. I can show that I have not erased all controversies and condemnations: at present, the bulk of the article and all three subsections are effectively controversies and condemnations. The allegations of antisemitism are contested and you should show both sides. I have not deliberately misrepresented the MPs remarks; you need to support them with accurate and adequately sourced material. I do think that your additions do not reflect the sources sufficiently carefully and I would urge you to be particularly careful of sources with a strong viewpoint, particularly in the midst of a determined and strongly backed campaign to drive him out of his profession. Given your approach, and in this situation, back and forth editing takes a lot of time with little result. Instead, try putting a relatively conservative draft on the Talk page and editors can try to reach agreement there. Do ensure you are familiar with WP:BLPSTYLE AND WP:BLPBALANCE which talk about objectivity and balance. I am not saying any of this to be critical, but to help to reach a consensus. Jontel (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Think about it this way. Does Miller criticise Israel because he is antisemitic or, as he asserts, is he denounced as antisemitic because he criticises Israel? Is he harassing students or are they harassing him? Your edits, if they are to be objective and balanced, should present both points of view. Jontel (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 11Fox11 (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Emma Barnett. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Note also that our policy on living people applies. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Pigsonthewing I have replied to this on the article talk page and await your rationale for these claims. Jontel (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Pigsonthewing Have you made a mistake on this? It might be easier if you undid the reversion of the sentence which has been there since the autumn. I don't understand your position. Jontel (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at David Miller (sociologist), you may be blocked from editing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nomoskedasticity Please indicate any concerns with my policy based edits on the article talk page, which is what it is there for. Please remmber that David Miller is a WP:BLP and is subject to clear guidelines. 14:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)