User talk:L.R. Wormwood/Archive 1

Proposed deletion of Maria Koc


The article Maria Koc has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm currently translating the article and adding sources. You will notice there are sources now, so the deletion will be unnecessary. In future I'll write the whole thing in one go. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:ALTACCN
You must provide actual links between alt accounts. A little note at the bottom of the userpage of one them is insufficient, especially when you have gone directly back to a topic where you were given a 5 day block, and are making the same arguments you did before. Please fix this, without delay. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not an alternative account, since it is no longer used, but I will use a link while I am engaging in the discussion on the AfD talk page to avoid confusion.


 * "and are making the same arguments you did before" - is being used to irritate me, so I would appreciate you not posting on my talk page again. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I know you asked me not to post here, but I will ask one more time for you to link the two user pages. This is a policy matter; your history in WP matters, especially if you are continuing to edit in the same topic. If you don't take care of this, I will take this to ANI. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I did that hours ago, as I said - the Hayek page redirects here - or did you mean something else? In which case you are welcome to make the change yourself. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did this.  If you wanted to be very transparent you would include Special:Contributions/Hayek79 on the userpage of this account as well -- experienced users don't need it but it is handier for everyone. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you really think that's necessary. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maria Koc, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wegrow and Karolewo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Restrictions on articles containing information of relevance to "The Troubles"
Please be reminded that any articles containing information about the Northern Ireland flag come under WP:1RR. Also realise that more behaviour than 1rr restrictions is covered by the sanctions. Try to work within the restrictions placed upon us all, and it is far better to work with others than work against them. I am trying to assist anyone with this message who has contributed to the discussions or edited about the Northern Ireland flag and who might be tempted (on previous behaviour elsewhere), from possibly being of extra risk here. DDStretch   (talk)  19:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I realise this is a generic message, but I'm not sure what the following means: "I am trying to assist anyone with this message who has contributed to the discussions or edited about the Northern Ireland flag and who might be tempted (on previous behaviour elsewhere), from possibly being of extra risk here" L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you do know what I mean, given your behaviour using your previous username which brought you to a number of admin's attention and led to you getting blocked for a while because of your style of editing. This is a gentle preventative message since you obviously have much to offer wikipedia, and I don't want you to end up before the Arbitrtation committee for inadvertently engaging in behaviour that you can be sanctioned for. That's all. Don't be so combattive, I'm trying to assist you here.  DDStretch    (talk)  19:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I wasn't being combative, I just wasn't sure whether that was what you were referring to. Incidentally, the dispute you are alluding to went to RfC and has gone my way. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to read it, then. Can you provide a link? Thanks.  DDStretch    (talk)  19:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk:Alternative for Germany I think the dispute will be closed soon, but the infobox hasn't yet been changed to reflect the consensus. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There were two disputes actually, both of which arose after one user added several items to the "ideology" field of the infobox (Anti-feminism and climate-change denial). I probably didn't make my position clear enough from the outset, but at the same time, I do not believe that the two dissenters satisfactorily addressed my concerns when I made them clear (I don't consider a single follow-up comment which addresses perhaps one point in a fairly uncharitable way to be a response). The argument I was faced with was: "it's referenced", and yet my complaint was the items they wanted to include were not "political ideologies" in a conventional sense, are not items that feature in the same field for any other article for a political party (for that reason), and that the references didn't support the implication (given by inserting them into the infobox under "ideology") that anti-feminism was a leading part of the party's agenda. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I provide a detailed summary at the bottom of this section on a user talk page L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit-conflict x 2) I think you are mistaking the content of a dispute with the manner in which you conducted yourself. You were blocked (as described here) for being disruptive in the way you were behaving. That has certainly not been overturned, indeed, your appeal against the block was rejected and you eventually gave up on it. It's the way in which you are pressing your case that was the issue there. I know how galling this can be, since in real-life I and a few colleagues used to seemingly only need to open our mouths against a prevailing inaccurate view in our own areas of professional expertise for others to start rolling around frothing at the mouth. We realised we had to proceed very carefully, and I urge you to continue to pay attention to this (which I think you have been recently), but I still thought the gentle advice I gave you was worthwhile for your own sake. DDStretch   (talk)  19:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see, you thought I meant that my block was overturned, it was not. Although I accept that WP:BLUDGEON did apply to my behaviour, I still believe that the other two users were not being charitable in their responses to my concerns, and in BMK's case, their behaviour was also very poor. This user is regularly taken to AN/I for incivility, has been repeatedly blocked before for edit-warring (and was taken to WP:ANEW by another user over the content dispute on the AfD page), and there is definitely an attitude problem there which has convinced me to stay clear. I will take your advice, and I have made an effort to be as civil as possible on talk pages, and comment as few times as is necessary. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly thought that there was not particularly edifying behaviour on any side in that dispute. I may not agree with all of your points, but I ceryaonly think you are a net positive contributor here, so just keep up with the good work and keep on being careful! I know we all need to be reminded of this from time to time - just my advice.  DDStretch    (talk)  19:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of secret police organizations
I understand why you might want the removed content to stay, but if we started permitting such personal attacks to remain on talk pages it would be likely to be seen by new editors as an indication of what is acceptable. For that reason, I do not think that it helps to keep such infantile personal attacks visible. Also, removing it helps to convey to the editor who posted it that doing it is not acceptable, whereas telling him or her not to do it but leaving the attack there conveys the message that actually, whatever we say, he or she is free to post personal attacks and get away with doing so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

1RR-warning.
This edit is a revert. So is this edit. Both within 24 hours. Please, self-revert. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The content was restored by an IP, and therefore 1RR does not apply. Also, please read the talk page and WP:EW, specifically "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring". None of this content meets WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. I agree that 1RR does not apply to your last revert. I do not agree that it is a violation of NPOV, quite contrary actually. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to discuss this on the talk page, where the sections have been moved. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This is also a revert. Can you mark it as an IP-revert, if you claim that exception? Erlbaeko (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This was itself a multi-revert by another user, with no attending explanation. I could take them to AN/I, but I thought I'd just revert their changes since there can be no reasonable objection to stating clearly the position of the Russian government in the lede. Can you explain why it is important that the article lede should not accurately present the position of the Russian government? They haven't repeated the claim about the warehouse strike for a week. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but I can explain why it is important that all editors follow the 1RR restriction, or I can have an admin to explain it to you, if you like. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am entitled to WP:IGNOREALLRULES when not doing so would clearly undermine the quality of the encyclopedia, such as by not correcting inaccurate and out of date information. I will happily remove sourced and accurate information for the next few hours to satisfy your desire to see that "all editors follow the 1RR restriction" regardless of how that impacts the quality of the encyclopedia, since you are clearly more interested in policing editing patterns of other users than making contributions yourself. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see your revert as an improvement. I think you should self-revert. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the content you requested I remove. I'm not sure what you are asking me to do. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just try to follow the 1RR-rule as anybody else. That's all. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Sorry, but I don't see your revert as an improvement" Then I would suggest you are WP:NOTHERE. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

General sanctions notification
I am aware, thanks. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

AN/I
Re. Please, take your case to Ani if you think you have one. Do not use the articles talk page to intimidate other users. Thanks, Erlbaeko (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to a computer until tomorrow, but I'll see if I see things differently once I've slept on it. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Re, Just stop it. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the irrelevant bickering from the page, you preceded to restore your irrelevant bickering and not mine. This is your problem. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Edward Elgar
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.  Cassianto Talk   15:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * False alert. You ought to have given a proper edit summary, and explained your changes on the talk page. Swear at me again and I'll take this straight to AN/I; I won't engage with people who can't hold their temper over a minor layout dispute. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note to self: the following need work
Bill Morrison (politician) Gough Whitlam William F. Goodling West Country

Music for you
Today: An die Hoffnung (To hope), composed by Max Reger, enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Will listen, thanks. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My third DYK with hope in the title, DYK, - last year I went for peace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You said "I have no idea where this bizarre controversy originated", nor have I, but it dates back to 2005. A very good friend of mine had good advice: "ignore ignore ignore". (Only then he protected an article because of an edit war over the hidden notice to prevent an infobox, and was desysopped as involved.) The advice is still alive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I missed something, it seems. Hope you enjoy what you are doing, but miss you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Poutou
Hi. In answer to your question: I would potentially if I had time, but I don't for now, and won't for the foreseeable future. Sorry. Aridd (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Arif Khan
Hello L.R. Wormwood, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Arif Khan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''articles that survived AfD cannot be A7 deleted. Plus, 11 years existence implies consensus to keep per WP:SILENCE.''' You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you.  So Why  19:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note
I will be bringing an ANI case by this weekend presenting diffs by you and a couple of others. I will seek and I believe I will probably obtain a TBAN based on the history of what you have been doing.

The diffs are really something. This diff and edit note, in particular, is terrible. Describing updating an obviously not-updated article as violating "consensus by silence" is one of the most tendentious and ridiculous arguments I have ever seen in Wikipedia, and I have seen a lot of them. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's because you don't understand the term. You changed the scope of the article, and therefore WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD applies. You are frustrated that you have lost two content disputes, but I won't accept this bullying. There are other perspectives than yours, as the outcome of the recent RFC have demonstrated. If you take me to ANI this weekend, I won't be able to defend myself given my other commitments. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not correct and if you were more familiar with my work in WP you would know this is not true and not how I operate here. I will not respond here further per your note on my page. I will post the ANI notice as required. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As I explained on your talk, I have left a note on WP:AN, and I am blocking Wikipedia. I'm not going to indulge in the drama; as you said, the community will judge now. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Note for regarding ANI - Alternative for Germany
Hey, i just want to let you know that currently, due to given recent diagreements regarding the Alternative for Germany article, a case was brought up by me on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Perhaps this is not going to be over soon, and maybe involves more contributors or takes a bigger situation into account. So in case you somehow will be pulled into that do not be surprised. --Joobo (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC) I've stopped now. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're fighting about, but I strongly suggest you stop. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I know. It's all good--at ANI, at least. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I mean I've left Wikipedia: User:L.R. Wormwood L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Final warning
If you ever again post a single byte to my talk page after I have told you three times to stay off it, your behavior will be reported at WP:ANI.

If you post one more false accusation of me violating a Wikipedia policy or guideline on any user talk page or article talk page, your behavior will be reported at WP:ANI.

Feel free to report me at WP:ANI if you think you have a case.

Your accusations are without merit. I have not violated the Wikipedia policies you have accused me of violating. Making continued false accusations anywhere other than WP:ANI or WP:Arbcom is disruptive. Please stop now. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I take back my apology. I have no idea how someone can apparently have been contributing for so long, and be so confused about Wikipedia policy. You better report me to WP:ANI now, in that case, because you have absolutely no right to demand that I make no further comments about your compliance with policy or behaviour guidelines. That's an outrageous thing to come out with. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Everyone who edits Wikipedia is subject to WP:SCRUTINY. As the record shows, I made only one accusation of guideline non-compliance on your part (on your talk page). I’m not sure what you hope to achieve by making provably false allegations such as those above. It was absolutely appropriate to discuss your confusion about the WP:SYNTHESIS policy on the article talk page (which, by the way, isn't a big deal). This is where we discuss the article, and its compliance with the relevant site policies and guidelines. WP:ANI is for behaviour. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The inappropriate WP:PAs on the talk page and in your recent edit summary need to stop now. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Daily_Mail
Hi L.R. Wormwood. A courtesy note to let you know I have closed a request for comment you initiated, at Talk:Daily_Mail. Regards, Fish +Karate 11:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
Your recent editing history at Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. 178.197.231.251 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice job—you're heading for a block. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)