User talk:Terjen

Michael Metti
Response on my talk page. Kalkin 19:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Stubs
If you're creating stub articles, please add to the bottom of the article so that others can find it easier.

Chrisch 05:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And, while we're discussing your stub creation, thank you for getting the Telonemia stub up and running and doing the maintenance work. KP Botany 03:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mate (beverage)
thank you for adding some content to Mate (beverage) and, above all, thank you for referencing your material! far too much of the writing in this article is unsourced and i, for one, appreciate any addition of references to the article. -- frymaster 02:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

JROTC
I do not understand the edits you made on the JROTC page here. Removing the "large national" designation diminishes the reader's perception of what has become a nationwide movement against the JROTC. Also, where you changed "are against" to "criticize" is wrong, because some of the groups (such as the Project on Youth and Non-military Opportunities) exist primarily to campaign against the JROTC. Also, the removal of the words "campaign against" makes these organizations appear to be philosophical ones that don't actually do anything, and they in fact do quite a lot. I don't see any reason for these edits other than trying to understate the impact and actions of the organizations against the JROTC. If there is a good reason for these edits, that is fine, but otherwise they will stay reverted. Heavy Metal Cellist talkcontribs

Check the history of the JROTC entry and you will find that it was I that added references to these groups in the first place. You should see how the entry was two months ago. The referenced evidence doesn't support that these organizations "do quite a lot" about JROTC. I encourage you to dig up information that demonstrates their activities and build the case. I removed the "large national" designation as it doesn't fit all groups listed, case in point, Project YANO, who's "outreach focuses on youths in San Diego County". Terjen 01:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry about my harsh reaction. The reason I included that statement was that I wanted to make it clear that it wasn't just local and community groups that were protesting the JROTC. I clarified the statement, making sure that readers would understand both that large, national organizations oppose the JROTC and that YANO is a small community organization. Thanks.

Heavy Metal Cellist talkcontribs

I put a comment on the role and purpose section about making a text move to improve flow. Without doing any actual re-wording, there are the makings of a good, well-balanced controversy section from parts of the article that already exist. Hotfeba 18:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with what you did on the creed thing, but do you think someone could argue that your summary of the creed is subjective and demonstrates bias in favor of JROTC? In other words someone could say that your interpretation is not what there's is, whereas simply quoting the creed in it's full text leaves it open for one to make draw their own conclusion. sf46

3RR
You just heavily violated the 3RR - a policy I know for a fact that you are very familiar with. You did a large number of revisions in the IIUS article since last night. I urge you to revert them less I am compelled to report them. Thank you.-Psychohistorian 13:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to make a report, although I think it would be a waste of time for all involved. Your claim is completely unsubstantiated.Terjen 17:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Esequiel Hernandez Jr
The article Esequiel Hernandez Jr has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --  Merope  22:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Esequiel Hernandez Jr satisfies the notability criteria of being a person achieving renown or notoriety for playing a major role in a event receiving major news and media coverage. His killing was covered by major news media such as Time and the New York Times, and there was a Congressional investigation of his killing leading to the Oversight Investigation of the Death of Esequiel Hernandez, Jr.: A Report of Chairman Lamar Smith to the Subcommittee on Immigration & Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 150th congress. Note that gHits may underreport the number of articles on him as the name has multiple permutations.Terjen 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree...good article, too. StudyAndBeWise 18:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Having run across this article, I undeleted your first two versions, Terjen, for the sake of making the complete records available to all readers. It should be safe now, but let me know if it's ever nominated for deletion. —Toby Bartels (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

AAPS
When you get a chance, please take a look at my comments at Talk:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Creation-evolution forks
I am sorry to say that I am not convinced that these forks were a good think, or that they were handled well. These were significant changes and I think it would have been far better to do something like filll does when he puts potentially controversial changes on his personal discussion pages, works out the kinks, and then seeks feedback from others. I am going to post essentially this message on the creation evolution controvesry talk page. StudyAndBeWise 03:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

US attorneys controversy
Great job on getting this to be a current event! You definately did most of the heavy lifting. Remember 21:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

AP
Hi, You cannot attribute stories on the current events portal to AP because AP links are 1. temporary and the urls quickly change, and 2. AP is unreliable. KazakhPol 21:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * At least one of the stories you removed was published on the website of The Guardian. That Associated Press is an unreliable source is highly POV. Terjen 22:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
Yeah, but the NPOV wording has to stand for more than five seconds, don't you think? I think your removal of the tag I placed is premature, and should wait until there's some stability in this section when I'd be happy to remove it. (Also, my observation has been that the person who placed it is usually asked if changes are sufficient for its removal.) So I'd appreciate it if you;d self-revert your removal for now. Tvoz | talk 18:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible peer review for Dismissal of USA's controversy
At the instigation of User:Bdushaw I have drafted something (based on his questions) for the Peer Review page for Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. I'm interested in knowing your level of interest in participating in responding to suggestions made there, whether such a review would be worthwhile, given the changing nature of the article, and your suggestions for revisions to the request for review, which is in draft form at User:Yellowdesk/scratch4. -- Regards, Yellowdesk 05:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You do good work.
Hello Terjen, Thanks for helping with the Ron Paul 2008 Section! ITS EXCELLENT!

Anappealtoheaven —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anappealtoheaven (talk • contribs) 18:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

RP racism quote
We already have almost the same quote a few lines up - actually looks like an excerpt from the same or a very similar quote - but the way we have it is from his own congressional website which I think is a better source than Lew Rockwell, and it is from April 2007 which makes it more timely. I'm going to see if the original congressional site quote was longer and will expand it and take yours out - no point in saying virtually the same thing twice. Tvoz | talk 19:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Rascism - Ok I see your point
This section is so big it is hard to keep track of it from one minute to another.

I would like to see it reduced considerably and stop focusing on the comments of people other than RON PAUL.

Anappealtoheaven 23:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

further explanation please?
Why did you exicse the John Yoo example?

Further explanation please.

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't excise the John Yoo example. I just split the paragraph and added a more precise example of what Yoo has in mind... some may say, a "nutcase" ;-) Terjen 15:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Your revert on Ron Paul
hey there, you reverted a summary of his votes, taken from his page, on his voting record. Please explain exactly what is unsupported by the source, what needs expansion or improvement. It does not get much better than his own page. thanks.

23:00, June 9, 2007 Terjen (Talk | contribs) (53,349 bytes) (→Political positions - rm POV commentary not supported by source; expand; improve reference)

Skywriter 01:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not revert the summary of votes on the Ron Paul entry but expanded it with additional items from the same record. I removed your unsupported claim (also contradicted by the record) that Paul's views on social issues are consistent with the Republican Party and that he has a socially conservative voting record. Please keep further discussion on the talk page for the entry. Terjen 01:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Challenge
I respectfully draw your attention to my recent comments at horse slaughter, whose title change you opposed. BrainyBabe 16:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

CAMS smiles back at you !
Thank you for catching and correcting that vandalism at the CAMS entry. We had a logo up there, any idea how to get it back?

Also did a trackback on the IP, goes to Denver Qwest. Do you think it might be good for me to send a statement to abuse@qwest?

Thanks again! GS at CAMS ~ Coalition Against Militarism in Our Schools


 * To get the logo back, just go to the History of the page to see the source of the original entry before it was vandalized. Unless the vandalism get to be really annoying, I recommend just checking the entry from time to time and reverting it. Kids will be kids. Terjen 17:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Politically incorrect
Terjen, I appreciate your help at Ron Paul, though I have not been able to follow all of the recent spate of edits. In the fracas I may have gotten your and Vidor's edits confused in parts. I'd like to recommend against calling the objectionable newsletter comments "politically incorrect", first because the wikilink was a disambiguation leading to "political correctness" (which is confusing even if fixed), and second because that does not appear a neutral description (looking at either the WP article, the source(s), or common sense). It seems that "derogatory" has stood consensus the longest, while "disparaging" and "controversial" have also been tried. If you think this is important, please respond at Talk:Ron Paul. Thanks! John J. Bulten 03:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Paul_Revolution#Ron_Paul_Revolution

If you have time I would like to hear your comments on this page. Thank you.--Duchamps comb (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH Alert
Fine with Frum content being moved wherever you want in the page (I find Frum repugnant, but during the GOP primary cycle, what he has to say is highly notable). I thought about putting a section break between Frum and the New Republic article, but it looked funky. I don't think they're related (I mean, I think the "disturbing" stuff Frum's talking about is the fact that Paul may be a crypto-confederate), but the article read that way. Is that what you were alerting me about?

--- tqbf 00:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. I think we should avoid making it look like Frum was commenting on the New Republic article. I don't think it is apparent from the context what "terrible answers" Frum find "disturbing". I guess it is just a fancy way of saying he disagrees with Paul and perhaps with Stewart labeling Paul the most conservative running.Terjen (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

May have stomped on your edit...
I reverted your Houston Chronicle change, but didn't notice you were reorg'ing the section; since you're editing more heavily than I am, I'll let you sort it out, but sorry for scrambling the text. We can take the Chron discussion to talk if you need to (as long as you're around to talk it out, I'm not going to revert your next change; just WP:BRD).

--- tqbf 17:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reverted per your suggestion. I really don't think we should include the quote that the response was "a disservice to the young true believers supporting him". Terjen (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Took it to talk. Sorry for the confusion. WP is unusually slow today. --- tqbf  18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Careful
Be careful what you call "editorializing" my friend. Saying "others showed him lower" is a FACT, not my opinion. Also "but" is not always a "weasel word", so perhaps you can get off your high horse for a minute. For someone demanding such careful wording, I can't see why you are fighting to give a false impression about the percentage of votes Paul got. He did not actually get 10%, so when you keep "rounding up" while talking about "weasel words", it does lead one to believe that you're not being very neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The number 9.96 is correctly rounded to 10.0 as I did, not 9.9 as you insist on. However, I will assume good faith and just assume you are mathematically challenged rather than presume you are showing your true colors when it comes to bias in editing the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 entry. Terjen (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is it required that we round off numbers? It isn't. I know full well how to round numbers, I am choosing not to round it off. How is giving a correct figure bias? Actually, rounding it up to give a false impression is showing bias my friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your action rounding 9.96 to 9.9 talk for itself. Your rationale for the edit: "No rule requiring we round up to make it look like Paul got double digits." Terjen (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What you meant to say was "No Niteshift, there is no requirement to round up". The reason you are fighting so hard to round the number up is to make it look like he got double digits, isn't it? When you go to get gas, do you also ask them to round the gallons up and pay for the higher amount? You do realize that when push comes to shove, the factual number is 9.96%? That is the official result from Iowa, not the simplified number from CNN. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, my reason for rounding 9.96 was solely to improve readability of the article. I would have preferred no decimals (10) as in the percentages we have in the same context, but left the number to one decimal (10.0) as a compromise. But I will keep an eye out for your edits in the future, as you seem to have an attitude incompatible with several WP policies. Terjen (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've already reviewed a number of your edits. You appear to favor Paul. You also tried your nit-picking act with me before when I said Thompson "trailed" the others. I can see several WP policies that your attitude appears incompatible with as well. I'll be watching yours as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Romney thing you rv'd
I think this phrase was meant as a positive thing about the campaign; maybe you want to rephrase it? The point was he had more donors who contributed less each, which is sort of impressive. --- tqbf 03:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Bringing in Romney in particular seemed irrelevant in that context. Whether an edit is positive or negative for the campaign is not my editing criteria. Terjen (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Didn't mean to imply that it was, just thought maybe you figured I was editorializing; definitely trying not to. --- tqbf  03:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't even check which editor added the statement. That's not one of my editing criteria either (although I may have more confidence in some editors and be more suspicious about others). Terjen (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ron Paul
I've put back the tag. Someone else can look at it. —Random832 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

'96 election
Not disputing the edit --- totally valid --- but, have you checked out the demos on Paul's district? Winning an overwhelmingly white southern district "despite" disputed evidence of racism is hardly evidence of much. =)

--- tqbf 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is just a relevant fact. Without it we leave the reader with an open question as to whether Paul beat or lost to the attacking Morris. Besides, if what you insinuate is factual, Morris would have little reason to bring it up in the campaign. Terjen (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Meh, people misjudge the electorate all the time. I agree with you; I'm not being particularly productive here. --- tqbf  19:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Winner take all
According to the wiki article on these states, they are winner take all. Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008. I think it is important to mention since Paul and other candidates, have won delegates because they've been in states that allocate based on percentage. This won't occur in these states, which have significant numbers that will only go to one candidate. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the source I cited in the explanation for the edit, California's 173 delegates are awarded on a "Winner Take All" basis by each of the 53 congressional district: Whoever gets the most votes in a district gets three delegates. This is very different from a statewide winner-take-all system, as the delegates can be split between multiple candidates. I removed the other states we proclaimed to be winner-take-all so we can make sure it is accurate, and eventually reintroduce or correct the claim based on cited sources.Terjen (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "WASHINGTON - The winner-take-all Republican primaries in Florida on Jan. 29, and one week later in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, might seem to favor Republican contender Rudy Giuliani because so much of the battle will be fought on or near his home turf.

Winner-take-all Florida, home to many New York émigrés, is where Giuliani has campaigned almost exclusively for the past several weeks. Here is the rest: Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to like Real Clear politics...... Try looking here: What does it say right after "delegates at stake: 57"? Yeah, "winner take all"! Niteshift36 (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at this list from Real Clear Politics. Every state with a W is a winner take all state. As are FL and NY found on this page: Stop being disruptive. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Great! That's a better source than the original one, which didn't clarify whether Florida has winner take all per congressional district or the full state, potentially misleading the reader to think it was the latter (as you seemed to believe when editing the California section). As to being disruptive, I respectfully remind you about your recent efforts to round 9.96  to 9.9 just to avoid making it look like Ron Paul got double digits! Terjen (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I used the info from the wiki article on the primary for CA. Maybe you should go tell them they are wrong. #2 If you want to explain the difference, feel free, but when the MSM is calling it WTA, then it's not something I am making up. #3 Now two wrongs make a right? You want to bring the 10% thing (which he did not get) up again to justify being disruptive now? Look, I appreciate that you are a Paul supporter and doing the best you can to make your guy look good but everything can't be worded just to spin him in a good light. 06:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs)


 * As to your questions: No. I do object that you label my good faith edits "disruptive". Terjen (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
Nice work refactoring. Also, I have a personal problem with saying something just shy of 100% is 100%, but as it's the reference which made the claim, I have no ground to argue. &mdash; X S  G  06:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Well, now you know why it said "Practically all" originally instead of "more than 99%" or "100%". I am fine with the old language if you want to go back to it. Terjen (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's too easy to confuse the phrase "practically all" as weasel words. Best to use the terminology directly from the reference, so 100% it is. &mdash; X  S  G  18:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

United States public debt
In what sense do you mean that there are only 116 million "American taxpayers"? Shouldn't your precise sense be described in the article? 216.165.199.50 (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The number of American taxpayers is from the latest State of the Union address by president Bush.


 * Terjen, that number refers to the number of taxpayers who would have their taxes increased by Congress not renewing the federal income tax cuts, not the total number of federal income taxpayers. And, for example, many thousands of people pay federal gasoline tax, but no income tax.  I'm removing this unclear reference from the article, and replacing it with total population.  216.165.199.50 (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
Try knowing what you are talking about. Go look up libel and come back when you are educated enough to discuss the topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick note regarding semi-protection
Hi. I noticed you added the semi-protected template to Talk: Ron Paul, but the page isn't semi-protected. Protection can only be applied by administrators, and the template merely informs people about the protection. If you want to request protection in the future, you can drop a note on an admin's talk page or at requests for page protection. Natalie (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please explain the relevence
Paul is running as a Republican. The Libertarian decided if he loses as a Republican, they'd like to put him on their ticket. Paul says no. What is relevent about that? And why is a party he isn't campaigning for relevent to his campaign? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Article importance scale for WikiProject Equine
Hello. WikiProject Equine is discussing an article importance scale here. Your POV would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Trevor Lyman
An article that you have been involved in editing, Trevor Lyman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Trevor Lyman. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2
Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Illegal immigration article
I see you've taken up some further clean-up of Illegal immigration to the United States. Thanks for the help.... and keep up the good edits! Wikidemo (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection of Illegal immigration to the United States
Hi. Regarding the multiple IP addresses reportedly being used by Psychohistorian, it was my understanding that this activity has been alleged for some time on his/her user page, and without any attempt by Psychohistorian him/herself to challenge or remove the allegation on that page (if he/she in fact disagrees with it).

You might also want to check with Brimba, who (judging from this note in my own talk page) has apparently had dealings with Psychohistorian in the past and was able to identify some of the IP addresses in question as belonging to that user.

In my view (which might just be my own personal opinion), I would think that anyone with an established Wikipedia account ought to use that account when editing Wikipedia, instead of editing anonymously — especially when the edits may be contentious, and more especially when evidence (or, at least, a credible claim) has been posted linking specific IP addresses with the user in question. If (as now appears to be the case) Psychohistorian is denying being the anonymous editor using these IP addresses, I would think he/she should welcome the suggestion that the "illegal immigration" article should be semi-protected — along with any other articles that have been recently edited from the addresses in question — or perhaps even that anonymous editing of any article from these IP addresses should be blocked — in order to dispel any possible confusion. Does this make sense to you? Or are there some valid reasons (which I'm missing right now) which could make this sort of activity legitimate after all? Richwales (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ayurveda
How did I miss that? I read though it quickly looking for a discussion of "religion"... thanks for undoing my mistake. Verbal  chat  06:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border
Hi, Terjen! I recognized that the editors involved agreed that the page needed to move, but did not know what to move it to. If you feel strongly, try doing a straw poll on the various available titles. When there is consensus, please re-list at the requested moves again. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar 4 u
It's a start... ;-) Thanks. Terjen (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, very interesting article! I have nominated a fact from it for the Did You Know? section of the Main Page.  Accordingly I have formatted all the references using the parameter.   Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  16:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Why family reunification in lieu of chain migration in your edit to anchor baby?
Chain migration is more specific to the particular instance, whereas family reunification is a more general type of immigration; I think the definite and specific should be preferred over the more general and vague. I'm also a little surprised by your copying the material from the immigration section of Anchor baby over to the family reunification article; it may not be appropriate there as currently written. The legal discussion in the Anchor baby article is very specific to citizen children of non-citizen parents (with particular emphasis on illegal immigration to the US). US law concerning family reunification is actually far broader and encompasses such things as legal immigrants bringing their family over, bringing spouses over, siblings, children, etc. RayAYang (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Chain migration is not more specific than immigration through family reunification, but means pretty much the same in this context. See also this dictionary definition. I am sure the material will be expanded in the family reunification entry, so I am not worried that the information copied there doesn't cover all aspects. I hope this answers your concerns - eventual further discussion would be more properly located in the Talk:Chain migration for the benefit of the other editors. Terjen (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I suppose family reunification is a better place to talk about the law. The chain migration article appears to have a more historical, rather than legal, emphasis. I have edited the entry at family reunification -- can you take a look and tell me if you think it's sufficiently general and will stand up? RayAYang (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I added some specific content as Family reunification as this aspect seems to be of special interest for some. Terjen (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Anchor baby
I did not add WPLaw to anchor baby. WPLaw already existed. I merely classified it and added an importance level. Afterward I thought to remove it from WPLaw, but became busy doing someting else. EECavazos (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wide Angle (TV series)
Hi there. I'm a bit new to this wiki game and realize that I should've gotten in touch before making a full-scale edit. That said, I'd like to dig in there and add back most of that information from yesterday. Much of the current info is out of date. I work for the series, and we've got lots of other information that we think would be helpful/instructive/interesting/etc. Obviously let me know if I'm going astray on that. Love to learn as I go. Thanks! Seelbach (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Immigration
Thank you for cleaning up immigration. It looks much better now - easily understood. I'm a little new to editing Wikipedia, so I wasn't exactly sure how to proceed. You fixed it nicely.The Fiddly Leprechaun (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Illegal immigration article
Please see my comment on the talk page to Illegal immigration to the United States. You seem to be revert warring with an IP editor over a change to the lead. It's not clear to me, reviewing things, exactly what the change is, which is right, and why it matters. So best to lay it out on the talk page. You may have (barely) violated WP:3RR on this so please be careful. I will not file anything, but to avoid a block you should probably indicate that you do not plan further reverts. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul
Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability and original research
Please read Verifiability and Original research, and WP:SYNTH. You've now repeatedly inserted content that is not in sources cited, merely because you believe it is true, or because you think it could possibly be sourced elsewhere. For example, you've added text such as "capsaicin aerosol" &mdash; even though the source cited makes no mention of "capsaicin" or "aerosol." The text you're adding could be true, but that's quite beside the point: the point is that we follow what the reliable sources say on a particular point and we don't engage in original research here. Please knock it off. Neutralitytalk 04:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can WP:RS substantiate the disputed (by you) statements that pepper spray is "a powerful chemical aerosol also used by police for crowd control" and that bear spray is "a capsaicin aerosol like the stronger pepper spray used by the police for crowd control". Neither should be controversial and is summarized from the linked Wikipedia entries, but WP:NOTSOURCE and all. Terjen (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

On "usually"
Have you ever stopped to ponder what even is usual, or what sets those things apart from those others, those few, those "unusual" sort? Can the abnormal be normalized? If the unexpected later become reality once, should we expect the unexpected in the future? What about twice, or thrice? I bet Socrates, Confucius and Triple H also pondered such thoughts. Or at least I would bet, in theory. Hard to find a bookie that would cover a thing like that...isn't it?

Long story short, thanks for trying. Now go on and indulge yourself, grab a glass of wine, your favourite easy chair and of course, this compact disc playing in your home stereo system. After all, music soothes even the savage beast.

Or do whatever you will, it's your weekend! But seriously, though. The Offspring were right all along, at least up until they changed, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Boogaloo movement
Your persistent refusal to drop the stick as to the description of the Boogaloo movement as far-right is verging on tendentious and disruptive editing behavior. There is a clearly-expressed formal consensus in a RFC that the article will describe the movement as far-right. If you wish to change this recent and formally-determined consensus, you will need to open another formal RFC and ask that the prior consensus be overturned. That is your one and only option at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Another option is to open a civilized discussion on the talk page, as I did on February 7 as a first step. Bringing attention to this discussion with a tag is hardly "tendentious" and "disruptive", while removing the tag as you repeatedly have done may qualify. Terjen (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement request
I have filed an Arbitration Enforcement request in regards to your editing behavior at Boogaloo movement. Your participation is invited. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You’re in a hole. Don’t keep digging (with personal attacks / edit warring). Indeed, if you want an RfC overturned, you'll need to start another RfC (unless circumstances changed such that the previous RfC content is uncontentiously invalid).  starship .paint  (exalt) 09:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. I have no intent of getting into neither personal attacks nor edit warring, but are focusing on updating myself on the intricacies of arbitration. I have not and am not searching to get an RfC overturned, but appreciate your recommendation should I want to overturn an RfC in the future. Terjen (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see I didn’t word that properly. Removing far-right would have the same effect as overturning the RfC. Now, on here, criticising others is not a valid way to defend yourself. Plus, no ‘policy wonk’ would have quoted WP:BRB in relation to a WP:1RR page. You’ll dealing with editors who have more experience in working within contentious topics, and apparently, you don’t have enough experience. You’re in deep water here, and you’re not going to be able to argue your way out of this. At the minimum, you’ve got to acknowledge that the edit warring of the tag was a mistake, and acknowledge that the proper way to move forward is to start a new RfC. If I were you, I’d ask Dennis Brown how I should be changing my behaviour, and then I would fully commit to that.  starship .paint  (exalt) 23:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your feedback. Please note that I am not arguing/attempting to remove the far-right label from the lede of the entry, evident from the discussion on the Talk page. I regret bringing up that the filer of the arbitration (also the editor reverting my edits) recently was officially warned about edit warring. The "policy wonk" comment was tongue-in-cheek, but it seems to have made its way around, so you may have a point in that I am not experienced enough to work within contentious topics. Hopefully I can be a quick learner. Terjen (talk) 02:36, 29 April 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. Bacondrum 22:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement
To enforce an arbitration decision and for for editing warring and other disruptive editing at the article Boogaloo movement, as discussed at WP:AE, you have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

I got my first - and hopefully last - block. Here is the verdict: "There is a clear disconnect between what he thinks is acceptable and what the greater community expects.  Looking at his history, it is clear he is fascinated by American Politics in general, but so far, I've only seen problems in the one article, so a topic ban seems too broad.  I've actually dedicated a lot of time debating the "solution", more than Terjen has in explaining it, to be sure.  A sanction should accomplish two things: 1. stop disruption and 2. discourage future disruption.  With that in mind, I've decided to keep it simple and block Terjen for two weeks as a logged WP:AE action, as they have not been blocked before."

Background

I inserted a tag next to the "far-right" label in the lede of the Boogaloo movement page, linking to a discussion on the Talk page, which lists reasons the label needs an in-text attribution:


 * 1. While the Boogaloo movement is frequently labeled "far-right", they're generally not far-right as described in the linked Wikipedia entry.


 * 2. There isn't a consensus to use the label among reliable sources, with substantial experts on extremists explicitly avoiding categorizing them as far-right.


 * 3. Far-right is a contentious label, which per MOS:LABEL is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."


 * 4. There are WP:BLP concerns as the entry names adherents of the Boogaloo movement, who by association are smeared with the far-right label as being anti-communist, authoritarian, ultranationalist, and nativist having chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views.

My goal of inserting the tag was to bring attention to the ongoing but slow discussion on the Talk page, with the hope of building a consensus for in-text attribution of the "far-right" label. In the discussion, I recognized the recent RfC consensus finding plenty of reliable sources using the "far-right" label in their description of the movement, and emphasized I was not advocating removing the label from the lede.

Here is the sequence of events that led to the block:


 * Before 15 April 2021, Terjen opened a discussion on the Talk page of the Boogaloo movement entry, pointing out concerns with using the "far-right" label in wikivoice in the lede of the page, proposing it is resolved by adding an in-text attribution.

04:21, 15 April 2021 Terjen adds a "disputed" tag to the "far-right" label in the lede, linking to the discussion on the Talk page.

05:18, 15 April 2021 reverts to remove the tag, with the comment "an RFC already determined that this is appropriate. You'll need new consensus to change it."


 * The discussion about the "far-right" label continues on the Talk page

21:57, 20 April 2021‎ Terjen restores the "disputed" tag, with the edit comment explaining it is "linking to ongoing discussion"

22:30, 20 April 2021‎ reverts the edit, removing the "disputed" tag, with the comment "per clear and undisputed RfC, closed with "Firm consensus to describe Boogaloo movememnt as far-right as per overwhelming majority of reliable sources"


 * The discussion about the "far-right" label continues on the Talk page

0:09, 26 April 2021 Terjen adds a new "disputed" tag linking to the updated ongoing discussion, with the edit comment "tag bringing attention to ongoing discussion about mislabeling"

0:12, 26 April 2021‎ reverts the edit, removing the tag, with the comment "Again, you have two options: open a new RFC to reverse the previous formal consensus, or WP:DROPTHESTICK"


 * The discussion continues on the Talk page, now with a new post arguing "far-right" is a contentious MOS:LABEL "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

03:41, 26 April 2021‎ Terjen adds a different "Contentious label" tag linking to the discussion, with the edit comment "tag contentious label - see discussion"

7:35, 26 April 2021‎ reverts the edit, removing the tag, with no edit comment.

Complaint

The complaint was regarding placing a "disputed" tag on the "far-right" label in the lede of the Boogaloo movement article, with a link to an open discussion on the Talk page about the label needing an in-text attribution. The filer claimed I was "[a]ttempting to permanently tag the section until they get the outcome they want."

Filings

On 26 April 2021 files an arbitration enforcement request, with  and  listed as parties. states "Terjen rejects an overwhelming and formally-expressed community consensus, and refuses to understand that their options are limited to opening a new RfC, or accepting the status quo." states "Even a cursory glance at sourcing for this claim shows it is very well cited. The far-right descriptor is not only well cited, it is used in the vast majority of sources." states "This should have been resolved the first time Terjen was told that a new formal RfC would be needed to override the previous one. Terjen could have just opened a new RfC, preferably with a good explanation of what has changed since the June/July 2020 RfC to warrant revisiting the topic, and that would have been that. Refusing to do this simple thing, and continuing to edit war the tag into the article despite clear explanations that there was a formal decision to include the wording, is tendentious."

on 27 April 2021 reports the same issue as an 1RR violation, stating "They've been warned about edit warring and disruptive editing before, there's an ongoing Arbitration Enforcement request etc. They're continuing being generally disruptive, but they've clearly violated the 1RR sanctions on the page". Aftermath

On 01:12, 30 April 2021 closes the active discussion on the Boogaloo movement talk page about adding an in-text attribution to the "far-right" label, arguing "I don’t think further discussion in here is productive. If anyone wants to water down / change the Wikivoice 'far right' description in the first sentence, please start a new WP:RFC with your proposed new sentence, and bring reliable sources (some you can find at WP:RSP)."

Learnings


 * Follow WP:BRD to a tee. Never restore my version after a revert. Discuss until a resolution is found, or move on. Never use Bold-revert-revert or similar alternatives when editing contentious topics.


 * It was a mistake to reinstate the tag on April 20 after their April 15 revert. Instead of thinking an edit comment was sufficient, I should have continued the discussion with the editor on the Talk page, following good WP:BRD practices.


 * The issue should have been resolved through civil discussion. I could have asked the editor to substantiate their assertion that my "only options" were to "open a new RFC to reverse the previous formal consensus, or WP:DROPTHESTICK". I could have explained my position that open discussion is another option to achieve progress, and referenced WP:RFCBEFORE which recommends thoroughly discussing with other parties on the related talk page before opening an RfC process. After discussing the matter, I could eventually have requested the other editor to self-revert their edit.


 * Now that I have learned that a label substantiated by an RfC cannot be tagged as disputed, even if there is an active discussion disputing the label, I would of course have taken another approach to bring attention to the ongoing discussion about the "far-right" label needing in-text attribution.

Feedback from Enforcing Admin
I appreciate the time and effort you took evaluating the Arbitration Enforcement regarding my edits to the Boogaloo movement page. I am sorry I didn't get my response submitted in time. I have reflected on my mistakes and have documented the experience as well as some of the lessons learned above. If you have time - and I fully understand if you have other priorities - I appreciate if you let me know whether there are any serious issues that I have missed. My goal is to become a better editor and return to editing without making such mistakes again. Terjen (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've actually been watching your talk page develop over the last few days, and have feel like you are starting to understand. Let me just offer a couple of minor points. First, I'm an editor too.  I understand it can be VERY aggravating to deal with other editors sometimes.  Let me offer you an example.  John Wayne.  Poke around the edit history and the one editor's talk page if you get bored. You have no idea how frustrated I was at a new editor edit warring over ugly colorized photos, and refusing to communicate, even after many messages were left.  It's a different frustration, but I still get it.  I have 60k edits behind me, I've been frustrated more than a few times here.  I understand frustration.


 * Re your interest in policy: Policy here isn't like "federal law". We don't write, then follow, like Laws. We follow, then write.  Our system is much more dynamic and fluid. This is why the spirit of a policy is just as important as the letter.  Being a stickler for detail and finding ways around policy doesn't work here.  You were talking about becoming a policy wonk, and I get it, you have some exposure to the rules, but just remember that the intent of the policy is what really matters.  WP:Wikilawyering will get you in trouble.  You are correct about WP:BRD, btw, it is the law of the land.  It is an essay with the power of policy because it is the best summarization of policy out there.


 * Finally: Enjoy yourself.  Branch out away from politics and edit other topics you just enjoy.  Politics is a great area, but full of drama.  I edit a wide variety of articles, on different animals, military aircraft (I'm a vet), automobile related.  I do this so I don't get too intense.  If you stay in high tension areas all the time, it can make you defensive, reactive and it affects your judgement.  By all means, edit them, but spend half your time editing in other areas that you like.  It isn't always easy, but it lowers your blood pressure and makes you less likely to make mistakes.  Often, I'm in the minority in discussions and I don't get my way.  Most of us are this way.  You should expect the same. That's why it's good to edit some articles where there aren't any contentious issues. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice and for taking the time to respond. I feel your pain on the John Wayne entry. At least it isn't degenerating into whether to write 'color' or 'colour'.


 * Wikilawyering would've been to argue in EW that my controversial edits strictly weren't violating the letter of WP:1RR. I had the means, motive, and opportunity, but didn't. I have a working familiarity with policy, but no intention of abusing loopholes in policy or becoming a "policy wonk." That tongue-in-cheek comment was posted after spending considerable time carefully reviewing WP policy in an attempt to figure out why everybody in AE seemed to agree that going straight to an RfC was my only option.


 * I am all on board on the mission of Wikipedia, but a personal motivation for editing AP2 is that it gives me a front-row seat to how narratives form in media, and a hands-on experience while monitoring their evolution. Media criticism has long been a special interest of mine - I focused on Media Studies in grad school as part of a dual master's. When I get back to editing, I will follow up my commitment to develop a media critical perspective for the Death of Brian Sicknick entry. Terjen (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * And I personally want all viewpoints that are supported by WP:RS to be represented at Wikipedia. Granted, not everyone does, but I think most people do even when it is "inconvenient".  The suggestion to branch out is a suggestion I give myself often enough.  It's easy to burn out if you stand too long in one place.  I think this is probably true with anything in life, though.  I can be a little too intense for my own good, so I take breaks from this place completely, and learned to accept there is always going to be a lot here I don't agree with. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I know what you're talking about. Since my initial period actively editing Wikipedia, I founded a tech startup and spent years intensively working on it. Now that has come to a happy conclusion, I have time to tender other interests. This is branching out, although I also have a healthy range of other activities. Terjen (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Solidarity
This Just In: InedibleHulk chains his compassionate ass to a tree and nails his symbolic balls to the wall, vowing to return in two weeks or whenever the system adequately reforms, whichever comes first! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Lies, lies, lies. I fell into that one. Now you've seen a political assassination up close. Killed the messenger. Too much drama for me. Can't wait to get back to editing again and help to move the project forward, wiser and stronger than ever. PS: I am neither right nor left but an equal opportunity neutralizer Terjen (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Me too. Just tend to defend fewer apparent lefties because they're so rarely outnumbered in these snap tribunals. I reserve my right to reply to pings in early May, or oppose the speedy summary execution of, who is currently only wrongly accused. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I also have the right to deny any accusations of Nazism, it turns out, but not to name my accuser anything dirty in return. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Something is rotten in the state of Denmark but Wikipedia is silent about it. Terjen (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're literally and figuratively correct. See Denmark-Syria relations, tagged for updates since June 2018. On the bright side, my accuser allegedly wasn't calling me a Nazi, and possibly nobody at all! If I were you, which I also am not, I'd take the next ten days in silence. Hard to appeal in a climate like this, especially when your admin already showed much leniency (relative to a year's block). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It could be my only chance to learn first hand how the AE appeal system works. The die is cast. Terjen (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll see what I can learn from your mistakes, if you make any. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That said, a great leader who almost changed the system did once say something profound about doing things that aren't easy precisely because they are hard. Maybe he was right. Maybe it depends on the thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The same leader also had the back of his head come out of his mouth as leftist icon John Oliver put it in his show last week (I am generally a big fan). Now I know what the taste is that I've had in my mouth lately. Terjen (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are worse places a president's mind can wind up, ask Reagan's nurses. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I had to pry loose one nut and (technically) bend my vow a bit. Andrew Brown Sr.'s son's family's lawyer was being portrayed as multiple personalities, it was disorder, I tell ya! Forgive me, brother. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm back. Good to see you're already ahead. That settled, keep on keeping on, keeping it real, I'll be back again later, somewhere! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Terjen
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''

''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – Terjen (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:AE, logged at
 * Sanction being appealed : Two week block to enforce an arbitration decision and for editing warring and other disruptive editing at the article Boogaloo movement, as imposed at WP:AE

"There is a clear disconnect between what he thinks is acceptable and what the greater community expects. Looking at his history, it is clear he is fascinated by American Politics in general, but so far, I've only seen problems in the one article, so a topic ban seems too broad. I've actually dedicated a lot of time debating the "solution", more than Terjen has in explaining it, to be sure. A sanction should accomplish two things: 1. stop disruption and 2. discourage future disruption. With that in mind, I've decided to keep it simple and block Terjen for two weeks as a logged WP:AE action, as they have not been blocked before."


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

I am blocked from editing their Talk page, thus cannot notify the administrator who made the enforcement action. However, they are already evidently aware of the appeal.

Statement by Terjen
The sanction was for an incident on a single article, where the complaint was about adding a tag to the "far-right" label in the lede of the Boogaloo movement article, with the tag linking to an ongoing discussion on the Talk page regarding the label needing an in-text attribution.

Upon being notified about the AE request, I immediately self-quarantined from all further editing of main pages, demonstrating the discipline to cause no further disruption.

I have reflected on the incident and taken my mistakes to heart. I pledge to do my best to avoid repetition in the future. Further sitewide blocking is unlikely to bring additional insights. It will be beneficial for WP to let me return to editing and practice what I've learned including resolving conflicts adhering to WP:BRD, allowing me to continue contributions I had in the works before the AE.

I have documented my perspective as well as lessons learned on my Talk page.

I am requesting a modification: Narrowing the sanction to a partial block limited to the single article where the transgression occurred, the Boogaloo movement main page.

Statement by (involved editor 1)
I object to the unblock and think further investigation of this editors behavior is warranted. At a brief glance their recent activity is telling. They've gotten straight back into it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starship.paint#Request_for_reopening_discussion apparently colluding to stop what they call "activist" editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Terjen#Solidarity WP:HOUNDING me, making a personal attack, insinuating that I am an activist: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erlend_Kvitrud&diff=next&oldid=1023696373 We appear to have a tendentious editor who is gaming us and is WP:NOTHERE Bacondrum 00:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Terjen

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Terjen (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Note
You are welcome to appeal at WP:AE, but I was already debating unblocking you early due to the reasons you are appealing about. My intention was to wait until Thursday and see what happens. That would be one week into the two week block. AE actions aren't "consensus", even if we discuss them and often act in consensus. They are unilateral, meaning no one can change my block without a group consensus, except me. I can change it for any reason without consulting with anyone. You haven't been blocked before so probably not aware of that, but any time an admin sanctions you, it's often a good idea to just ask them to modify first. It isn't required, and if you choose to go to AE instead, I won't take any offense, of course, and I would say the same thing I just said. I'm just saying it might be easier and faster if you didn't and discussed an unblock with me, as I am open to consideration, due to how you've conducted yourself since the block. Because I did the block, I can't really close or reply to the actual request above. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your consideration. This might be my only chance to experience the AE appeal process firsthand, so I don't mind if it takes a bit longer. It could be a valuable lesson if I were to advise other editors or perhaps even one day become an admin myself (assuming it is not precluded by having been sanctioned in AE). Terjen (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I would ask another admin to process this then, since I can't.  Perhaps  or  or whoever sees it first. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 09:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. PS: Interesting comments in Arbitration Enforcement about weaponizing AE, as well as your note about using draconian measures to suppress minority views. Like you, I completely disagree with far-right viewpoints, but also support allowing minority viewpoints to be expressed. Terjen (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no objection - sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and given Terjen's evident and expressed understanding of the issues at hand and how to productively engage on the issue, I doubt the behavior is likely to recur. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I object to the unblock and think further investigation of this editors behavior is warranted. They've gotten straight back into it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starship.paint#Request_for_reopening_discussion apparently colluding to stop what they call "activist" editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Terjen#Solidarity WP:HOUNDING me, making a personal attack, insinuating that I am an activist: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erlend_Kvitrud&diff=next&oldid=1023696373 We appear to have a tendentious editor who is gaming us and is WP:NOTHERE Bacondrum 00:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Misunderstanding NPOV
RE: - I don’t think WP:NPOV is what you think it is. NPOV doesn’t mean Wikipedia’s end product is neutral (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). It means we should neutrally reflect what the reliable sources say. That means that if a the majority of reliable sources take a stance, so do we.  starship .paint  (exalt) 15:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No, our articles must not take a stance but should "explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." NPOV explicitly means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Consider taking a break from editing and your admin-like activities until you have understood this non-negotiable fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Terjen (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Where in WP:NPOV says "must not take a stance"? There is no mention of the word "stance" in WP:NPOV. That's because we do take a stance, and that's the stance of reliable sources. What issue do you take with my editing and admin-like activities?  starship .paint  (exalt) 01:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Unblocked
I've unblocked you. You stated you wanted to appeal at AE but that takes a few days and your block would be over by the time a decision was made, so this late in the game, it is kind of pointless to do. I'm unblocking based on the discussions on this talk page. It doesn't require you agree with the block or "ask forgiveness", just that you understand there is a process for dealing with editing disagreements, and you showed early on you understand that. I have high confidence you intend to follow WP:BRD, as per your own unsolicited comments. Mainly, you didn't throw blame on everyone else, which is helpful and a bit refreshing. Waiting would make the block punitive rather than preventative, and that is something I really try to avoid. Time to move on past this bump in the road. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One final note: When you get called to an admin board, you are never required to respond, but responding promptly, concisely and appropriately will often prevent sanctions.  As admin, our goal is simply to solve problems, not to dole out justice (In fact, WP:There is no justice at Wikipedia).  Our tools for solving those problems are very limited, particularly when we only have one side of the story.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we have a problem here. I was going to come here and agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and support this unblock request given that Terjen appeared to have learnt his lesson, but alas. I took a quick look at their recent contributions to see if they really had changed behaviour and they have not. I now believe they are WP:SEALIONing and thus they are gaming us. They've returned to the now closed discussion that got them the original block, demanding the editor who closed the discussion re-open it
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starship.paint#Request_for_reopening_discussion
 * They also appear to be colluding with another editor who is having issues with "American politics broadly construed"
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Terjen#Solidarity
 * Then they turn up at another editor who's been having issues with a longstanding consensus, where they appear to be WP:HOUNDING me. Why did they place this comment under my comment? They appear to making a personal attack, insinuating that I am an activist:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erlend_Kvitrud&diff=next&oldid=1023696373
 * They clearly have changed, but not the way one would hope, they've simply changed tactic and are trying to game Wikipedia. I now have good reason to believe this editor is WP:NOTHERE. Bacon<b style="color: Orange;">drum</b> 23:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * At the very least I'd expect them to be firmly warned about playing these games. <b style="color: blue;">Bacon</b><b style="color: Orange;">drum</b> 00:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I will be gone for a week, you need to bring it up with another admin, or at an admin board. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't "colluding" with Terjen as part of some "game", I was talking with him openly and only about what you read in that link. I have no issues with American politics, broadly construed, only the two specific lies in the Capitol Hill storming article (it was an insurrection and five people were killed). By the indentation and welcome, I find it clear that any insinuations at Kvitrud's talk apply to Kvitrud, not you. And Terjen was blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing, not discussing article improvement. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , look up! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm more than happy to let an admin be the arbitrator regarding the personal attack (and possibly the POV pushing I've noticed from both of you regarding "two specific lies"). But I'm giving Terjen a chance to stop the silly games and demonstrate that they can act in good faith before I seek admin intervention. I've nothing more to say on the subject unless it ends up at ANI. <b style="color: blue;">Bacon</b><b style="color: Orange;">drum</b> 06:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They are lies and many have specified why, it's a neutral POV. If you can't understand that, I can't even begin to explain how I'm not playing a game here. If like-minded people are, they're hiding it well enough from me (and I'm a goddamned skeptic, brother). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies, you're a good and reasonable editor, sorry to insinuate otherwise. To be honest, I sometimes struggle to understand what you are saying - I don't mean that as an insult, it's just hard to understand your comments sometimes. <b style="color: blue;">Bacon</b><b style="color: Orange;">drum</b> 08:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Practice makes perfect, Hard to keep track of all the ways regular editors interpret written English, though. Some people find blunt too harsh, some were raised with other languages, some are straight crazier than both of us combined. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Assuming that strikethrough is somehow my fault, fair enough, I'll strike back. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Antifa Dispute.
Hey to stop the back and forth I created a dispute resolution here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Way to go! See also the DRN-notice template for notifications. Terjen (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Will do next time. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Please self revert this personal attack this is a bad faith act and violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I'm giving you a chance to correct your behavior here rather than going straight to the admins. If it is not reverted or removed you'll leave me with no other choice than to take this to the admins. <b style="color: blue;">Bacon</b><b style="color: Orange;">drum</b> 21:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It is a friendly welcome posted on the talk page of a (relatively) new editor, linking to a wikipedia essay with advice on dealing with hostility. How come you feel this is offending you? Terjen (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.JBL (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm recusing myself from this latest case, T, but will watch and maintain your innocence in spirit, silently. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to respond to WP:ANI, properly. In my opinion, apologies are in order.  starship .paint  (exalt) 00:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You said "you", referring to me. That is incorrect. But if there's one thing I've learned "colluding" with Terjen, it's that he's smarter than the classic cartoon coin-operated bear, knows what words mean and what they don't, suggest we all follow the suggestive spirit (not the letter) of WP:LETHIMGORALPH. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

OR and BLP re: DRASTIC
Hi, I don't want to further clog up that already extremely long ArbE. I think at this point, admins have enough info to render verdicts. By all means, keep adding stuff, that is your right and I am absolutely not saying you should not use it. Keep using it of your own volition. But I personally feel uncomfortable continuing to add the same arguments there, because word limits, walls of text, and added difficulty in figuring out the result, so I am coming here.

Re: your recent claim that I am conducting OR on BLPs on talk pages, and therefore should be sanctioned--

The relevant passage of WP:BLP, in my opinion is this (emphasis mine):

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate."

You may be right that BLP applies to talk pages, but it does not apply to discussions and debates about content choices on talk pages. When such content is not describing someone as doing something illegal, is not posting personal identity-theft info, is useful to making content decisions, and is on a talk page, neither WP:OR nor WP:BLP applies. That is my reading, and I am guessing, the reading of some of the other users who have commented on that ArbE case.

I would like to work with you on these contentious articles. It would help if we could not spend hours arguing about very specific tiny details, and figure out the middle ground where we agree. Instead of spending all our time (and my time too, I want to be clear) trying to find the things we disagree on.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 01:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging
Hi, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia. I just tried to ping you in a conversation that I thought you might be interested in. I hope that's not annoying!KristinaLu (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Purity culture


Hello, Terjen. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Purity culture".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 22:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes
In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:
 * Senkaku islands
 * Waldorf education
 * Ancient Egyptian race controversy
 * Scientology
 * Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:
 * India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
 * Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes
In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:
 * Senkaku islands
 * Waldorf education
 * Ancient Egyptian race controversy
 * Scientology
 * Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:
 * India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
 * Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment
You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure adopted
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Contentious topics procedure now in effect
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
 * A brief guide for administrators may be found at Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
 * Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
 * Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.
 * Discuss this at: