User talk:Wes sideman/Archive 1

Direct, reliable sources needed for Days of the Year pages
You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct reliable sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Expecting others to provide them for you is considered tendentious.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It might have been nice of the guy that took out the name to have left me this message instead though. Wes sideman (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And also, it's not like I added something that wasn't factual. It was already on the dead guy's page that he died, and that had a source. That's way different than somebody just adding something random and demanding that someone else find a source, isn't it? Wes sideman (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No answer, I guess this is how Wikipedia works, make an accusation and then take off. Wes sideman (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:Teahouse edit
I've recently reverted one of your edits on WP:Teahouse. It was an accident and I apologize. Best, Isabelle 🔔 19:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited South African farm attacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South African. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Southern Lord Records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Anderson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

K2
Hello! I think that this sentence should be changed to be clear. My understanding of the first part of the sentence: In January 2021, K2 became the final eight-thousander to be summited in the winter is the same as the following sentence: K2 became the final eight-thousender, that will be summited this winter in January 2021. Is it correct? I agree with the second part of the sentence, that has been added by you. I would make it simple as it is repeated almost the same in the chapter Winter expeditions, 2021: The summiting group consisted entirely of indigenous climbers from Nepal. If you decide to leave the sentence as it is I think the letter "a" shoud be added in front of "group". Please let me know what you think about simplifying the entire sentence. Best regards Szelma W (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I forgot the "a". Thanks for pointing that out.
 * The second part, when it was shorter, was a little unclear before, in that it could be taken to mean that "it was the final 8000er to be summited by a team of Nepalese climbers, in January 2021." I agree that my version is clunkier, and I would be open to changing it to something simpler - but the previous version was too simple, and just a little bit ambiguous. Wes sideman (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is regarding the Chad Johnson article that you reported at the Teahouse.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Zeta Psi
I noted your edit comment that the content of Zeta Psi was "likely plagiarized." The reason the content appears similar between the Zeta Psi website and Wiki is that I authored much of the text appearing in the Zeta Psi website content, and I agreed with the Zeta Psi organization that my use of that text of Wikipedia for the betterment of knowledge could continue to appear on Wiki even as I continued to allow use of it to Zeta Psi. I could hardly be called to plagiarize my own words. I would be happy to discuss whether by reply here or on my own talk page. Best, Citizen Sunshine (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * well okay. But how would anyone know that in advance? Wes sideman (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant no blame, of course; I just wanted to confirm to you my revert was based on personal authorship rather than disagreement with your diligence on plagiarism reversions. I hope you agree we can let alone the Zeta Psi content henceforth. Citizen Sunshine (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Tick tock Wesley. Times running FranklinNiz (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are referring to. Wes sideman (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Chad Johnson (television personality)
You seem to have an interest in American reality TV especially of the 'finding love'/'dating'/'hookup' variety. My interest is close to zero. I'm confident that Chad Johnson (television personality) is not notable for either his arrest or his pornographic career after it. I assumed since the article had existed since 2017 and seemed to have a fair level of coverage of the various reality shows he had been in, that Chad Johnson was notable for that career. If you're confident he's not, please let me know and I will send the article to AfD safe in the knowledge I'm not going to be yelled at because of some arcane (probably excessive) notability criteria for reality TV stars that I have zero interest in learning about. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops sorry Nil Einne (talk), looks like we posted on each other's talk pages at the same time. Wes sideman (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. —QuietMedian (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice Of New Sock Puppet
Hello. As you indicated in our discussion on my report of a possible violation of Wikipedia's edit warring policies, there are sock puppet accounts who have been harassing you about your additions to Chad Johnson's page. It is upsetting to see them try to dox you and attack you personally. They have now also found their way to my account. I thought I would let you know that the most recent sock puppet account is Darrenplz (talk) and they have posted on my talk page seeking my help. Best of luck in this ongoing game of whack-a-mole. QuietMedian (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I just noticed that. Wes sideman (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Tony & Tommy Mottola, cousins Mottola

 * Musician Guide and Encyclopedia.com: "in order to avoid confusion with his second cousin, established musician Tony Mottola." https://musicianguide.com/biographies/1608003219/Tommy-Mottola.html &  https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/literature-and-arts/music-popular-and-jazz-biographies/tommy-mottola
 * IMDb: "Cousin of jazz guitarist Tony Mottola.", https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0609554/trivia
 * Celebrity Net Worth: "Mottola is the cousin of famed jazz guitarist Tony Mottola." https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/ceos/tommy-mottola-net-worth/
 * MD Daily Record.com: "Cousin of jazz guitarist Tony Mottola.", https://mddailyrecord.com/tommy-mottola-net-worth-girlfriend-wife-kids-height-weight-age-gay-bio-2021-2022-2023

Regards. --Carzonzillo (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Carzonzillo, are you sure any of those qualify as reliable sources? For example, I know for a fact that IMDB and Celebrity Net Worth are NOY considered WP:RS. I haven't checked into the other two yet but I'm skeptical. Wes sideman (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that Musician Guide is reliable, because it even adds the fact that Tony and Tommy are second cousins. --Carzonzillo (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Musician Guide is not reliable. It's a personal website. That website claims Mottola used "T.D. Valentine" as a stage name to "avoid confusion" with his second cousin, but in Mottola's own book, he talks about the name "T.D. Valentine" and tells how it came about. He never once mentions a cousin. See here: Wes sideman (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Suitable for framing
Your comments/edit summaries on Zack Bia. Smiley face. That is all. JSFarman (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Confederate Memorial Day Rfc
Wes, the way that the Rfc was worded at Talk:Confederate Memorial Day was confusing in more ways than one, and as a result, I'm not sure participating editors are able to vote with all the information needed. In my case, I was all ready to vote 'B' until I saw how the lead was worded, and then realized I should vote 'A'. In my opinion, you should withdraw this Rfc (which as creator, you have the right to do; see WP:RFCEND) and raise the Rfc again after some time, and after thinking carefully how to word it (see also WP:RFCBEFORE). Please don't change the wording of the Rfc statement now; it's too late, and people have already voted. It's unfortunate, but I don't see any other way out of this mess than withdrawal; if you don't, you are likely to get a consensus not based on the realities of the article or even on the wishes of the editors voting. Your call. Good luck, and if you want to brainstorm how to word an Rfc question on this or any other topic, feel free to ping me. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't have much experience in this. I appreciate the input. Wes sideman (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you withdrew it; I think that was a good call. It's somewhat concerning that opinions were almost universally opposed to yours, since without a close reason, others may interpret it as establishing consensus and at least one already has, but with the confusing Rfc statement that might lead editors (like me) to vote opposite to their own opinion I think you had a good reason (mentioning it explicitly would've been better). Anyway, imho, the best thing now is to just let it rest for a while; there's WP:NODEADLINE, and starting up again too soon could cause some annoyance, because after all, editors are all volunteers. I'd give it a minimum of three months; by then, things will have calmed down, and you can start again if you still feel inclined to do so. Please make sure you comply with WP:RFCBEFORE, if you do; try discussing it first; if you're not getting enough feedback, consider notify WP:WikiProjects (see WP:APPNOTE). Lastly: if you get to the point where you feel another Rfc is necessary, feel free to contact me if you need help formulating a neutral statement that will avoid any issues next time around. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beylik of Tunis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beylik.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
Politrukki (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

October 2020
Hello! I see that you have been edit warring at the article Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot. I am glad to see that you are now discussing your differences at the article talk page. Be careful not to edit war again, because you have already passed the WP:3RR limit. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Welp wes_sideman I hope you are happy for edit warring AGAIN for no valid reason and you ultimately lost. And you have the nerve to still disagree when it's 100% clear.. shows you have some sort of personal grudge towards Klete Keller. NOW partly because of you, you made Wikipedia worse because the glorious super-smart admins here have forced me to make all future edits through "sockpuppetry" which was a term I never even heard of until one of the admins brought it up.. lol 98.211.202.152 (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the Klete Keller article is in pretty good shape at the moment. If you disagree, feel free to start a new section on the talk page to discuss your concerns. Wes sideman (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Zeta Psi
Hello Wes sideman. You've been warned for edit warring per the result of a complaint at the noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert again at Zeta Psi without getting a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed, at that complaint at the noticeboard, you said that I was adding a motto after "others" (plural) were reverting my change. In fact, I was restoring the motto (which I did not originally add) after many accounts which are all sockpuppets of each other were removing it. In other words, it was one guy, making different accounts, making the same change over and over again. I was not aware of any rule that prohibits me from reverting the changes made by one guy using many accounts. If those accounts are proven to be sockpuppets, will my warning be rescinded? Wes sideman (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks as though User:Volteer1 is a real editor and not a sock. And they made a comment in the AN3 which seems instructive, that they have checked Baird's Manual and could not find the passage you mention. Why not see if you can overcome their objection? While the socking is annoying, we still need to get the article right. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with that approach. When I initially made the change, it was because I noticed that different new accounts and IP addresses had removed the motto without explanation, and I assumed vandalism was at work. Then the socks started appearing and reverting the change, and yes, I should've checked the information and made sure it was valid. I know enough to do that now.
 * What I do have a problem with is getting a formal warning while the other editor is apparently getting off scot-free. You said Volteer1 is a real editor, but please realize, I even said in my sock report that I wasn't sure about him, but I was just including him to be thorough. However, you've said nothing about QuietMedian, who was actually the guy who "reported" me less than 24 hours after he created an account! it would take a serious suspension of disbelief to think that QuietMedian is not related to all those other sock accounts created in the last couple of days. So if I just create a bunch of accounts to make edits, and then create one more account to "report" on whatever editor I have a disagreement with, that's fine? Please tell me that's not the right way to do things. Wes sideman (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ironically you are the one who got off "scot-free" for edit warring Klete Keller for no reason AND you lost. 98.211.202.152 (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at Wikipedia as a place where one "wins" or "loses" is a good sign that you don't belong here. I do not look at Wikipedia in this way. Thanks for stopping by, though. Wes sideman (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Appears you didn't like my last comment since you deleted it "look in the mirror, you've been edit warring way before I came along". By definition a war is usually win, lose, or draw - Can't handle the truth? 96.92.27.137 (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I look forward to your future posts from anonymous IP addresses, as it helps me work on my Twinkle skills as I report your block evasion. If you're under the impression that you "lost a war", I don't think I can do anything about that, so I suppose you'll continue to think that. I sincerely hope it doesn't affect your real life. Wes sideman (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You mean work on your snitching skills. Nice threat bully. I don't think you care about anyone, bet you would drown in the ocean. I'm shocked you haven't deleted my last comment yet like a typical lib who can't handle the truth. Remember karma's a bitch "snitches get stitches" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.6.158 (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See this section. Thank you.Toddst1 (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort. Personally, I've been amused by and enjoying the desperation with which Defeedme continues to cry for attention, but I would probably feel differently if I were an admin that had to deal with his nonsense. Honestly, it's a good thing that I'm not an admin because I would probably just block every single range of IPs that he's been using for the next 3 years. That might be overkill. Wes sideman (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
 * Thank you, appreciate the time. Wes sideman (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Killing of Tyre Nichols, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. 021120x (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You should probably take a look at this before you post on my talk page again. In fact, on second thought, don't post to my talk page again, please. Ever. Thank you. Wes sideman (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Friendly advice
I've closed the ANI thread. Most of the complaints by the block-evading IP were barely comprehensible but I wanted to give you some advice because if an editor in good standing had taken the time to put together a case at WP:AE, you could have found yourself in hot water. Please be more aware of how you conduct yourself in controversial topic areas, especially when discussions start to get heated. Please also take extra special care when writing about living people. Note that if an editor's conduct consistently or egregiously falls below the standard expected, the Contentious Topic procedures (which apply to BLPs and post-1992 American politics) allow administrators to unilaterally impose blocks, topic bans, or other restrictions as necessary. Best, HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 15:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I have to point out one thing - the only edit I made to a BLP wasn't even on an article that the reporting editor had worked on, and THAT edit was quickly and very amicably resolved here. I took Larry's points and agreed with him. The two pro-right-wing editors looking to impose their POV somewhere else just tacked that on to make me look bad. Wes sideman (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The same also works in reverse. If you want to make a case that their editing is disruptive, you can make your case at ANI or WP:AE and it'll be evaluated. Both have been informed of the CTOP procedures. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really interested in reporting them. I was surprised by the ANI attack, because they had indicated that they would take my advice and start an RfC. My belief is that they both knew they'd be alone in pushing their right-wing-influenced POV and the RfC would go heavily against their preferred text - so they chose to attempt an attack on me personally instead. Wes sideman (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You've been given good advice. You need to tone it down. It's clear these two editors work together, but so do other editors with differing views. Doug Weller  talk 09:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

ANI February 2023
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See | this section. Thank you. OgamD218 (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating your topic ban on abortion.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * You were clearly informed here that discussion of that RFC was a topic ban violation, yet you again brought it up here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wes, I couldn't have been clearer that discussing the RfC was within the scope of your topic ban. I gave you plenty of latitude (some would argue too much) so I'm disappointed that you haven't taken heed., as the topic ban being enforced is an AE action, you probably need to log this block at WP:AELOG under the entry for the original topic ban. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 16:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * . Hadn't the TBAN expired? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I read Your next 100 edits need to be unconnected to abortion and edits in your own userspace do not count. To require another 100 edits, as they had violated their topic ban, and not made 100 edits without engaging in the topic. I'll defer to HJ Mitchell if they believe my block was in error. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose I didn't specify that the 100 edits was reset by a violation so I would give the benefit of the doubt. HJ Mitchell &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 17:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Wes sideman (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

More than one question in one RfC
Hi, re from two weeks ago - you wrote more than one question in one RfC isn't allowed. Where in WP:RFCST does it say that? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jerry Quarry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great White Hope.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Advice
Hello, after reading the recent ANI, I did notice that you unintentionally came close to canvassing. My advice is that if you are asking for input or advice on a topic, especially one covered by AE, make it explicit that you are asking for advice and not involvement. Go a step further and note in the discussion that you asked for advice on the matter at hand. This will make everything clear and there will be no doubt as to your intentions. Again I do not think you were canvassing, but many an editor has accidentally gotten into trouble with the most innocent of intentions in AE areas. Greetings from Los Angeles.  // Timothy :: talk  12:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will clarify. Wes sideman (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Nebraska Vandalism
Hey, I noticed you reversed an edit I made to Nebraska. I don't remember deleting that. I was adding homelessness stats to a bunch of states, and I might have misclicked (my laptop is laggy). Sorry about that. Catboy69 (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I reverted a vandalism edit that reverted TO your version of the article. Your version is the version in place now. Wes sideman (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ohhhh lmao. I'm new here lol Catboy69 (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. Never a bad idea to ask if you're unsure. Wes sideman (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Korny O'Near
Please stop. Being needlessly antagonistic isn't constructive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I really was just trying to be humorous, perhaps in a satirical manner, yes, but okay, I can disengage. Wes sideman (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Came to say the same thing. Just take that user talk off your watch/subscriptions. Valereee (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Contemporary Latin page
Hi Wes, you deleted a couple of paragraphs about twentieth century composers using Latin from Contemporary Latin; I think this was in error, as the page is about twentieth century Latin. I didn't include sources, although these works are so well known, and described on their own pages, so it felt a little superfluous, but happy to find and add something. In any case I don't want to cause an edit war, so could you let me know your opinion before I make any further changes. Jim Killock (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I made the edits - hope this is OK. Jim Killock (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023
Please do not revert Hainan Airlines as Terminal 2E as the source states that it will use Terminal 1. The source has stated that it will use Terminal 1 due to the closure of 2A and 2C that it was previously operating at Terminal 2A prior to the pandemic. You will be blocked from editing if this happens again. Loveheart547 (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what edit you're referring to. Is it this one? I reverted an edit by an anonymous IP that wasn't sourced. Are you the same person that made that IP edit? Wes sideman (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was the same person that did this. Yes, it is this one. Hainan Airlines uses Terminal 1 according to the source cited, not 2E. The reason why it said 2E previously because it never flew to Paris since 2020. Loveheart547 (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's all great. You still need to provide a reliable source when you make these types of changes, or you can expect to be reverted in the future. Read WP:CITE for information on how to do this. Wes sideman (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This information is already in the source. This terminal assignments is based on the source that was provided by Paris aeroport website. Do not remove anything if it is in this source. Loveheart547 (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Although your understanding of sources and citations seems highly flawed, it's all moot, as the terminal assignments section has now been removed. I wish I'd thought of that first. Wes sideman (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed it because if airlines are switching terminals, it will take time to edit the whole chart which is a waist of time. For example, Air Algerie, Air Canada and Norwegain Air Shuttle moved from Terminal 1 to 2B, and Air Tahiti Nui, Air Malta, Air Serbia, British Airways, Croatia Airlines, Czech Airlines, and easyJet moved from 2B to 2D, it takes a lot of work to switch the airline. These airlines also did not publish their moves so it is hard to find a citation. Thanks for your thought. Loveheart547 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "These airlines also did not publish their moves so it is hard to find a citation" - that's exactly why we don't need it in an encyclopedia, and more to the point, why it shouldn't be added by any editors, at all, if you don't have a good citation. Wes sideman (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Adminship
While I was looking through what went down at Neo-Confederates I noticed this mocking dif. I know it probably didnt get under your skin but I just wanted to lyk that you are a very high quality editor, and I would gladly endorse you for adminship. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Seward Collins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albion, New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Confederate Memorial Day ChatBot NG Edit
Hi Wes. You very correctly assert that removing CMD's association with Jim Crow is a whitewash, but I didn't do that in my edit. I believe, but I can't be sure, that the ChatBot removed that reference. As I state on the CMD talk page, I am a newbie and I am not going to engage in an edit war with Wiki's bot. But you, as an N+'er, can blast away at the darn thing, and get that Controversy section as it was. All that page needed was a little editing; I removed nothing but redundancies and re-ordered some paragraphs for flow - some of which the bot changed as well. Thanks. Mrisaac57 (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said in my edit on the talk page, I wasn't sure what was going on. I added Mary Logan's name and link back in. Wes sideman (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Stop edit warring
You've already been reverted by two different editors, and you don't have consensus, so knock this off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You're talking about a "consensus" poisoned by a block-evading IP-hopping person who canvassed multiple editors into the discussion, so I don't know how valid that one reversion was. I addressed this in detail on the Klete Keller talk page, and have seen no responses, and everything I stated there was a fact. Wes sideman (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is the poisoning at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive349? You disagreeing the a consensus is not a reason to ignore it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That discussion dealt specifically with using the words "convicted felon" in the first sentence, which I have not done. The change to put what was most notable up front is what prompted this canvassing by the blocked Defeedme, used to continue his grudge against me. He has not limited his obsession with me to just the Klete Keller article, FYI, although that seems to be his main focus. Wes sideman (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Other editors in good standing have clearly objected, and likely had the article watchlisted anyway. Someone harassing you is not an excuse to edit war against other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that's simply speculation. The wording order was uncontested until the canvassing by Defeedme. Looking at Springee's edit history, it's true that that's an editor in good standing, but I don't think it's a coincidence that Defeedme canvassed that particular editor. If you read this edit on my talk page from Defeedme, there's a political motivation underlying it as well. I really don't think that the answer, when dealing with someone IP-hopping and refusing to stop disrupting Wikipedia, is to acquiesce to their wishes. I care less about any one particular article's contents than I do about a blocked user being allowed to continue to disrupt the project. Wes sideman (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The way to prevent disruption to the project isn't by edit warring. You don't think they'll be laughing their ass off when you end up blocked for edit warring? If you want to reduce disruption then revert back and open an RFC and place a neutral notice at WP:BLPN.
 * Also, I've been clear about this in the past, stop casting aspersions or speculating on the motives of other editors like you just did above. Looking at Springee's edit history, it's true that that's an editor in good standing, but I don't think it's a coincidence that Defeedme canvassed that particular editor. If I see it again you'll be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

<div class="user-block uw-pblock" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px"> You have been blocked from editing Neo-Confederates for a period of one week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
I have created a Dispute Resolution to settle our disagreement over the Helms Amendment.[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard - Wikipedia] 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS
Maybe don't do any more of this, thanks. WP:AGF is not optional. VQuakr (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there's a big difference between casting aspersions and pointing out past bad behavior of an unregistered editor, thanks. You can AGF up to a point; at what point do you look at a pile of bad behavior and say "okay, this editor is not here to improve the project"? I think my assessment was more than generous. Wes sideman (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Fishy
Re WP:INVOLVED. VQuakr (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Klete Keller article
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Springee (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.