Hi, please stop removing relevant and referenced information from the Joan Freeman article. Thank you. Spleodrach (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assim al-Hakeem. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong removing all my last updates. From the end user perspective I've added really valuable data, it's not a fake, spam etc. I really wonder if any of you just tried to verify at least one of those links... The website "involved" in this problem has the new name and new link structure. I know that but 95% of the existing links (created BTW by different users) are wrong, part is even marked as a "dead links". I was trying to update all data like that but it seems that I shouldn't do that... OK, noted but I think the way you've selected is wrong. It's take me some time to update data but it seems it's not worth of my time. Thank you for all warnings :-(

(Lepidoptera~plwiki (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@Lepidoptera~plwiki: Thanks for the explanation. Please let's have this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Lepidoptera~plwiki instead, if possible. Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The ANI discussion has been archived. I have updated the link; it should not be used for discussion anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have brought the unfruitful Sarah Jeong discussion to dispute resolution and am notifying you because you have commented on the Talk page since August 3. You can find a link here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Sarah_Jeong. All the best, Ikjbagl (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

I am posting this on your talkpage out of an abundance of caution solely because you recently edited Talk:Sarah Jeong and, as the message says, not suggesting any policy violation by you. Abecedare (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning the promotional mess. Cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read the latest talk on the kronenbourg page. And btw my username might have 'troll' in it, but you seem to be doing a lot more damage judging by everyone elses talks on your page... Kronenbourgtroll (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please send a reference to the list of unreliable sources that Wikipedia maintains.

How, for example, would one source a factual statement such as "A Wikipedia article alleges that Breitbart is..." Please advise.

We find it puzzling that subject, who uses Breibart as one of the main platforms to present her views, is now also disparaging it as an unreliable, or unwelcome source. The factual point here is actually not based on her opinions, it is that she has contributed, and continues to contribute articles to the site, her oeuvre now numbering over 100 articles. This is easily verifiable.

We are sure you will agree that it is important to present a picture as complete and objectively factual as possible in Wikipedia articles - biographies in particular, if they are not to be dismissed as curated autobiographies.

Another source can certainly be found for the fact of her dis-invitation if that is the issue. Would this be acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kossoh (talk • contribs) 01:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes actually, see WP:BREITBART. Here at wikipedia we require reliable, THIRD PARTY sources for content. Trying to make an issue of her writing articles for Breitbart is original research WP:OR, you need to cite a reliable, third-party source when you make assertions about an individual. SWL36 (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the deletion template removed? A ticket has already been emailed about the policy violation. Dprophitjr (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a deletion template, check the diff. What you actually ended up doing was appending the policy page for WP:LIBEL AND the page for G10 to the top of the article. Additionally, your CSD nom will fail as the article clearly does not meet the conditions of WP:G10. SWL36 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Define clearly? Libellous policy is pretty clear. The author of the article cited a RS political section. These are not facts. He/she makes a statement of racist and anti-Semitic. Then, goes onto to label a living person a conspiracy theorist creating hostility and contentiousness. See the talk page. Circular arguments going nowhere. Will not remove headings unrelated to a living person biography with libel material sources. Dprophitjr (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove the {{Cite check}} template from SNC-Lavalin affair again. As has been explicitly stated more than once, numerous serious sourcing issues have been discovered, necessitating a full source check. This is the third time this template has been removed in less than two days—the next will result in a report to WP:ANEW. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble!

You need a reason to have that template there. These sourcing issues have been addressed as they have been brought up. I'll start a new section on the talk page where you can LIST your current issues with the sourcing and then remove it after they are addressed. Nebulous claims of "sourcing issues" with no specifics is not sufficient justification for having the template on the page. SWL36 (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"You need a reason to have that template there"—no, you need a reason to remove it, and there is nothing "nebulous" about the claims, which are spelt out on the talk page. Do not touch the tag. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you may want to know that Curly Turkey has started an ArbCom request here an extension of the ANI. I will comment there when I have time, but I wanted to make sure you are aware as Curly has not notified all parties.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]