(This first section, including the table below, is my personal space for taking notes and stuff) - Daveout

Hi, BanyanClimber! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to free and open-source software. I'd like to invite you to become a part of the free and open-source software task force, a project aimed at improving the quality of articles about free and open-source software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the free and open-source software task force for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Participants". Thanks! K4rolB (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. August 8 1973 was the day the then-worst series of murders in America was discovered. Corll's death is better covered in a subsection.--Kieronoldham (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kieronoldham: The point of those headings is to help readers navigate through the text. I had no idea what that section was about until I finished reading it. Nobody remembers or cares about specific dates (with rare exceptions like 9\11). - Daveout(talk) 16:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, Daveout. Even though I believe the sections read better as in the previous edit, as the article stands, it is still informative. We all strive for the collective best on Wikipedia. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've noticed that you believe that the large number of IP comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalen Berns (2nd nomination) should be deleted due to sockpuppetry. Do you have any evidence of this? Simply deleting them is not good practice. Comments by proven sockpuppet accounts may be struck through. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you reverted my bias warning. Thanks for the talk invite, I'm new to this process, happy to have got your attention. I came across the article lateish last night and was irritated by what I think is its unbalanced position, hence my comment. (My comment was not very carefully crafted so I'm happy to see it removed.) But this article reads to me as an odd mix of potted history, lurid detail, cherry picked facts/arguments, and in the extradition section quite openly promoting a pro-extradition view rather than assessing two opposed views. I have no desire to whitewash Polanski, but I think a more scholarly piece is deserved.

An example of lurid - the repeated listing (once in the intro, then in a bullet list at the top of the article) of the charges. What is served by repeating "rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor" twice in a single view of the page? Isn't that the kind of sensationalism that Samantha complained about as traumatising news coverage?

Wouldn't this article be better served e.g. by opening "On March 10, 1977, then-43-year-old film director Roman Polanski was arrested and charged in Los Angeles with six offenses against Samantha Geimer, a 13-year-old girl[1], including rape by use of drugs[2]." Then, provide the full list at the opening of the main article, as a sentence, not as a bullet list. Note that ref [2] is to a showbiz blog. I would expect a more accountable source e.g. published trial documents, LA Times, almost anything except a showbiz blog which is actually about what Whoopi Goldberg said about the case etc. And BTW ref [1] is again to media, here BBC 1 minute news featuring the word "Creepy" above the fold. Is that the best we can do? Finally, what are these crimes of perversion and sodomy? Were these crimes in the context of a rape, or of a rape of a child, or just crimes such as male homosexuals and "sexual deviants" were routinely criminalised for in the past and are not now (one hopes)? Is this a California thing or an America thing? Were these the only way the prosecutors could reflect the full horror of the crime, or did they just throw the book at Polanski in order to obtain leverage in negotiating a plea bargain? I don't propose that the article *must* ask exactly those questions but there is not much attempt in the article to explain, let alone explore, the procedural dimensions of the trial. Given the referenced sources, that's not much of a surprise.

To give an example of missed opportunity - the extradition attempt, almost 30 years after the fact and over the protests of the victim, raises questions about how justice serves or does not serve victims, how women fare under the law (well? badly? do they get justice?), American legal overreach, European legal independence, and a host of contentious issues that are not mentioned. Instead we have opinion poll numbers supporting extradition!

For me the whole piece is full of this kind of dubious argumentation and misses the chance to factually report a case which is still significant for lots of reasons.

Interested to hear what you think. Best, Ben.

Hello, Ben (@Wordmatter:). Indicating that an article is not neutral is actually a pretty common thing, but we normally use templates for that. For example, by adding this tag {{POV}} to the article's code (normally at the top), the following banner will appear:

However, it is not a good practice to simply tag the article without explaining your reasons on it's talk page so other editors can work on a solution. (this page has more details on how to use the template.) Unfortunately, I cant work on everything you said all by myself. My advice to you is to create a discussion on the article's talk page presenting the same arguments you wrote above (I can do that for you if you want me to). What I can do right now is try to turn the bullet list into a line of text and check the sources you pointed out as potentially unreliable. By the way, I remember that not long ago someone tried to add Geimer's interview with Quillette (but that was basically a copy-and-paste job as you can see here, so it was removed). Maybe something from that interviews could be added to the article to make it less "one-sided"? - Daveout(talk) 18:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that (@Daveout:). I have found the Talk page for the article, and will open a discussion. I think it would be helpful to de-bullet the list, just to make it less sensationalist - so yes please, if you can. Re refs, I think [1] BBC is reliable but it actually refers to the extradition but is given as first reference for the whole article which seems odd to me. Re [2] it also dates from the extradition and is sympathetic to Polanski but in no way a reference to the listed charges, and the basis for the article, so I find that bizarre. Anyway, I will look out for any comments from you on the article Talk page. Thanks again, Best, Ben.

You've violated the 1RR at 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis with now 3 reverts. Kindly self revert your last two reverts or you may be reported to arbitration enforcement. nableezy - 20:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You dont intend to correct the violation at all? nableezy - 01:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy:. Apologies. It was already reverted. - Daveout(talk) 01:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You again violated the 1RR at the same article. Kindly stop trying to edit-war your position in to the article. nableezy - 17:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: No I did not, I only reverted once. - Daveout(talk) 17:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This and this are both reverts. A revert is any edit that reverses another editors edit in whole or in part, removing material is pretty much always a revert. nableezy - 18:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Are you saying that Selfstudier also broke 1rr when they added the same content twice? (here and here). Did you notify them as well? If not, why so? 🤔⁉️ - Daveout(talk) 18:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The initial addition to the body is not a revert. nableezy - 18:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. this can't be serious. - Daveout(talk) 18:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated the 1RR at Israel, kindly self revert or you may be reported. It is also manifestly untrue that material is not in the body. nableezy - 16:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Im not planning on waiting all that long to file the report, this game of hiding material instead of removing it is cute but it wont fly. nableezy - 16:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Daveout nableezy - 16:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn since you self-reverted. nableezy - 16:42, 22 September 2021 (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 shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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 the 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.

nableezy - 16:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trx96 (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Palestine will be free you zionist[reply]

Hello, the issues is the same person under multiple banned sockpuppet accounts keeps adding unsourced images. Also there was no consensus on who were the top war criminals that escaped. The person seemed obsessed with the Fascist Croats especially. They were banned for disrupting pages and puppetry. Another user reverted them after calling their readding vandalism. I hope I was able to give context. Just now that Ip was banned as another puppet account abusing wikipedia guidlines to push edits. It’s a mix of things.

Right. I'll take a deeper look at it. At first glance, the images appeared appropriate and they were in the article at least since 2019 (?), apparently. I don't know who first added it. If everything checks up I'll start a talk page discussion in the near future. See ya. - Daveout(talk) 22:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gaza flotilla raid shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.