W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Cortador

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome


frameless|right|125px|link=Wikipedia:New contributors' help page ↗

Welcome to Wikipedia! Listed below are some brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia.

:*'''Policies and guidelines ↗''' — How does Wikipedia actually work?
:*'''Talk pages ↗''' — How do I communicate in Wikipedia?
:*'''Referencing ↗''' — How do I add sources to articles?
:*'''Uploading images ↗''' — How do I add and use images?
:*'''Navigating Wikipedia ↗''' — How do I find my way around?

If you want to know more about a specific subject, Help:Help ↗ explains how to navigate the help pages.

Where next?



See also



Good luck and happy editing. ```'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven</em>'''<small>'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk</em>'''</small> 13:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation ↗


<div style="border:solid 1px #9accf6;background:#f1f9ff;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;padding-bottom:0.5em;width:20em;color:black;margin-bottom: 1.5em;margin-left: 1.5em;width: 90%;"> 50px|left ↗Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation ↗. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.<br><br>
<div class="plainlinks">
:Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! LionMans Account (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)</div><!--Template:Afc decline--></div>

Your submission at Articles for creation ↗


<div style="border:solid 1px #9accf6;background:#f1f9ff;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;padding-bottom:0.5em;width:20em;color:black;margin-bottom: 1.5em;margin-left: 1.5em;width: 90%;"> 50px|left ↗Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation ↗. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.<br><br>
<div class="plainlinks">
:Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)</div><!--Template:Afc decline--></div>

Your submission at Articles for creation ↗


<div style="border:solid 1px #9accf6;background:#f1f9ff;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;padding-bottom:0.5em;width:20em;color:black;margin-bottom: 1.5em;margin-left: 1.5em;width: 90%;"> 50px|left ↗Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation ↗. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.<br><br>
<div class="plainlinks">
:Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! '''<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">Pr<span style="color:red;">at</span><span style="color:blue;">yya</span></span>''' <sup><span style="color:orange;font-family:Verdana">'''(Hello!)'''</span> ↗</sup> 13:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)</div><!--Template:Afc decline--></div>

Nomination of :Magedoom ↗ for deletion


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''':Magedoom ↗''' is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or whether it should be deleted ↗.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magedoom ↗ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd notice --> TTN (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5



Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Extra Ordinary (film) ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Wind ↗ ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Extra_Ordinary_%28film%29 check to confirm]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Extra_Ordinary_%28film%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message



<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2020 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2020|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/05&oldid=990308339 -->

January 2021



30px|left|alt=Stop icon ↗ Your recent editing history at :List of video games notable for negative reception ↗ 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 you being blocked from editing ↗'''&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule ↗, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts ↗ on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <small style="color:red">JOE</small><small>BRO</small><span style="color:#D18719">64</span> ↗ 20:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock ↗<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''blocked ↗''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for persistently making disruptive edits ↗. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions ↗. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">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: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}. &nbsp;-- ferret (talk ↗) 12:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-disruptblock -->

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message



<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2021 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2021|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/05&oldid=1056563328 -->

November 2022



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Denniss. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions ↗&#32;to :Nebelwerfer ↗ have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse ↗ or the Help desk ↗. ''if you see something to discuss take it to talk but do not introduce fals information/translation just because you don't know german terms''<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> Denniss (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion


link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ↗ regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring ↗. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cortador reported by User:Denniss (Result: ) ↗. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. Denniss (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 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; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2022 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2022|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/04&oldid=1124425184 -->

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion


link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ↗ regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring ↗. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. — '''<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>''' <sup>''(<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>)''</sup> 08:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023


<div class="user-block uw-pblock" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock ↗<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''blocked ↗''' from editing from certain pages (:Boris Johnson ↗) for a period of '''2 weeks''' for edit warring ↗. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions ↗. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes ↗ and seek consensus ↗. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution ↗, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection ↗.</div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks ↗, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. --><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>. &nbsp;~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-ewpblock -->

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people ↗, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people ↗, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics ↗. <!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert -->

If you reinstate disputed material about living people without a consensus (in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE ↗), you may be topic banned ↗ from editing about living people, or blocked from editing ↗. It does not matter whether this is done using three or four reverts; two are sufficient and even <em>one</em> can be a policy violation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|decline=You were edit warring on that biography. The block is clearly necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)|reason=I did not reinstate disputed material. The disputed material was an unqualified statement that Johnson has seven children (and was tagged as such), despite multiple reliable sources stating that he has "at least" seven children. The disputed material was reinstated by User:DeFacto and User:CzelloCortador (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)}}
:The words "at least" and the citations added in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=1157826970 ↗, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=1157832220 ↗, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=1157835676 ↗ and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=1157836954 ↗ have been edit warred ↗ back into the article without a consensus to do so having been found on the talk page. You are currently blocked to prevent you from continuing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Boris Johnson ↗


25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Boris Johnson ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Qwerfjkl_(bot)&section=new report it to my operator].
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

BBC Request



Hi Cortador. My name is Marco Silva and I am a senior journalist with BBC News in London. I noticed how much you contributed to the article about Sultan Al Jaber ↗. Is there any chance we can chat in private? I have a couple of questions for you about this article and about the editing work you have been doing. To be crystal clear: I am not looking for an interview, just an off-the-record chat. Please let me know your thoughts when you have a moment. Many thanks. MarcoSilvaUK (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

:Hello @MarcoSilvaUK. I'm happy to have a chat. Do you have means to be contacted? I found your Twitter profile, but was unable to DM you as I'm not verified. Cortador (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
::Hi @Cortador. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Please email me via my personal page (Special:EmailUser/MarcoSilvaUK ↗) and we'll take it from there. Much appreciated. MarcoSilvaUK (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
:::@MarcoSilvaUK Done. Cortador (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Sultan Al Jaber ↗



"Hi!" - Please: Use the Informations i gave, instead revert all generally, thankyou! I don't have the time & the knowledge to do the things here as you want, "sorry!". Gentle: Hungchaka (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentation



Please do not misrepresent my posts, as you did here ↗. I was not {{tq|q=y|complaining about}} any sources, I was asking how you selected them, to help understand the weight to be applied to your use of them. -- DeFacto (talk ↗). 20:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> -- DeFacto (talk ↗). 15:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023



This edit summary ↗ includes a quite explicit assumption of bad faith ↗. The editor already said their edit was based on a specific and expressed reasoning, but you directly imply that their ''real'' reasoning was something else "{{tq|you not liking them}}". You are a generally good editor and I do not wish to see you get zucked. Please take this as a friendly but vigorous encouragement to stop those kinds of comments, in ES or on talk, right away. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b></span> 12:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

:Czello has displayed disruptive behaviour in the past e.g. false accusations of three-revert rule breaks. I can only give people so much benefit. Cortador (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
::Are you still on this? It's been months, and you ''were'' edit warring, several times, as you continue to do. Let it go. — '''<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>''' <sup>''(<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>)''</sup> 07:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
:::I see you have moved from a break of the three-edit rule to just "edit warring" to hide the fact that your accusations were fabricated. Also, since you apparently monitor my talk page (as evident by you replying to a comment you weren't even tagged in within minutes), I don't think you should be talking about anyone's inability to move on. Cortador (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Your talk page is still on my watchlist after the previous times I've had to warn you about edit warring. I've not had to "fabricate" a reason to do so: you must be aware of the fact you have a habit of edit warring ideologies ↗ into infoboxes when you don't have consensus. — '''<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>''' <sup>''(<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>)''</sup> 08:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::And you talk about not being able to let go. Well, have fun with whatever obsession you have with me. Cortador (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Financial ties to Russian oligarchs



Kia ora @Cortador. Just want to say thanks again for restoring the edits I made to the page for the Conservative Party (UK) ↗. As you can see here, the user Czello left me a message threatening to block me, after I tried reaching out to him to get him to come to the talk page. Bit irritiating. Aubernas (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

:@AubernasNo problem. I think it would have been more productive if anyone had actually voiced any specific ''issues'' they had with the addition, but none of the other editors did that. Cortador (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

edit war


30px|left|alt=Stop icon ↗ Your recent editing history 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; read about 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 you being blocked from editing ↗'''&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule ↗, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts ↗ on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr -->

Note although this is a 3rr warning the page is (in fact) under 1RR, you have reverted more than once. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

:@SlaterstevenThe page states: "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message." The BRD page in turn states: "When reverting, '''be specific about your reasons in the edit summary''' and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one."
:Emphasis mine. None of the users who reverted the edit have a given a sufficient reason, and none have bothered to post a reply on the talk page. You are the ones engaging in edit warring by reverting edits while not following what a BRD cycle asks for. Cortador (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
::You only posted that talk page discussion today. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Because nobody had bothered to give a reason for the reverts. I expect a good-faith effort when edits are reverted. Cortador (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
::::"This was added yesterday and needs to be discussed if added. Reversion was correct" is a reason. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::No addition requires a discussion just because, not even articles about contentious topics. If you want a discussion, give a reason why you think that information doesn't belong in the first sentence of the lead. Cortador (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
My last word here, you have been warned, if you revert again I will report you. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

:I suggest you take a good look at WP:BOOMERANG ↗ then. Cortador (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Vivek Ramaswamy#Sources that label Ramaswamy a climate change denier ↗



Hi Cortador, regarding this talk page discussion that you have started, could you add a proposal for specific wording to be added into the article? Having closed the previous discussion as without consensus, I believe it would lead to a more lasting outcome if specific text was proposed to be included in the article, which can then be approved or rejected by consensus. Thank you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

:@Onetwothreeip The specific wording should be: "Vivek Ramaswamy is a climate change denier".
:That said, I disagree with there being no consensus. Consensus should be formed on arguments made, and the no side has failed to demonstrate why Ramaswamy shouldn't not have this label, and/or didn't bring up sources that deny that he is a climate change denier. Cortador (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks, you can commence a new RfC which includes that suggested wording, along with the paragraph it would be contained in. However, an explicit description as "climate change denier" did not gain consensus, as discussion participants were not convinced that the sources you provided adequately support the proposed description, so you may wish to propose an alternative description to gain consensus. On volume I would have determined that there was consensus against, but I considered there to be roughly equal weight between the arguments. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
:::RfC aren't decided by majority vote. I didn't see anyone bring up sources that deny that Ramaswamy is a denier, so to be honest, I don't see how you came to the conclusion that there was equal weight between arguments. Cortador (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
::::It's not about sources refuting the ones you provided, it's about how editors have interpreted the sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::There's nothing to interpret. The source are clear. Only one editor had an issue with them, stating that two are biased, which isn't sufficient grounds to reject them.
:::::Also, the "No" have provided no sources whatsoever. Cortador (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


Source titles


In {{diff2|1185160647|this edit}}, you added a source<ref name="Cowburn 2017 x541">{{cite web | last=Cowburn | first=Ashley | title=Tory MPs blocked bid to sign up to code stopping sexual harassment | website=The Independent | date=2017-10-30 | url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-mps-code-of-conduct-sexual-harassment-david-cameron-staff-protect-westminster-parliament-john-bercow-theresa-may-commons-a8027691.html | access-date=2023-11-14}}</ref> but the title you added in the "title=" parameter does not match the title actually used in the source.<ref name=cowreal>{{cite web | last=Cowburn | first=Ashley | title=Tory MPs 'resisted' attempt by David Cameron to make them sign code of conduct safeguarding staff against sexual harassment| website=The Independent | date=2017-10-30 | url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-mps-code-of-conduct-sexual-harassment-david-cameron-staff-protect-westminster-parliament-john-bercow-theresa-may-commons-a8027691.html}}</ref> Repeatedly doing this could be construed as disruptive. Please take care to accurately reflect the content and titles of sources in the references. Cheers. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b></span> 18:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


{{talk-reflist}}

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; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2023 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2023|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/04&oldid=1187132222 -->

AfD duplicate vote



Hi, I hope you'll forgive me, I've struck your last !vote at AfD/Hohem as you'd already !voted delete. This isn't an attempt at suppressing your point of view. It's just that when people !vote several times, it gets harder for the closing admin to assess the consensus. Best wishes, Elemimele (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion



I have requested a third opinion ↗ regarding the disagreement at Talk:Cook Partisan Voting Index ↗ Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Avoid commenting on editors



Cortador, I know you have been given a contentious topics warning. Please avoid commenting on editors as you have been doing in our recent discussions. When you shift from commenting on my arguments to commenting on my understandings you are no longer WP:FOC. Springee (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Republican party article



I empathize with your positions here, and I see that we agree on certain issues. I think your time will be better served avoiding the back and forth with other editors. I can certainly relate to your frustrations, but sometimes the best thing to do is to disengage if you know it's not likely to have any effect on swaying opinion or increasing consensus. Let's focus on improving the Far right section and try to keep it condensed down to what is DUE, with a few short sentences. We have a good start, we just need to be patient and open minded. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

:I'll be open-minded if I can see the same from others. All I get with these reverts are a bunch of links and no explanation. Both Springee and Muboshgu have claimed that GOP support for GRCT is a minority viewpoint, and both have failed to back that up with anything. Cortador (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
::I really don't see much point in going back and forth with Springee. I think you should both disengage for a bit. I'm happy to work with you, so if you just want to use me as your sounding board I'm happy to act as a buffer until things calm down. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick suggestion. I would not try to hold any other editor's hands and explain policies or walk them through justifications, at least not more than once. Sometimes it's OK to stop engaging if an editor clearly and simply can't or won't acknowledge things. Constantly going back and forth on tangents tends to distract from where the discussion is supposed to go. Focus on your arguments and which sources say what, and how it affects the article. Avoid discussions that tend to end up in WP:BATTLE ↗ and WP:LAWYER ↗ territory. Not that you are doing anything wrong, I also struggle with these issues myself, but I wanted to let you know that sort of thing happens, and can create unnecessary stress. I like to remind myself I do not control consensus, I simply abide by it. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Qianliyan Island ↗


The tag isn't appropriate so there's nothing to replace it with. If you disagree, fine, but take it to the talk page and/or bring in an RfC &c. to show me how wrong I am. In any case, if there's an issue with any fact in the article, tag that but it ''is'' cited, so "needs cites" is definitely the wrong template for whatever the problem is you see.

(For Mount Qianliyan ↗, btw, yeah, fair enough. There are cites on that article but, yeah, they should be replaced with a higher quality source so the template fits, kinda. For Qianliyan Island, no, they're journalistic and scholarly sources already and there's no actual problem with them as far as I can see. You're welcome to explain the issue on the talk page, ofc.)&nbsp;—&nbsp;<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Llywelyn<span style="color: Gold;">II</span></span> 17:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion


link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ↗ regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring ↗. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you.

Despite the scary tag, I posted there already that I saw you finally engaging on the talk page. Hopefully you keep things there and that whole bit blows over.&nbsp;—&nbsp;<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Llywelyn<span style="color: Gold;">II</span></span> 18:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

April 2024



30px|left|alt=Stop icon ↗ Your recent editing history at :Ginni Thomas ↗ 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; read about 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 you being blocked from editing ↗'''&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule ↗, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts ↗ on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> &ndash;&nbsp;Muboshgu&nbsp;(talk) 15:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI



link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> — '''<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>''' <sup>''(<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>)''</sup> 21:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Partial block


<div class="user-block uw-pblock" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock ↗<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''blocked ↗''' from editing '''Ginni Thomas ↗''' for a period of '''one month''' for edit warring ↗. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions ↗. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">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: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. --><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>. &nbsp;El_C 05:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-pblock -->

Help on a request



Hi @Cortador, I am a Conflict of Interest editor who has made a request at Talk:Sultan Al Jaber ↗ where you have previously weighed in on other discussions. I wondered if you might like to assess the changes I have proposed? Thank you in advance! Dedemocha (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

:@Dedemocha I'll have a look. Cortador (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
::Hi @Cortador thank you so much for your feedback so far on this request. I have left a response on the Talk ↗ page with some additional sources and closer wording to the original NYT source, which I hope are useful Dedemocha (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!



{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For your work going through Tommy Tallarico ↗ and finding sources/removing unsourced items, that task is much appreciated! <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Alyo</span> ''(<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b> ↗)'' 15:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
|}

:@AlyoMuch appreciated! Cortador (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

In case you didn't know



You're in media:https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/has-wikipedia-deleted-jd-vance-s-wartime-medals-and-awards-from-his-page-netizens-say-they-literally-stole-his-valor-101723470320730.html ↗https://tribune.com.pk/story/2487545/wikipedia-scrubs-jd-vances-military-honors-sparking-bias-controversy ↗ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

:@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Hahaha, wow. That's amazing. At this rate, we'll have to add the ''discussion'' about the medal to the article. Cortador (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::Not if I WP:OWN ↗ it we wont (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#JD_Vance ↗). Seriously though, I would approach that like the wig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:JD_Vance#Photograph_of_Vance_in_drag ↗. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Seems reasonable. Cortador (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::::On height, I just imagined "''Kamala Harris is an American politician who is the current president of the United States. She is the second shortest person to hold that office. Also the first woman.''" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'd be all for a presidential height table, though that may not be encyclopaedic. Cortador (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Wait, that's an actual thing. ↗ Cortador (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Of course! That's where I got "second shortest." So Trump has got height on his side, like he did with Hillary. She did get more votes though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024



30px|left|alt=Stop icon ↗ Your recent editing history at :Republican Party (United States) ↗ 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; read about 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 you being blocked from editing ↗'''&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule ↗, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts ↗ on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> '''<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>''' 14:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

:Per {{u|Toa Nidhiki05}} above, please review BRD. You have enough editing experience to know that contested restorations should go to the talk page first. Springee (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

RSP question



Hi Cortador. I’m looking for input on the right way to add a source to RSP following an RfC. I’m writing to you because you are active on RSP. An MMA blog called Bloody Elbow has been determined to be generally unreliable prior to March 2024. There has been an RfC and two previous discussions:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_450#RfC:_Bloody_Elbow ↗, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_141#bloodyelbow ↗, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#Discussion_(Bloody_Elbow) ↗. Based on my reading, Bloody Elbow now meets the formal WP:RSPCRITERIA ↗ but I think an independent editor(s) should make that determination and if they agree, implement the RSP. I would do it myself but I am a COI editor who represents an MMA league, ONE Championship ↗, that’s been frequently written about in the blog. This blog is so unreliable that when new owners took over in March 2024 and turned it into a reliable news source with reporters, editors and fact checking, they deleted the entire 14 year archive of blog posts. Despite a discussion on RSN going back 12 years that the blog was not reliable, Bloody Elbow has been cited more than 500 times on Wikipedia, including on most of the significant pages about MMA. Without the visibility of the RSP, I think the misuse of this blog will remain pervasive. Bloody Elbow’s reinvention by new owners as a reliable source is going to add to the confusion. People will think that that old blog content has the credibility of the new reliable news source, or - conversely - that the new source is generally unreliable because it used to be a blog. A delineation on RSP will very much help with the confusion. Do you have any guidance on how I can bring this to the attention of the right editors? Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

:@Brucemyboy1212 Hello. The right way forward here is to start a RfC on the reliable sources notice board, and link to previous discussion. You should make the following case: Bloody Elbow (before March 2024) and Bloody Elbow (March 2024-present) are two different sources, since it seems that the new owner bought the rights to the branding and essentially erases the old blog. Point out that the site now has an editorial policy and uses professional journalists (at least according to them). Just adding the source to the list isn't appropriate, since the last discussion had little participation. Cortador (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack



Please strike this comment as it violates CIVIL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Pool&diff=prev&oldid=1253575963 ↗. Springee (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

:I recommend you focus on the discussion instead of making bad faith accusations. Cortador (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit war



On top of violating bold, revert, discuss ↗ by continuing to revert your contested edit back (see: edit warring ↗), you give ''me'' a template warning (don't template the regulars ↗) to warn me about edit warring? Dude. You're the one who started this. '''<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>''' 20:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024



30px|link= ↗ You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war ↗&#32; according to the reverts you have made on :Democratic Party (United States) ↗. 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:
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;'''
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
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.''' <!-- Template:uw-ew --> &ndash;&nbsp;Muboshgu&nbsp;(talk) 22:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/04&oldid=1258243549 -->

List of wars involving South Korea ↗



Hi Cortador,
I saw that you AfD'd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving North Korea ↗ on 20 October. You stated that {{xt|Adding to this: depending on the outcome of this AfD, I'll nominate List of wars involving South Korea ↗ as well. However, this the arguments for and against that will pretty much be the same as the ones here, I didn't want to split the debate, and just nominated this page for now.}} That seems a good idea. It was indeed deleted on 3 November, and redirected to List of wars involving Korea#North Korea ↗ afterwards. Are you planning on nominating List of wars involving South Korea ↗ for deletion / redirect to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea ↗ next? If not, I'll be happy to do it in your stead if you prefer. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

:@Nederlandse Leeuw Hello. I kind of forgot about that - thanks for the reminder. Feel free to nominate the page for deletion, and please tag me once you do. Cortador (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

ANI



link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> Warren<span style="position:relative; top:-3px;">ᚋᚐᚊᚔ</span> 15:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library



One thing that I agree with TFD on is that there's altogether too much willingness to source social science, politics and humanities topics to journalists rather than academics on this website and it's something we should all be working to improve.

A tool that has been of ''great help'' (as well as some personal satisfaction) to use is the Wikipedia Library, which provides access to a very large proportion of academic journals. Check it out. https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ ↗ Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Simonm223 Thank you for the link! I'll check it out.
:Regarding the use of news sources for political topics: this is a change that has to be made on a level that is at least topic-wide, if not site-wide, because many news sources we use here have been considered to be reliable for an extended period of time, and many get challenged regularly (and retain their status as being generally reliable). Bringing up such a new standard in the context of one broader discussion in one article talk page instead of on the reliable sources noticeboard or at least the article as a whole isn't a good look at all. Many of the statements about other ideologies and positions (namely centrism, conservatism, and libertarianism) are backed up by news sources (often for years), and nobody has objected to that. A sudden demand for this high standard of sources for a only select number of discussions does, in fact, come across as a form gatekeeping. Cortador (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::For what it's worth this isn't something that requires new policies or processes - just adherence to the ones that already exist. WP:GREL ↗ is not policy - but it has had disastrous consequences because it means that people often don't think, "is this the best source?" before using it. They just go, "well WaPo is generally reliable so it must be reliable here."
::As someone whose education is in humanities and social sciences I actually get somewhat offended that so many Wikipedians think my preferred academic disciplines can be overwhelmed by a bunch of journalists. Political scientists, sociologists and political philosophers in the academy ''should'' be preferred for such matters over newspapers. That's how Wikipedia is ''supposed'' to work. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Oh and people have been objecting - I've been making a stink about over-using newspapers at WP:RS/N ↗ for ages, long enough that I've somewhat refined my argument as time goes by, but there's just an awful lot of AP2 and that topic area is generally poorly controlled. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Nothing at WP:GREL applies here - politics is within the sphere of these news outlets, the vast majority of news sources cited aren't op-eds, and there's hardly any (if any) exceptional claims being made here.
::::And, as I already stated above, if standards like this are brought up in the context of specific discussions only (which is not referring to you personally, I want to add here), this looks like a means of keeping certain information out of articles. Cortador (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::If it is then it's a silly attempt - because the academy is much harsher of the Republican party than the big US papers are. They just use a lot of big words to do it. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

"February 2024 ANI notification"



I believe you may need to update your template/macro with the current year, as you've posted this notice on someone's profile with the date of yesteryear.

User_talk:King_Lobclaw#c-Cortador-20250213125900-February_2024_ANI_notification ↗ Jeroen52 (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11



An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ba'ath Party (Syrian-dominated faction) ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radical left ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Reform


{{archive top|This discussion has come to its natural conclusion. Cortador (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)}}
Hi, please review WP:OVERCITE ↗. It’d be better to list sources in the RfC. Piling one descriptor makes it look like you’re trying to make the case that one is more due for the infobox than the others, when in reality we could pile all of them with 10+ sources. Thanks Kowal2701 (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Out of courtesy I've listed them there since I removed them Kowal2701 (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:@Kowal2701The RfC was started because of the sourcing.
:I suggest you revert your edit now; you complaining about a lack of sourcing while repeatedly removing sources increasingly comes off as manipulative. Cortador (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
::See previous message, I’ve listed them in the discussion Kowal2701 (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:::@Kowal2701 No, you haven't. You listed only two sources in a further attempt to manipulate the RfC in your favour. You removed another source just now on top of that. Cortador (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
::::You should probably calm it with the aspersions/PAs. Why would I list media sources that have already been mentioned? I haven’t removed a source, I replaced one and then listed the one I replaced. If your issue is that the sourcing now looks rather poor, then maybe it was poor all along. It’s a bit WP:BATTLEGROUND ↗ to assume that everyone who disagrees with you has the opposing POV Kowal2701 (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::@Kowal2701If you don't wish to be called out, cease your disruptive behaviour - which is what complaining about a lack of sources while simultaneously removing them looks like. Cortador (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::I should’ve listed them in the discussion at the same time as removing them, but it’s fine now. The RfC was on a ridiculous premise, it’s not disruptive to correct it Kowal2701 (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::No, it isn't. You still haven't listed all the sources. You should have just left them there instead of repeatedly trying to manipulate the RfC. Cortador (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Again, you should stop with the aspersions. Feel free to add any I’ve missed to the discussion Kowal2701 (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Stop your manipulative behaviour if you don't wish to be called out on it. Cortador (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

Recommendation



You are requested to join this AfD discussion ↗. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Hasan Piker


Perhaps you can address my question from User_talk:Jonas1015119#Talk:Hasan_Piker ↗, "What would convince you that there are article-wide problems with the sources, and with the POV presented?" --Hipal (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - AE


Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement ↗ regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee ↗ decision. The thread is '''Cortador ↗'''. <!--Template:AE-notice--> Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies



Apologies for reverting you here ↗. The conversation clearly had more of a consensus formed than I initially realised, and I understand there is a WP:STICK ↗ issue with another user I missed the context of. — '''<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>''' <sup>''(<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>)''</sup> 08:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

August 2025


25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please do not remove maintenance templates ↗ from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to :Hasan Piker ↗, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary ↗. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted ↗. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tdel2 --> --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

25px|alt=Warning icon ↗ Please stop. If you continue to remove maintenance templates ↗ without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at :Hasan Piker ↗, you may be blocked from editing ↗. <!-- Template:uw-tdel3 --> --Hipal (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

25px|alt=|link= ↗ 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. 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. <!-- Template:uw-canvass --> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alenoach&diff=prev&oldid=1303937106 ↗ --Hipal (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

:@Hipal, you should really '''stop being aggressive against people on their talk pages'''. Concerning the article on Hasan Piker, many people have repeatedly said that they do not understand why you added the maintenance templates, asking for clarification and concrete examples on what to modify. Maintenance templates can be removed if their purpose is unclear. '''You do not represent the consensus alone'''. This has been repeated many times, and if you keep obstinating, we may without further warning start a new noticeboard discussion like the previous one ↗. This is not a good use of your time and energy, so please try to be more collaborative even when you strongly disagree with most editors, and to focus your efforts in situations where your edits are appreciated by the community. Alenoach (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
::Absolute nonsense. Please consider how your advice describes your own behavior. --Hipal (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
:::You repeatedly change this article against consensus and policy; if you don't stop this, this will eventually end up at ANI again. Cortador (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Nonsense. Please note that your accusations describe your own behavior. --Hipal (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Your edits on the Kermit Gosnell article.



Hello, you keep removing the "serial killer" label from the Kermit Gosnell ↗ article, claiming that the article does not cover the serial-killer label enough. I would like to direct you to the article on Jeffrey Dahmer ↗, as an example, which is also an article that only mentions "serial killer" in a section on television/movie coverage. The term "serial killer" is simply defined as and applied to people who have killed at least 3 people in separate instances. Please stop continuously removing the label when you haven't even opened up a discussion on the talk page of the article before doing so. DocZach (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

:If you wish for this to be included, get consensus for it and/or work it into the article body. The onus is on you to do that.
:As for what's in other articles: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ↗. Cortador (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ↗ is a suggested policy used in '''deletion discussions''', not changes or edits to articles. It quite literally is under an essay titled "'''arguments to avoid in deletion discussions'''," so I'm not sure why you are bringing that essay up. And it is a perfectly valid argument to bring up the fact that other articles across Wikipedia use classifications in a similar way to the article on Kermit Gosnell. This is a common sense descriptor based on what the individual did. The article already explains his crimes and very strong details about who he killed. Thus, the justification for the classification of "serial killer" has already been established, because by definition and common usage, any person who murders more than 2 people in separate instances is a serial killer, and the article has already exceedingly laid out details of his killings and victims. Furthermore, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY ↗ is an essay (not a policy) on how to write articles. It is intended to be used for people creating new articles, advising them to focus on writing the body of the article before writing the lead. It has nothing to do with the term being used to describe an individual in the first sentence. I would suggest that you read over these two policies that you sent so that you understand their purposes and their uses.
::When you make an edit, and someone reverts it, you should not revert the revert. Instead, the proper procedure is to move to the talk page of the article to seek consensus. That is how Wikipedia operates per WP:CONSENSUS ↗. The previous content of the article stands until you are able to seek a consensus to change it. DocZach (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Onus is on those who wish to include information. There's no right to cling to the status quo just because it's been the Status quo for an arbitrary amount of time. Cortador (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

September 2025



30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ Your recent editing history at :2025 US Open (tennis) ↗ shows that you are currently engaged in an '''edit war ↗'''. An ''edit war'' occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly reverting content on an page in a back-and-forth fashion to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, please use the '''talk page ↗''' to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus ↗ among the editors involved. The best practice at this time is to ''stop editing the page'' and to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand with the other editors involved in the dispute. Wikipedia provides a page that helps to detail how this is accomplished ↗. 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 ↗ while the discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

'''Continuing to engage in further edit warring behavior can result in being blocked from editing ↗ Wikipedia'''&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule ↗, which states that an editor ''must not perform more than three reverts ↗ on a single page within a 24-hour period''. Undoing another editor's work&mdash;whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time&mdash;counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your demeanor, behavior, or conduct indicate that you intend to continue repeatedly making reverts on the page.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock ↗<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''blocked ↗''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for edit warring ↗. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions ↗. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes ↗ and seek consensus ↗. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution ↗, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection ↗.</div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you believe that 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: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>. &nbsp;Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock -->

October 2025


{{archive top|Closed since this is a editor-behaviour issue, not a content issue.}}Cortador (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please do not remove maintenance templates ↗ from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary ↗. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted ↗. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tdel2 --> --Hipal (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

:A valid reason was given. You, on the other hand, failed to give one on the talk page. Cortador (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hasan_Piker&diff=prev&oldid=1316771932 ↗ "Length" is a POV issue. I hoped my clarifications on the talk page are helpful. --Hipal (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
:::You didn't even assess the source in the section. You admitted so yourself. Cortador (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

About RfC closure


{{Archive top
|status =
|result = WP:DROPIT ↗. Cortador (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
}}
You recently closed this RfC ↗.

Users such Springee and Ad Orientem have requested that you reopen it. You can find more information about this here: 1 ↗ 2.

''Note to those who support re-opening the RfC (such as Springee or Ad Orientem): please only post relevant points in this discussion. If up to a few days pass with no answer, or if you still disagree with Cortador, you may request at WP:AN ↗ for the RfC be reopened.''

Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

:This discussion was closed prematurely. It was open for less than 24hr and while it was very unlikely to result in a reduction in RSP rating, the discussion regarding bias and cautions are useful. Once the original, early close was challenged via reversion the discussion should not have been reclosed without discussion. Additionally, your close summary failed to summarize the discussion, only focusing on the reliability rating, not the rest of the discussion. Per WP:CLOSE, notes that closes will often be overturned "if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion." Several editors have requested the discussion remain open. Springee (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
::We already had a concussion about it, and then an RfC, then you unilaterally re-opened the RfC instead of going to the closer's talk page, then you added another reply to a the RfC after the second closure, then to further replies below the RfC, then on your talk page, then in a second discussion on RSN, and all of that without doing the two things that you're supposed to do when you disagree with an RfC closure: starting a discussion on the closer's talk page or going to AN. And for a discussion with whose consensus you ultimately admitted to agreeing. Cortador (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination/MM/04&oldid=1322758710 -->

December 2025


25px|alt=icon ↗ Please stop your disruptive editing ↗.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing ↗. <!-- Template:uw-disruptive3 --> --Hipal (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Please stop.



Hi @Cortador. I understand that you want to be shown a local consensus for WP:THREE ↗, however as multiple editors have attempted to explain, there isn't one and it is instead a general informal agreement. You have continued to ask to be shown a local consensus, across multiple days. Whether you are doing this deliberately or not, it has become disruptive ↗ and I am requesting that you stop. Thank you. <span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span> (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

:They've been blocked numerous times for similar disruption, at this point it's probably just a WP:ANI ↗ issue as it is clear they haven't learned the appropriate lesson from said blocks or are otherwise choosing to ignore it. Regardless of whether they don't believe everyone else is right, WP:BLUDGEON ↗ing and Wikilawyering is not the correct way to respond. Better to point out your opinion for the closing admin to consider, and if that doesn't work, maybe you were not in the right. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
::@Cortador is clearly an intelligent editor, unfortunately this week they have decided not to listen. I personally don't believe this rises to the level of being worthy of an AN/I report, however I would strongly urge @Cortador to cease arguing when their point has been addressed, especially after multiple editors have already explained the same thing. <span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span> (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

COI accusation and how I write BLPs



Hey, Cortador. For some reason I thought you restored the COI tag ↗ on Chaz Stevens ↗ - but you didn't! Thank you. Appreciated. I was wondering how to convince you I don't have a COI, and it's really hard to prove a negative, so I just spent hours writing a huge epic about how I write BLPs and hoping it would be convincing that this is not COI... and it's not needed! Did I say thank you? Thank you! I will absolutely work with you to fix the rest of the article's POV and puffery issues, but not just now, whew. And, lest I forget, thank you.{{smiley}} --GRuban (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026



Do not issue issue edit warring warnings like this ↗ when you're the only person edit warring with them ↗ and you've also made no effort to join the talk page discussion ↗. Incredibly bad form. <span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span> <span style="color:teal">msg me</span> 21:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)