I don't know if you can understand, but when Francis takes over at an article I mentally unwatch, certainly don't follow every edit, saw the tags only today when you pointed them out. I like GAs - it's my initials ;) - but am not willing to be dictated what to do when. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-05-11T21:08:00.000Z","author":"Gerda Arendt","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Gerda_Arendt-2018-05-11T21:08:00.000Z-BWV_60","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-05-11T21:56:00.000Z-Gerda_Arendt-2018-05-11T21:08:00.000Z"]}}-->
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-05-16T06:54:00.000Z","author":"MaxBrowne2","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MaxBrowne2-2018-05-16T06:54:00.000Z-Notice_of_External_links_noticeboard_discussion","replies":[]}}-->
So I'm continuing to track reviews to see what longterm data tells us. This might be a completely worthless endeavor in the long-run but I'm a big enough believer in data that I have to think we'll learn something useful for GA out of it. So this means I'm spending a little bit of time each day logging Legobot's updates and I was suprirsed when I saw Doctor Who (series 3), one of the older outstanding articles, get taken for review and then passed with-in 20 minutes by auntieruth. Looking at the review I saw they made a few tweaks but that was it. Looking at a few other reviews of theirs I saw a similar pattern of passing without any comments/requests of the submitting editor. I know GA is supposed to be lightweight (something I could probably take more to heart in my own reviews) but this seemed less than even lightweight. But I'm also relatively new at this whole thing and wanted to get the perspective of someone more experienced. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-05-16T16:34:00.000Z","author":"Barkeep49","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Barkeep49-2018-05-16T16:34:00.000Z-How_thorough_does_a_GA_need_to_be?","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-05-17T22:44:00.000Z-Barkeep49-2018-05-16T16:34:00.000Z"]}}-->
Your edit created 13 bold red "Cite error"s, and I don't see an obvious way to fix them. Art LaPella (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-05-17T03:19:00.000Z","author":"Art LaPella","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Art_LaPella-2018-05-17T03:19:00.000Z-Cite_errors","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-05-17T22:45:00.000Z-Art_LaPella-2018-05-17T03:19:00.000Z"]}}-->
Kvitova's article is ready for review Silaslej (talk)
Hi,
Thanks so much for all your contributions! I am at a loss to account for how the tag on this article has been neglected for so long. I'm also at a loss to account for the fact that your recent post has not been addressed for 2 months... After taking a look, it appears that most (if not all) of the citation-needed tags are in the Culture subsection. I'm making an effort (as my free-time currently allows) at addressing them by either finding supporting sources, or removing the passages themselves. Please consider giving it as much time as you can before going ahead with the reassessment.
Thanks again for bringing this up and being dogged in its regard. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-05-27T18:45:00.000Z","author":"InformationvsInjustice","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-InformationvsInjustice-2018-05-27T18:45:00.000Z-Reassessment_of_Roman_Republic","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-05-28T10:25:00.000Z-InformationvsInjustice-2018-05-27T18:45:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Informata ob Iniquitatum"}}-->
The RfC on eliminating portals is over, and the consensus was to keep them.
I noticed your posting there:
Support with some regret. Almost every one I have come across are so out of date that they are misleading to readers. The very few that still function as intended could be brought into article space somehow. Regretfully as a lot of work has been put into them and there was potential. We just lack the manpower to keep these functioning and too often they rely on one dedicated individual, who may retire or move on. Marking as historic is fine if editors don't want to delete them outright. There is a certain historical charm in keeping these trapped in time for future generation to find.
I thought you might be interested to know that there is a serious effort underway to fix the problems that you pointed out.
So far, 80 editors have joined the team.
The Portals WikiProject, which was dormant for years, is now a beehive of activity.
We have analyzed the situation and have determined the following:
Some of the advancements we've made so far:
{{#tag:categorytree|{{PAGENAME}}}}
{{Wikimedia for portals|species=no|voy=no}} on a portal's base page.
The following efforts are underway:
Morale is high, and the participants are having a lot of fun working with each other.
There is still a lot of work to be done, but I wanted to let you know that we are up to the task.
For a more detailed account of what has happened so far and what is being worked on, see our Newsletter archive. We're already on issue #6! You can also see the flurry of activity happening on the WikiProject's talk page. The excitement is contagious, so I hope you decide to pop in for a visit. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 20:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-05-26T20:03:00.000Z","author":"The Transhumanist","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-The_Transhumanist-2018-05-26T20:03:00.000Z-Good_news","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-05-28T10:28:00.000Z-The_Transhumanist-2018-05-26T20:03:00.000Z"]}}-->
New: WiR Loves Pride New: Singers and Songwriters New: Women in GLAM New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-05-29T17:15:00.000Z","author":"Megalibrarygirl","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Megalibrarygirl-2018-05-29T17:15:00.000Z-Women_in_Red_June_Editathons","replies":[]}}-->
The discussion about the "in wrestling" section is currently on-going. You admitted to not knowing much about the pro wrestling area of Wikipedia. That's fine. But the in wrestling section is for more than just moves. Before each section of the "in wrestling" section, the header is in bold. For example, it is finish moves. That tells you that section is for finishing moves. It continues with signature moves, entrance themes, wrestlers managed, managers, nicknames, theme songs, and wrestlers trained. Not everything is going to be in the in wrestling section, but those are the main items. Does that not make sense? Do you get it now? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-06-14T14:56:00.000Z","author":"Fishhead2100","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Fishhead2100-2018-06-14T14:56:00.000Z-In_Wrestling","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-06-15T05:49:00.000Z-Fishhead2100-2018-06-14T14:56:00.000Z"]}}-->
We had a brief discussion about the article, Marketing performance measurement a few weeks ago. I recall seeing a note that the article had been deleted. Yet, to my surprise, the article is still there. Nothing about the article has changed and it remains a very misleading account of performance measures.
I have been thinking about this article quite a bit - measuring performance really is an important topic in marketing and Wikipedia should have an article on it, but sadly, the current article is not the one. In my own country, Australia, performance indicators have been very much in the news the past few months due to a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Banking and Finance, which has highlighted the problems associated with using sales/ profit measures exclusively (to the exclusion of customer-related measures), and also raising the issue of unintended consequences arising from the linking of incentives/ executive pay to performance measures. Further, the inquiry has found that the mix of measures used in an organisation has a major impact on organisational culture.
Wikipedia has another article, Balanced scorecard which is principally concerned with having a suite of measures of risk, culture, customer and financial indicators, which could be a potential alternative to the Marketing performance measurement article. The only problem with this option is that the article on the Balanced scorecard is very much written from a management perspective, and in my experience, editors of management articles tend to resist any attempt to overlay a marketing perspective onto a pre-existing article. BronHiggs (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-06-18T09:34:00.000Z","author":"BronHiggs","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-BronHiggs-2018-06-18T09:34:00.000Z-Marketing_performance_measurement","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-06-21T11:24:00.000Z-BronHiggs-2018-06-18T09:34:00.000Z"]}}-->
Hello,
I am E. Whittaker, an intern at Wikimedia with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. A full write-up of the study can be found here: m:Research:Civil_Behavior_Interviews. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? I am contacting you because of your involvement in Wikipedia’s Women in Red project. The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview.
Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-06-27T20:41:00.000Z","author":"Ewitch51","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ewitch51-2018-06-27T20:41:00.000Z-Invitation_to_participate_in_study","replies":[]}}-->
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Ravshan Irmatov: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-06-28T02:41:00.000Z","author":"Abelmoschus Esculentus","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Abelmoschus_Esculentus-2018-06-28T02:41:00.000Z-June_2018","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-06-28T06:11:00.000Z-Abelmoschus_Esculentus-2018-06-28T02:41:00.000Z"]}}-->
I didn't see anything in the talk page saying the spectators not a reliable source. --1.136.104.66 (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-06-28T06:58:00.000Z","author":"1.136.104.66","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-1.136.104.66-2018-06-28T06:58:00.000Z-Ford","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-06-28T09:02:00.000Z-1.136.104.66-2018-06-28T06:58:00.000Z"]}}-->
July 2018 worldwide online editathons: New: Sub-Saharan Africa Film + stage 20th-century Women Rock Continuing: Notable women, broadly-construed! Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-06-28T14:04:00.000Z","author":"Rosiestep","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rosiestep-2018-06-28T14:04:00.000Z-July_2018_at_Women_in_Red","replies":[]}}-->
So with another article up for GAR which would actually benefit from community participation here is the basis of an idea I've been thinking about. Want to get your thoughts before taking the time to develop it for a real RfC. There are three different ideas which could stand on their own or all be together.
Idea 1: Create a bigger pool of people looking at the reviews. My idea here is to contact people with at least X reviews (I'm thinking 10 - 20) and asking if they would like to be put in the GAR pool. When an article is nominated for GAR, 5 (or some other number) of those editors are chosen by bot and pinged for participation.
Idea 2: Despite it being a community review one editor, who would be eligible as a reviewer, coordinates the GAR. Essentially they would gauge the discussion/consensus about the GA criteria and then be responsible for the nuts and bolts of closing after determining consensus. In this way there would be no wondering about who is responsible for that
Idea 3: Ask people nominating for community review to identify which specific GA criteria (e.g. 1a, 6b) the article does not meet so that there can be focused discussion. Other community members could add other criteria but in this way we keep the focus on the GA criteria rather than wading into article content disputes which sometimes seems to be the problem.
Anything you see of merit there or are they all rubbish? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-07-01T06:16:00.000Z","author":"Barkeep49","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Barkeep49-2018-07-01T06:16:00.000Z-GAR","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-07-01T09:48:00.000Z-Barkeep49-2018-07-01T06:16:00.000Z"]}}-->
I'm curious, were these changes to SMcCandlish's signatures intentional or some side effect of your method of editing? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-07-05T07:50:00.000Z","author":"Mandruss","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mandruss-2018-07-05T07:50:00.000Z-Signature_changes","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-07-05T08:33:00.000Z-Mandruss-2018-07-05T07:50:00.000Z"]}}-->
I have reverted your edits for now as there was minimal explanation for most other than 'not a controversy' which is a subjective matter. Most of the incidents are things which I personally would consider to be somewhat controversial such as penalties not being awarded when it looked like they should be, etc. Most are unremarkable outwith the context of that tournament, but that's the focus of the article. I had no involvement with the good article process but most or all of that text was already there, so it appears the assessors found it worthy of inclusion. Obviously it has been delisted since then, but it appears the reviewers there also has didn't feel the incidents were so trivial as to be removed altogether. However, perhaps some of them could be condensed into bullet point entries rather than entire sections? Could you please discuss your rationale on the article talk page? Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-07-09T09:21:00.000Z","author":"Crowsus","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Crowsus-2018-07-09T09:21:00.000Z-List_of_2006_FIFA_World_Cup_controversies","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-07-09T18:14:00.000Z-Crowsus-2018-07-09T09:21:00.000Z","c-Aircorn-2018-07-09T18:20:00.000Z-Crowsus-2018-07-09T09:21:00.000Z"]}}-->
Thank you so much for your help in reviewing and updating the Navarre, Florida Wikipedia article, as well as completing the proposed merge of Navarre Beach with the previously mentioned Navarre, Florida page. On behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Navarre, Florida, I would like to award you this:
Once again, thank you so much!--Navarre0107 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-07-15T16:31:00.000Z","author":"Navarre0107","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Navarre0107-2018-07-15T16:31:00.000Z-I_would_like_to_award_this-1","replies":[]}}-->
Thanks for creating Zinc finger nuclease treatment of HIV, Aircorn!
Wikipedia editor Serial Number 54129 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Nice article! Any possibility of an image or two?
To reply, leave a comment on Serial Number 54129's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
—SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-07-19T12:40:00.000Z","author":"Serial Number 54129","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Serial_Number_54129-2018-07-19T12:40:00.000Z-A_page_you_started_(Zinc_finger_nuclease_treatment_of_HIV)_has_been_reviewed!","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2014SerialNumber54129"}}-->
August 2018 worldwide online editathons: New: Indigenous women Women of marginalized populations Women writers Geofocus: Bottom 10 Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Notable women, broadly-construed! For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-07-23T11:22:00.000Z","author":"Rosiestep","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rosiestep-2018-07-23T11:22:00.000Z-August_2018_at_Women_in_Red","replies":[]}}-->
Hi. I added a question in the GA FAQ. Hope this is fine. Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 21:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-08-06T21:44:00.000Z","author":"MX","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MX-2018-08-06T21:44:00.000Z-GA_FAQ","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-08-06T22:32:00.000Z-MX-2018-08-06T21:44:00.000Z"]}}-->
complete a review as if there was an interested editor waiting
Hello, I am doing my first GA review on Denise Vernay. The nominator and I disagree over a copyright notice on an image caption. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Credits, I don't think it's necessary to put the copyright notice in the caption, but 47thPennVols, who seems to have more image experience than I do, says it is, at least for File:Prison Militaire Montluc Lyon.jpg. I was wondering if you could help clear this up. Thank you! Catrìona (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-08-14T00:59:00.000Z","author":"Catr\u00econa","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Catr\u00econa-2018-08-14T00:59:00.000Z-Copyright_question_on_image_for_GA_review","replies":["c-47thPennVols-2018-08-14T01:24:00.000Z-Catr\u00econa-2018-08-14T00:59:00.000Z","c-EEng-2018-08-15T21:33:00.000Z-Catr\u00econa-2018-08-14T00:59:00.000Z","c-Aircorn-2018-08-17T09:16:00.000Z-Catr\u00econa-2018-08-14T00:59:00.000Z"]}}-->
administrator deleted a photo from another article ... because he indicated the article didn't cite the license
Hi, Aircorn. Way back in 2016, you made this edit to State v. Driver, adding a cite to https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/40862475 .
Earlier today, that reference was put in {{cite news}} format, but that edit munged it a bit. I've tweaked it as part of a general citation clean-up, but since newspaper.com is paywalled, I can't see the source itself. If you still have access to the cited article, can you please supply the title of the article being cited? Any other information to flesh out the cite (such as an author names) would be great, too. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-08-15T22:21:00.000Z","author":"TJRC","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-TJRC-2018-08-15T22:21:00.000Z-State_v._Driver,_newspapers.com_site","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-08-17T09:45:00.000Z-TJRC-2018-08-15T22:21:00.000Z"]}}-->
New: Women currently in academics Women + Law Geofocus: Hispanic countries Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Check it out: Monthly achievement initiative
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-08-26T01:55:00.000Z","author":"Rosiestep","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rosiestep-2018-08-26T01:55:00.000Z-September_2018_at_Women_in_Red","replies":[]}}-->
Hello! I'm currently doing first Good article review (for All My Love (Major Lazer song)) in a very long time, and I was fairly young when I did my earlier reviews, so I'm treating this as my first GA review. Could you look over my comments and provide input/corrections regarding the review of the article? Here's a link to the review. In particular, I wanted to make sure that it's appropriate to request a section focusing on the remix of the song so that the article complies with GA criterion 3a ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic"). Thanks, Hadger (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-08-29T20:58:00.000Z","author":"Hadger","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hadger-2018-08-29T20:58:00.000Z-Good_article_review_mentor","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-08-30T09:41:00.000Z-Hadger-2018-08-29T20:58:00.000Z"]}}-->
Alright, sorry for the slight delay. I'm about to rewrite the reception section and get the rest of the GA edits done. DarkKnight2149 08:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-09-06T08:26:00.000Z","author":"Darkknight2149","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Darkknight2149-2018-09-06T08:26:00.000Z-Leatherface","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-09-06T08:30:00.000Z-Darkknight2149-2018-09-06T08:26:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Dark"}}-->
I appreciate your forewarning message, I attempted to improve the article, mostly in terms of media and reorganizing. Little attention came of it even after I nominated the article until a detractor who had negatively viewed all of the articles I worked on began placing templates. However I think the article needs more positive attention (by which I mean work) in the first place. As no one has given a formal review would you have suggestions on improving the article quickly? Sunriseshore (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-09-04T02:55:00.000Z","author":"Sunriseshore","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sunriseshore-2018-09-04T02:55:00.000Z-Response","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-09-04T08:06:00.000Z-Sunriseshore-2018-09-04T02:55:00.000Z"]}}-->
Understood, maybe ill place the article under review. In second thought, I think I would like more time to respond to concerns, if that is possible? Sunriseshore (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-09-08T17:39:00.000Z","author":"Sunriseshore","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sunriseshore-2018-09-08T17:39:00.000Z-Response","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-09-08T21:20:00.000Z-Sunriseshore-2018-09-08T17:39:00.000Z"]}}-->
Thanks for your comments at AE. One thing caught my eye that I wanted to clear up though. You mentioned some of the climate change stuff I discussed way back. That was never about editors, but about the real-world sourced content issue of anti-GMO activism using similar science denialism tactics to climate change denial and other similar groups.[1][2] The two get studied in primary literature sometimes too.[3] Essentially, I was saying at one point be wary of typical pitfalls of pseudoscience when dealing with content in the topic and used climate change as an example of things people might be more familiar with for some parallels.
That obviously is a thorny issue to make sure it's not being conflated towards editors themselves on talk pages (though an odd case when dealing with legitimate WP:ADVOCACY behavior issues at admin boards), but when I was discussing the content portion, other editors chose to cause drama making it seem like I was calling them or groups of editors in general climate change deniers despite me repeatedly clarifying. Nowadays I can't remember how much I've had to ignore when people make spurious accusations like at the recent AE case because I'll usually make a single clarification post and try to ignore periphery stuff to focus on the case at hand (or deal with word limits). I'm guessing that might have been what happened from what you remember, so I just want to check in on that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-09-17T04:47:00.000Z","author":"Kingofaces43","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kingofaces43-2018-09-17T04:47:00.000Z-Climate_change","replies":["c-Aircorn-2018-09-17T09:24:00.000Z-Kingofaces43-2018-09-17T04:47:00.000Z"]}}-->
New: Clubs Science fiction + fantasy STEM The Mediterranean Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-09-28T14:46:00.000Z","author":"Rosiestep","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rosiestep-2018-09-28T14:46:00.000Z-October_2018_at_Women_in_Red","replies":[]}}-->
New: Religion Deceased politicians Asia
Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-10-14T18:40:00.000Z","author":"Megalibrarygirl","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Megalibrarygirl-2018-10-14T18:40:00.000Z-Get_ready_for_November_with_Women_in_Red!","replies":[]}}-->
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 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 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.
“WarKosign” 16:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-10-29T16:57:00.000Z","author":"WarKosign","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-WarKosign-2018-10-29T16:57:00.000Z-Alert","replies":[]}}-->
Lokasi Pengunjung: 18.118.184.70