User talk:AgntOtrth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, AgntOtrth!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips
  • Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
  • It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
  • If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
  • Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
  • When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
  • If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
  • Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Kennecott Utah Copper, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how about give a person at least 5 minutes to provide a citation; here it is https://appletree.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/KennecottBermDust.pdf AgntOtrth (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Kennecott Utah Copper. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Materialscientist (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cited a State of Utah Agency. It is a two page report, and should be a quick read for you. Users are permitted to make edits. AgntOtrth (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea (read: Wikipedia policy) to cite sources right out of the gate. Articles without oversight like the kind provided by Materialscientist often decay into unverifiable garbage, leaving other volunteers holding the bag and attempting to sort things out. It's not another editor's responsibility to loiter around and wait to make sure that you've done your due dilligence in publishing an edit. Users are permitted to make edits, but only if they are verifiable. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What part "give a person at least 5 minutes" suggests leaving someone else "holding the bag". I was adding the citation when MaterialScientist swooped in like a hawk with giving even 60seconds to add the citation. And the second time I attempted to add the citation, without a degree of patience that same user deleted it again. By the 3rd time I finally figured out the < ref > </ ref >. All I needed was 5 minutes to input the citation. AgntOtrth (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RefToolbar was a gamechanger for me when I was first learning to edit here - it does take some time to become familiar with how things work, and I encourage you to keep at it. Beccaynr (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can definitely attest that the visual editor is a lifesaver for new editors and a huge timesaver for a lot of editing. Source is very powerful for formatting, copy-pasting from another page, and very niche things the visual editor doesn't account for, but for new editors, it's generally far less powerful because routine tasks that are abstracted away by the visual editor (such as creating a footnote) can become tedious or something you need to memorize the formatting for. On that note, I cleaned up the formatting and removed WP:COPYVIO from the prose. This one's a little weird, because while works by the US federal government are in the public domain, the state of Utah retains control over its works. This one's kind of a weird edge case, but it's good to err on the side of caution and not copy-paste anything directly from another source to use in the prose without quotations. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Tyre Nichols article; warning about combative behavior[edit]

You seem to be engaging in unconstructive editing, as I have outlined here on the article talk page. Wikipedia is not the place for a battleground attitude.

I would like to kindly request that you please stop trying to make a point about your disagreements with how reliable sourcing is commonly practiced. It's one thing to take issue with Wikipedia policy, but quite another to be acting in a combative and disruptive way. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been combative. You have posted more than once that I do not understand, even adding 'LOL' and stating essentially lets drop all wikipedia 'rules' about reliable sources. You attacked me. I have backed my statements with wikipedia policy/guidelines/advisements about reliability, context, opinions. AgntOtrth (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10 February 2023 Killing of Tyre Nichols[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Killing of Tyre Nichols. 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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Please stop repeating facts in every paragraph. {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 03:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I changed your edit this morning with an explanation that it was unsourced and since it was unsourced I labeled it original research. You combatively and in an edit war, tried to justify your removing my edit. Later in the day someone else removed your edit with an explanation that beat is act, and battery is a crime - a statement/claim of which the NYT is not qualified to make. So two people disagreed with your edits. Yet you continued in disruptive behaviour by changing it back to YOUR OPINION. I then went to article and quoted from the article a statement that accurately describes the various methods used to beat Mr. Nichols. And you changed it back. So please follow your own advice and raise the issue in the talk page. And please follow your own advice and stop edited waring. And please follow WP guideline/policy of assuming good faith. Thank you. AgntOtrth (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15 February 2023 Killing of Tyre Nichols[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Killing of Tyre Nichols 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Assault is the threat of battery, battery is the doing of the threat. {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 01:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually put refs in the lead[edit]

Hello. There was a ref to support battered but it was removed by editor WWGB in this edit because normally we don't put refs in the lead; only if they are likely to be contested edits. So, battered is supported by the facts, and by many other refs. Look down in the body to find the removed ref. Please slow your roll, and please read more WP essays, policies, MOS, and guidelines. And, use common sense. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 23:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5 March 2023[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Killing of Tyre Nichols, 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. The essay in question was an explanatory essay of an official policy. Make sure you understand what you're talking about, and Wikipedia policy in general, before doing something rash. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you putting maintenance tags without offering even the smallest indication of what need to be corrected? What aspect of that section is "close paraphrasing? And if you believe that the section needs correcting, why haven't you fixed it, especially when you are basing your opinion on something that is not wikipedia policy? AgntOtrth (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not the one who originally added the maintenance tag. If you wish to contest it, talk to @WikiWikiWayne. I kept it up because I have not seen changes in the wording since it was put up. As far as whether the maintenance tag is supported by policy or not, WP:COPYVIO says: Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism. As soon as my laptop stops misbehaving, I will start re-paraphrasing to remove potentially copyvio content. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You copied this message to my talk page. I do not appreciate it, and I indicated as such at the top of my talk page. Read any templates at the top of people's talk pages before posting. However, if you must notify someone of messages meant for them at your talk page for some reason, use the {{Talkback}} template. Bowler the Carmine | talk 22:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Received message[edit]

I received your message, but had to revert it. When posting to other's talk pages, be careful not to accidentally blank them. Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I have closed the discussion you started Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols#Article title should be "Death of" as you should not be re-litigating a recent RM in that way.

As I said in my closure, if you feel the closer made an error in finding there is strong consensus (or otherwise in their closure), you need to follow the procedure outline at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE which involves talking to the closer first and if after talking it over you still feel it's necessary open a proper move review. It's probably better to do this if something new has changed as well but as an alternative you could open a new WP:RM if and only if something substantial has changed since the last move.

However I very strongly suggest you do not do any of this, as I think it is unlikely to achieve anything other than risking you being blocked for disruption, if you aren't already.

Note that you're free to read the previous RM and confirm that I supported "Death of" as the article title, so this has nothing to do with any personal preference for the current "Killing of" title. I admit I thought we'd at least have an official coroner's report by now so the issue might be moot. Still despite it being less clear than I'd like my preliminary view is I'd still support death of. However editing on Wikipedia means you have to accept that sometimes WP:CONSENSUS is going to be against you.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Killing of Tyre Nichols[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello AgntOtrth! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Killing of Tyre Nichols, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from source(s), and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 20:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You COULD point to information I edited and say "Hey, let you help you not violate a policy. If you reworded it like this, it would not be a violation." You have been uncivil and bullied me in my time here on wikipedia. How about trying to help someone understand what you find to be a violation? AgntOtrth (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. You are copy/pasting and close paraphrasing, like I've said. The article is a total hot mess now that puts the project in jeopardy. Sure, I'll coach you. When you want to edit, post your edit on the talk page and when it gets consensus then pull the trigger on it. Nobody is bullying you. You're blowing it. Take care always. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 07:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No you did not identify anything. In fact, someone ran a report that found copyright violation UNLIKELY. And yes, you are being a bully, which is interesting since you complained of being bullied with your 48hr ban for war editing. AgntOtrth (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't allow us to alter the template wording; there is no opportunity in the templates to alter or add anything because we have to set them via subst:. See {{copyvio}}. Going forward, I'll reply with basics, but you already know what you're copying or close paraphrasing. We don't allow that. Please read: WP:AGF. Thanks. Take care always. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 14:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No you did not identify the issue. You made blanket statement about an entire article. You blanked out section I did not edit. You are being disruptive, and you are not utilizing the article talk page to address concerns.

March 2023: article ownership[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you assume ownership of articles, as you did at Killing of Tyre Nichols. Please slow your roll. {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 07:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Killing of Tyre Nichols[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello AgntOtrth! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Killing of Tyre Nichols, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from , and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 13:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, not trying to bust your butt, but half my edits are protecting the project and living people by putting out fires you start. Read on:
  • Blanked section is super tight paraphrasing of This headline. Note: please only submit any fixes via an admin copyvioclerk, or other authorized proxy. (Courtesy ping to AgntOtrth). – {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 14:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

 – {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 21:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AOT: This notice is a clerical formality. Please wait for a volunteer to take our case before replying over there. If you reply here, you can ping me with the template in my signature (copy/paste). Take care always. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 21:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Thank you for being civil in the face of fierce accusations. I wish you well.

starship.paint (exalt) 16:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank, I appreciate what you all did. AgntOtrth (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Riverfront brawl[edit]

There has been extensive discussion on the names--please do not condescend to editors who have a lot more experience in such BLP matters, and saying "do not start an edit war" when you're starting an edit war is unseemly. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire comment is condescending, you assert you and others are better than me.
The article in question is not a BLP. Also the talk page does have discussion of individual names. Using name is not prohibited. AgntOtrth (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP applies to all spaces in Wikipedia, and the article contains information on living people--so yes, it applies. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The name is widely disseminated. The articles used as sources identify the name(s). It comes across as an abuse to claim names should not be used.
Go to the Tyre Nichols page, almost everyone involved is named.
Also could you link to the "extensive discussion" on the use of names? AgntOtrth (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLP[edit]

AO, when dealing with non-notable people we should err on the side of privacy [1] and wp:BLPNAME. None of these people are notable outside of this event and it's likely none will become notable independent of this event. As such we err on the side of not publicizing their names. Also, please do not accuse people of edit warring when they make a first revert to newly added content. Per ONUS the burden of showing consensus for newly added material falls on the editor who is adding/making the change, not the editor who objects. This is also reflected in WP:BRD. You made a bold edit and honestly I liked most of it especially the important context that the sign indicating that the reserved parking sign was missing. The only reason I didn't do a direct substitution of NAME->"co-captain" was it read oddly. So the rest of my edits were just trying to smooth over the language. I have no issues with you refining/fixing issues with issues with my prose. Again, thanks for the improved content and I'm sorry if trying to remove the name came off as edit warring. Springee (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did not want to bring this to your talk page. But I am trying to understand BLP, I understand what public figures are. My first edits involved the Killing of Tyre Nichols. In that article 7 police officers are named, to my knowledge no one raised the issue of BLP. When I started on the Montgomery Riverboat brawl, based on my past experience, I figured the inclusion of names was acceptable. I read through the BLP page and saw the section on people accused of a crime and what amounts to basically do not include names of accused. I then looked at the Jordan Neeley page and Daniel Penny is mentioned and there is a specific section titled Daniel Penny. What do you think would be a difference between the accused mentioned by name in context of the death of jordan neeley and the Montgomery brawl article not naming anyone? AgntOtrth (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been extensive discussion on mentioning the name of Daniel Perry, Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely/Archive 5#Name Inclusion, reopened is only a small part of it. Note that several participants were only swayed by Perry doing interviews etc. And about the Tyre Nichols case, to state the obvious, there's a big difference between someone even non-notable being accused of extremely serious wrongdoing while doing a fundamental part of their job, a job paid out of the public purse and of "public service" and so where public scrutiny is expected (which doesn't necessarily mean their names have to be exposed but where it often is especially in a US where Senator Joe Keene Jr. never had his way); and random people involved in a brawl. (Although I'm fairly sure I've seen discussion about naming them somewhere too.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC) 22:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Montgomery Riverfront brawl, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hi AgntOtrth! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Montgomery Riverfront brawl. 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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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:AgntOtrth reported by User:FormalDude (Result: ). Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You and FormalDude[edit]

As a result of my protecting the article instead of blocking the two of you he has sworn off editing it. I wonder, might you consider stepping back from editing it as well? And avoiding any interactions with him? I have asked him to do that too. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the course of action you made. In regard to that I will stay out of the main article for the time being.
Other than reverting a specific source that formaldude removed (very likely because their personal opinions), and undoing grammatical corrections they removed, I did not repeat the actions brought to my attention - springee brought not using names, formaldude brought up not using facebook as a source. AgntOtrth (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning[edit]

This is your only warning. If you add details because you think they are important but when a multitude or reliable sources have rejected such details as unimportant I will ask for you to be blocked. We simply cannot have editors here who think their judgment is more important than that made by reliable secondary sources, as it's a fundamental principle that it's not. Nil Einne (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it seems to me you are just demanding your opinion serve as the end of the discussion. Primary source are to be used with care, which is within WP standards. AgntOtrth (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AgntOtrth&oldid=1187205776"