User talk:BanyanClimber

You currently appear to be 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 (See talk page). 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. - HarrySime (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Daveout! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

March 2020

Hello, I'm David Gerard. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. In addition, you just added a deprecated source that made claims about the actions of living persons. Please desist. David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Euphoria (American TV series)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: I don't get it. I was being extra cautious and i was trying to make the plot summaries more succinct. Could you elaborate on what I did wrong? Daveout (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Catholic Church and western culture

I've started a discussion on the Western culture talk page. Please participate.Graecusperseus (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions on pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict

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

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

You can find more information here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Rula Jebreal

As you may know, many (according to polls, most) Arab citizens of Israel consider themselves Palestinian. Rula Jebreal describes herself as a Palestinian, as the sources linked in the first sentence of her article make clear. Please stop removing the word "Palestinian" from the first sentence of the article. I will remind you that in addition to falling under WP:ARBPIA, the article is a WP:BLP, so special care must be taken with how the subject is presented. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Oh! So if i decided to call myself Martian that's what should count? Every lead in this encyclopedia mentions the individual's NATIONALITY, how they identify as is irrelevant. Stop threatening me with sanctions (bc i do not fear them) and try bringing some actual arguments. This reminds me of how Lady Gaga always presented herself as being "Italian" (bc she has italian parents), but guess what? her article says she's American, bc she was born in America, no matter what she identifies as. Just an example. Daveout (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Good luck convincing those who engage in identity politics! Msiehta (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

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

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

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

Template:Z33 TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Your recent editing history at Mermaids (charity) 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—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. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Partial block from Richard Stallman

You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of one month for edit warring — resuming it as soon as the protection expired. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 13:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I don't get it. Why am I the only one being blocked when lazer kitty was also involved? They haven't gain consensus to implement their revision, I was trying to preserve the status quo version which is also the version preferred by the majority (so far). -- Daveout ^(talk) 13:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I pointed you toward engaging in further discussion on the article talk page or even lanunching a dispute resolution request, but you did neither. Instead, you immediately resumed edit warring upon the expiration of the protection, invoking a bizarre argument about WP:DEMOCRACY which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. That has consequences. El_C 13:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@El C:But there is a dispute resolution request going on at a specialized noticeboard already (npov\n). (here). Lazer-Kitty is the one proposing changes, so they should be the one waiting for consensus. No consensus was established yet, so why should their preferred version be immediately enforced when a considerable number of users disagree with it? It’s not a matter of wp:democracy, but of wp:quo.-- Daveout ^(talk) 14:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Never mind. I give up, this is too unfair and frustrating.-- Daveout ^(talk) 14:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. Do wish for me to respond, or not? El_C 14:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Daveout, Wikipedia is not ruled by a simple majority and a simple majority does not equate to consensus. I take issue with the way you've counted editor support here, but even if we assume your 3 vs 2 number is accurate, it doesn't actually mean anything. As WP:CONSENSUS states, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." At this point I don't even see you making an argument, just claiming that since 3 > 2 you are allowed to revert.

The version of the article that I first encountered last week had egregious NPOV violations, the likes of which I have frankly never seen before on this website. To claim we need to maintain that status quo is unbelievable. I opened an NPOV discussion and an admin very quickly agreed and rewrote the section in question. To me, that is our starting point. I'm not claiming that Masem's version is perfect or that an administrator's word is final, and I agree that there is room for improvement, but let's work together to improve it instead of trading reverts.

I'm not planning on dusting myself off and walking away claiming victory. As I said, I agree there is room for improvement in this article, and I'd like to continue making those improvements, hopefully with your help. I would strongly encourage you to explain on Talk:Richard Stallman what concerns you have with the current version of the page and how I can help address those concerns. I'm not sure if your ban prevents you from editing the talk page as well, but if it does, please feel free to ping me on my own talk page. Lazer-kitty (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add, though, because I think I missed this earlier comment at WP:NPOV - I accused you of trolling based on your behavior in this specific discussion. For you to think that gives you a reason to attempt to undermine me by dragging up things from my past is extremely unacceptable and uncalled for. Furthermore, the sockpuppet account in question was not me, but was presumably someone trying very hard to impersonate me to (I guess?) justify a harsher punishment. They failed in that regard so I didn't bother pursuing WP:CheckUser to prove it, but if editors are going to reference this in entirely unrelated discussions then maybe I need to revisit that. Lazer-kitty (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lazer-kitty (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Richard Stallman

I don't want to impose further at User talk:El C#Richard Stallman so I'll reply here. I've been watching Richard Stallman for years due to my software interest so I noticed the fuss, although I haven't followed the details. I did not join in because I know it would be wasted effort. The problem is that people literally cannot understand what Stallman writes so their response to your efforts will be framed in terms of wondering why you want to defend a bad person—he must be bad because that's what social media (and the copy-cat mainstream media) says. Since, with rare exceptions, Wikipedia is ruled by majority, your efforts will be frustrated. Also, articles are normally written in the manner your critics want and your efforts to include longer quotes to give context are counter to standard procedure. I think you would need a secondary source where the author has plenty of relevant expertise (for WP:RS) and where they strongly defend Stallman by explaining what the longer quotes mean and why the extracts are misleading. Until that happens, your efforts won't get consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq:Yep, those people are probably unaware of Stallman's long history of public freak outs triggered by ppl using “inaccurate” terminology (especially when it comes to linux, open-source, and intellectual property, for example)

Regarding the most recent controversies, his words were framed in an egregiously sensationalistic manner. For instance, "she presented herself to him as entirely willing". Almost sounds like Stallman said the victim was willing to be raped. That sounds awful indeed, but reading that in context gives a completely different impression. So I’ve been trying to push the full quotation into the article. — Daveout ^(talk) 23:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Troubled Blood

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. 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—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. - 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:E8A5:E8CB:81B3:3311 (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Lol - Daveout(talk) 13:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Career of Evil into Troubled Blood. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I didn't know that. Thanks. - Daveout(talk) 15:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Your recent editing history at J. K. Rowling 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—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. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: I dislike that sentence because it is too vague… who are those many women? How many is actually “many”? How is it demeaning? I feel that more clarification is needed in this case. The source says she equates the phrase to “degrading slurs spat at [women] by violent men”. (maybe that should be added?). And is also worth noting that some women considered JK’s reduction of womanhood to periods demeaning too. - Daveout(talk) 16:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It's Rowling's view and sources treat it as significant, so it being 'vague' in your view is not relevant. Many women do feel that way. It's perfectly clear. They consider it demeaning because they feel instead of being addressed as women, they are reduced to a bodily function. In other words, it is not JK who is reducing "women" to "people who menstruate". Yes, a small minority of non-women menstruate, but the common experience of female biology is extremely heavily socially associated with womanhood, and this is why people often react negatively (and they generally do - I have seen it numerous times) to these substitutions where until very recently people would have just said "women" or "men". The politically predictable misinterpretations of a few Twitter nobodies are not noteworthy. Let's accept the existing compromise and not waste more time on it. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald

Later article re far left Greenwald https://www.haaretz.com/amp/world-news/.premium-fascism-and-the-far-left-a-grim-global-love-affair-1.7288230 Haaretz is a progressive site. It’s from 2019. ___

Summary:

Sources on Glenn Greenwald as far-left

1. "Would You Feel Differently About Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange If You Knew What They Really Thought?" Greenwald had come to reside in a peculiar corner of the political forest, where the far left meets the far right. . The New Republic - Jan, 2014

2. Max Boot: “Democrats need to beware their loony left “Indeed, it’s often hard to tell the extremists apart. Anti-vaccine activists come from both the far left and the far right — and while most of those who defend President Trump’s dealings with Russia are on the right, some, such as Glenn Greenwald and Stephen F. Cohen, are on the left.” Washington Post, February 13, 2019 (incidentally Max writes against Trump in WP).

3. The National Interest. "Why Are So Many Leftists Skeptical of the Russia Investigation?". "The purest form of this sentiment on the far left is a vein of attacks that are almost indistinguishable from Republican rhetoric about the investigation. The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald has gone from insisting evidence of Russian interference should be discounted until Robert Mueller produced some indictments to now saying indictments themselves should also be discounted." NY Magazine July 29, 2018

4. "Why Is the Far Left Defending Tulsi Gabbard?" Nancy leTourneau, Washington Monthly, Nov. 12, 2019

5. Fascism and the Far Left: A Grim Global Love Affair.." “... Tucker Carlson and The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald the crossover...” Haaretz, May 27, 2019.Kacziey (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Glenn Greenwald. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page. Kacziey (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Reminding what you said:

“And this is a 2014 article, can't u find anything more recent? “

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Intercept&diff=prev&oldid=980258229 Now you still edit war after you see at least 3 sources from 2019.Kacziey (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

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. 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—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. Kacziey (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kacziey reported by User:NonsensicalSystem (Result: ). Thank you. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 11:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Fala?

Brasileiro? Eu não sou, mas às vezes traduzo artigos em português para o inglês e preciso de ajuda para entender certas frases. Mathglot (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Yes, I am. And I'll be happy to help you. (you can even "batch-paste" texts that need translation, review, or explanation here). 🙂✌ - Daveout(talk) 03:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, super! I'm not translating an article at the moment, but there are bunch of them that are completed, mostly related to Lava Jato, that could always stand a native speaker to check them over. But I don't want to dump a boring, proofreading task on you. I'll list the articles below, and you can look if you want. More interesting to me, at the moment, is this: while translating and developing those articles, I quite frequently ran across terms I did not know, either from the legal profession, or some of the numerous abbreviations Brazilians love to use. I spent quite some time building a glossary, and if you wanted to check it out to make sure I didn't make any howling errors, that would be useful. The project-space glossary is here: WP:Brazil-G. Later, when developing the nav template {{Operation Car Wash}}, I realized I needed a Mainspace glossary, so picked off a few terms from the Project glossary, to create Glossary of Brazil investigative terms; this article is a derivative work and much smaller, the advantage being that it can be linked from articles or nav templates, where the project space glossary cannot. Anyway, since Brazil-G is the main work, if you feel like checking for errors, that would be the place to start.

Some of the Brazil-related articles I've worked on include Offshoots of Operation Car Wash, Phases of Operation Car Wash, Brazilian Anti-Corruption Act, Caixa 2, Odebrecht–Car Wash leniency agreement, Condução coercitiva, and I probably forgot some. Or, just forget all of this, and when I have a specific question, I'll ask. Mathglot (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Your recent editing history at Singular they 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—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. Megaman en m (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding GNU

This edit was added on October 2. It was then reverted, citing a talk page discussion that is still ongoing. Your edit summary suggests that this was in the article for some time with consensus and then removed, when this is not the case. To avoid edit warring, do not continue to reinsert material that you know is contentious when there is an ongoing discussion taking place. - Aoidh (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aoidh: That was first removed by User:Ahunt two months prior, on August 20. He claimed a consensus that never really existed. Some people agreed with him, other didn't. No solution was defined in that discussion. Before that, if you take a look at the page's history, GNU was defined as an OS for at least a decade. - Daveout(talk) 01:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Daveout reported by User:Crossroads (Result: ). Thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Greatest of ALL time vs Greatest of 21st century

posted my reasoning in the talk page for the article page. hope you check it out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomyeahboss (talk • contribs) 05:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Gender-related sanctions

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

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

Template:Z33 Making sure you are aware. Newimpartial (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@User:Newimpartial. I'm aware, thanks.👍 - Daveout(talk) 20:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Joseph Safra

On 14 December 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Joseph Safra, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Brazil

Hello, Daveout,

I was reverting another editor's edits on this article which also reverted your most recent edit to the page. To reinstate it, I replaced the paragraph with the one you rewrote but it turns out that the editor I was reverting had removed a lot of content from that paragraph before you rewrote it. So I reverted my edit that contained your changes. If you go look at the edit history, please look over my most recent edits and you can decide whether you prefer your version of this paragraph (my second edit) or the original state of this paragraph (my first and third edit). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Liz:. those sentences were originally written "the way brazilians speak"; so they probably seemed odd or unnatural to native speakers. look:

• original: Enhanced by political and economic crises with evidence of involvement by politicians from all the primary political parties in several bribery and tax evasion schemes, with large street protests for and against her, Rousseff was impeached by the Brazilian Congress in 2016.
• my version: Rousseff was impeached by the Brazilian Congress in 2016. Large street protests for and against her took place during the process. The charges against her were fueled by political and economic crises along with evidence of involvement with politicians (from all the primary political parties) in several bribery and tax evasion schemes.

I'll restore my version cuz i think it is a bit clearer. but thanks again for letting me know :) - Daveout(talk) 01:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)