User talk:Eteethan

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to California Elections before 2010

Hello all Municipal Elections are not Nonpartisan in California until 2010 the Municipal Elections law went in to affect in to 2010 it available on San Francisco and Los Angeles mayoral election pages let me know if you are confused :) 172.58.75.92 (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was able to find the text that modified the California Constitution, which was prop 14 in 2009. It doesn't seem like this changed anything with local elections. The changes to the constitution (with italics meaning text added by the proposition) are: "SEC. 6. (a) All judicial, school, county, and city offices, including the Superintendent of Public Instruction, shall be nonpartisan." [1]https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2300&context=ca_ballot_props (page 66). Los Angeles city elections have been nonpartisan per the City Charter since 1909. If there is any other source, that would be great to see, thanks. Eteethan (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

California Municipal elections

please revert all the edits that you made on the mayoral elections that you made in California Municipal Elections are not Nonpartisan in California until 2010 when prop 14 pass so can you please revert all the edits back to avoid miss judge ment of edits waring thank you. 172.58.22.175 (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eteethan is correct, local elections in Los Angeles have been nonpartisan since 1909 because of the passing of the 1909 City Charter. Per this source: "A 1911 amendment to the state constitution made all local elections in California nonpartisan, but Los Angeles voters could not wait and, in 1909, installed nonpartisan elections". What you're talking about is the nonpartisan blanket primary, which California now uses to put all running politicians, regardless of party, onto one ballot. reppop^talk 01:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Fall 2023

Volume 10, Issue 1 • Fall 2023 • About the Newsletter

Features

• A New Future for Road Articles Online

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi 1979 → on 19:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

I'm sorry. What part of my edit summary did you not understand? d per 2020 tag. Deletion. Per the 2020 tag. Which you could see. For some reason you called that an unexplained content removal. And used tools to revert. But that was not proper, as it was explained. And appropriate. And re-adding it violated wp rules. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:DDD2:4F20:16A4:82A0 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - honestly I didn't really know what you were trying to say in your edit summary, "d per 2020 tag." Upon further review you were correct in deleting content; however I would recommend a more clear edit summary in the future - such as "Deleting unsourced content, as tagged in 2020." Thanks! Eteethan (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was mistake

The version you restored contained spelling errors, the non-automatic taxobox and some English that could probably be improved. The large removal there was because I accidently duplicated the "Background" section. 115.188.140.167 (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! The content that was removed seems to be well referenced. I'd recommend correcting the spelling/grammar errors and the taxobox in that case!. Let me know if you have any questions :) Eteethan (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content I removed was an exact duplicate of the section above 115.188.140.167 (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see - It wasn't readily apparent because the removal/addition were on different edits. Eteethan (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No explanation for a blanket revert in the history page

@@Eteethan: You reverted two of my good faith edits of the Hijab article

in one swoop revert, within one minute after I posted my edits, and you never gave any explanation in the history page. It appears to me that you are engaging in sabotage. I will ask for a third opinion.

 QamarBurtuqali (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali[reply]

Your listed source isn't reliable, per WP:RS. Additionally, it seems like you are engaged in an edit war on this page with multiple uninvolved editors. I'd recommend raising your concerns on the article talk page and obtaining consensus before making this edit. Thanks! Eteethan (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Movies.com AFD

Just FYI, the AfD you reverted was closed as keep so it’s clear that it was meant to happen. 63.115.34.165 (talk) 08:05, 10 November 2023 (UTc)

Ok, sounds good! I had no involvement with this AfD, I was just stepping in to revert block evasion. Thanks! Eteethan (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's really the common IS hostage video costume

About the symbolism of that: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guantanamo-congress-islamicstate-idUSKBN0L91YF20150205 94.254.152.192 (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And to the pint that even some reprisal executions of captured IS terrorists would have their own executioners wear these exact costumes ("the orange robes normally worn by victims of the Islamic State") too: https://theworld.org/stories/2015-07-01/syrian-rebels-execute-islamic-state-fighters-while-wearing-orange-jumpsuits-their — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.152.192 (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem like vandalism, on further review, but I would argue that addition was unnecessary. Eteethan (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article described him as clad in the orange jumpsuit (the usual IS hostage uniform for their theatrical interrogation and execution videos) without explaining anything. Also once he began working for them he was given him more regular clothing as if he ceased to being a hostage and joined them (https://www.longwarjournal.org/tags/john-cantlie), but this was not mentioned and I didn't add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.93.157 (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Upcoming expiry of your ipblock-exempt right

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your WP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 00:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked (which you can test by trying to edit when logged-out), please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be considered separating out the two concept of the cultural stereotypes and the political aspects of the term AWMs

Until such an issue is voted on to split the article it's the one we have. 27.96.192.129 (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is a better way forward - I have no skin in the game, just came across this in recent changes. Please read the talk page message I left you re. edit warring before this turns into a thing, and discuss your proposal on the article talk page. Thanks! Eteethan (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're aware that the news article you selected discusses the same very issues that are talked about in the Wikipedia article regardless of whether you call it a stereotype or bloc right?

Regardless of here:

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/20/us/angry-white-men-trials-blake-cec/index.html

We're saying the same thing, the nuance is in the word stereotype. It's not a neutral term and implies an embellishment of the facts, or outright that it may not even exist. It's neither of the above, and even the article you selected shows the problems with AWMs.

FYI: It's not the "white male" bit that is important in this sense it's the "angry" bit. We're not contesting here that all white males are angry. That wouldn't even fit into a plausible understanding of the article. It's the angry ones we're talking about, which I might read in to something you're taking up issue with... That article isn't "white male bad" it's "angry white males exist."

27.96.192.129 (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]