User talk:Awshort

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Awshort! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently been editing articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles which has been designated a contentious topic. 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.

Beccaynr (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awshort, Lard Almighty; I would advice patience about implementing any change while the close is reviewed. Thanks. Sennalen (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect revert Lantye (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to let you know that RS has changed wordings in its articles sourced in 2023 Qatar espionage case for keeping names and ranks of individuals, and I have added comment in talk page pointing out BLP policy [1]. I am writing this to have your opinions on the issue. Also I have posted it on WP:BLPN [2] to invite editors to examine BLP issue with article. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to revert your whole edit, just thought Peru needed to be clarified as Peru, Indiana rather than the country. S0091 (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091 No worries, but I think someone else did that edit? I've only added the bareref for sentencing earlier from USA Today :)

Awshort (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are on the verge of an edit war on this page. The citation was adjusted to a book which explicitly states the information you have questioned. This is not the first time you have meddled in my edits. Prior to this, you were identified as a wiki stalker on an administrator’s talk page. This is a warning to stop the edit war and put back the content and valid book citation. Twillisjr (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ANI#Wikihounding by Awshort, started by Delectopierre. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Given we've clashed before, I would appreciate a discussion prior to you reverting my edits going forward. Of course if they're obvious vandalism, that doesn't hold, but I don't plan to vandalize any articles so that's a moot point.

Of course you're under no obligation to do so, but of the two reversions you made on the Lorenz article:

1. I added the wrong source at the end of a sentence and could have been cleared up easily
2. Was something that I already discussed on the talk page and you could have chimed in there.

So to avoid any further conflict, and to extend an olive branch, please discuss differences of opinion with me prior to reverting. Thanks. Delectopierre (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Delectopierre (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea how we move forward to consensus on this? I just want to write up a couple paragraphs based on some solid secondary literature I've found on the historical accusations of slavery against Spreckels, put them in context, and describe the role they played in San Francisco society at the time. Instead, I'm experiencing some of the worst Wikilawyering I've encountered in ages, insisting that some very strong but poorly-supported language about Spreckels and slavery be included. Do I need to take this to another noticeboard, or can I just state on the talk page that I've said all I'm going to say and go ahead and just start making edits? Any advice would be greatly valued. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking. Novellasyes (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forget that I have a talk page at times, so I apologize for the (extremely) long delay in replying. I'm doing well, and wanted to (belatedly) thank you for your input on the noticeboard a while back. I agreed with everything you said but was trying to avoid any further conflict with the other user who had brought the discussion there. I hope all is well for you!

Awshort (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! Since your thank-you to me for this article (not sure if you're a watcher there), I've done a head-to-toe on the sources cited in the article, and most failed WP:RS or WP:BLP (especially WP:SPS) metrics. Having done a cleanup, I'd like to personally invite you to review the current version and changes I made, and request that if you end up WP:AFDing to please leave me a note. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 05:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Awshort, you might already know about these ongoing discussions at WT:BLP, but if not: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons § WP:BLPCRIME / WP:BLPNAME and citations and Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons § Making BLPCRIME clearer and more consistent may be of interest to you. Thanks! Some1 (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to NewsBreak, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. i know you're a dog (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on NewsBreak. 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. i know you're a dog (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iknowyoureadog The material is still out of the article as of now while we work towards a consensus. Restoring to your preferred version after templating another user will be the very definition of edit-warring. Please refrain from doing it until a consensus is reached.

Awshort (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not working towards a consensus. You are edit warring and stonewalling, rather than engaging in substantive discussion. It is WP:TENDENTIOUS. i know you're a dog (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another disruptive edit. You seem to be well versed in policies, so I would think you would know about WP:D. You're engaging in Wikipedia:Bring me a rock. First it was BLPCRIME to include their names, but you couldn't be bothered to remove their names you just removed the whole section.

Then when I did the work of removing their names, and you claimed that a non-criminal civil infraction (speeding 13 mph) meant it couldn't be included at all.

Then when I demonstrated that it's a non-crim infraction, you found another justification to remove it.

I don't know what your deal is, but the persistent disruptive edits, the lack of NPOV, and the edit warring are not okay. i know you're a dog 20:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iknowyoureadog Have you and I previously been to ANI for any reason under either a different username, or when you possibly edited under an unregistered IP address? Also, if you were previously registered under a different name, did you have previous warnings in relation to BLP, NPOV, or Edit Warring?

Considering you are still demonstrating WP:OWN behavior on some of your articles, and this one in particular is a BLP with NPOV issues, this is relevant.

Awshort (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're accusing me of WP:SOCK, that's a serious accusation, and should be brought to WP:SPI.

If you're not going to bring it there, strike your comment. i know you're a dog 21:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iknowyoureadog I didn't accuse you of anything, I asked you a question regarding if you and I have previous history since you seem determined for only your specific wording in articles, and your behavior seems standoffish when other users change almost anything in your articles. If you are a new user, you usually get warnings since most new users do not know any better. If not and you have been warned before, then it's an issue. You didn't answer it.

Awshort (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing by dint of just asking questions. Once again, either strike that or bring it to SPI. i know you're a dog 21:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Awshort. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page NewsBreak, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. i know you're a dog (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Detention of Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Delectopierre. I was browsing through WP:BLPN and was surprised to see the username of the editor who started that Lorenz thread stuck out. Some1 (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Some1 Thank you! Speaking of Lorenz, I stumbled across that article I had mentioned on your talk page recently regarding the CEO shooting. Kind of an interesting take on how outsiders/non-editors view our discussions when we don't include material in articles that seems noteworthy to them. Including the link here so I don't lose it again lol. Take care!

Awshort (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link! The "outsiders'"/non-editing readers' feedback regarding our Wikipedia articles is always valuable (and I sometimes forget that they actually read our article talk page discussions, lol). Regarding the Lorenz article, I don't think the situation there is unique or any different from what's occurring in the contentious topic areas, particularly with AP, PIA, GENSEX, etc. Casual readers have been expressing concerns about the perceived bias and non-neutrality of the Trump article for years now, and smaller news outlets have also raised similar concerns regarding articles in the Israel/Palestine topic area, for example. People's ideas of what is considered "neutral" will always differ, so the way these articles (including the Lorenz article) are written will never fully satisfy everyone. I think that's just something people will have to accept when they read/edit/use Wikipedia. Some1 (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]