Welcome to Wikipedia, CanterburyUK! I am Emilyzilch and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 22:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks EmilyZilch for the welcome!

I'm wondering if I'm going about things the right way - on a page where I've been doing some editing, another person has twice summarily removed some of what I'd added. I've asked them in the Discussion page to explain why: but had a one line answer that didn't explain. Is there anything else I can do to try to understand? No-one else has chipped in to explain either, so maybe this person is on their own in their approach to editing?

Not sure you get the time to check things out... if you do, take a look at the [[Honour Killings] page. Thanks CanterburyUK (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to try to see what is going on but right now there's a lot going on at Honor killing... can you link a Diff that shows a revert that is confusing to do? ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 02:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a quick response - thanks. Have a look at the Discussion page for honour killings, the section headed 'Itaqallah - why do you keep deleting stuff, with little explanation?'.

regards a diff...umm...not sure if this URL will work, but try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=239785683&oldid=239680881CanterburyUK (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:No original research, which disallows use of primary sources to make deductions or claims. There is no verifiable reason to believe any of the mentioned texts relate to "honour killing" in any way, as I have articulated many times on the talk page. You have also been removing other material which doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else in the article, on the basis that it's a 're-hash'. Please explain this in more detail on the talk page. ITAQALLAH 11:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it. But the Holy Book section you deleted does not make deductions or claims from the primary sources. Wikipedia:No original research says 'anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.' That is the case with the religious section.

What content are you concerned about, saying 'You have also been removing other material...' ?

Hi. Just wanted to pop in and leave a quick note about removing material. Look at the refs that might be embedded and if there's one that's "named" (usually so it can be used again with that name) it probably is used more than once. So removing the "anchor" (the ref fields with the ref name) reference destroys the necessary fields for those refs that use the "name". Cheers E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 01:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right! You'll see that Honor killing got broken by your edits. Please do take a look. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 07:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work there. I'm glad that you are writing this.

One thing I noticed is the sentence "Firstly, some claim that honour killings only occur among rural or uneducated groups...". This should be attributed to a person or group.

This is merely a friendly thank you (for writing the article) and a heads up before a less friendy editor comes by and causes a ruckus. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 00:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice words. I've followed your advice and added a sourceCanterburyUK (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editors working on this article are playing (very strictly) by the book.

The first night that I began working on the references for that article I ran across the case of the Egyptian's from Texas. At that time it was just a few days old and I was surprised to see an incident so close to home. Their last name is Said. There has been coverage in magazines, televisions, and books. The two daughters that were killed went to Lewisville High School. I worked on that article recently and saw that an editor had included the incident. I updated the references there. One item that I found was in a book called Dark Night of the Soul. There's also this article. I'm sure there are quite a few more regarding this specific case.

So I just wanted to bring these to your attention. I do think it's good to have specific examples of honor killing mentioned in the article. Those other editors, like I said, are adhering to the rules very closely. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 01:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Rasimmons. CanterburyUK, thanks for creating Shakeel Begg!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This article seems to cast its subject in an extremely negative light without enough context for readers to develop a fair opinion on him. It would be best to change the language to be a little more neutral.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 19:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see you removed the POV tag from the article again. I understand the difficulty in discussing a possible religious extremist in a neutral way, however the wording of the article itself uses some loaded language and makes unsubstantiated claims.

E.g. from the introduction: "He is extremely influential among followers of hardline conservative Islam in the UK.". Is he? How do we know this? How do we justify the use of language like "extremely influential" instead of merely saying "influential"?

I'm not having a dig, I'm just saying this article needs a great deal of work in maintaining neutrality, as well as some formatting too. I'm happy to try and help though. I've not got a great deal of experience in actually writing articles. The only article I've written was about an extinct scorpion and I ended up with a part of it was removed for being incorrectly sourced.

The POV tag was added because in reading this I don't get the sense that I'm merely reading about an unpleasant person, but I'm reading something written by someone who intensely dislikes this person, and that's not how wikipedia is meant to be written. Your choice of words suggests for instance that there's doubt over his university qualifications. The tag will be re-added: two other wikipedians have now said it needs work on the neutrality and you shouldn't remove the tag until after it's been discussed, not because you've looked over your own work and think it's neutral. As far as I can tell User:rasimmons has not had a chance to discuss the tag with you before you removed it earlier. It's very hard to accurately assess your own writing, some of the stuff I've had friends pick up in my own that I've missed is mind boggling.

I also feel that the use of constant block quotes, references to youtube videos and the structure of the sections in the article need some going over, though I'm going to have to spend some time in front of the WP:MANUAL before I know how to properly arrange stuff.

This is not personal, we're all just trying to make wikipedia the best it can be. Either respond here or on my talk page and we can work out how to bring this up to standard. Hedge89 (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HI Hedge89: I've responded to you on the Talk page of Shakeel Beeg. I appreciate your input.

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn.

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Tanbircdq (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CanterburyUK. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you read over WP:MEAT.--Moxy (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy - I've read it. I haven;t done anything listed there. What was your point?CanterburyUK (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CanterburyUK,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Umar haque should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umar haque .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven Thanks, I;ve contributed there. As I wrote there - hard to see on what basis this case is not noteworthy - every UK main media covered it in depth: and convictions in the UK for Terrorism are rare. And on top he was training a jihadi children's army.CanterburyUK (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, In general, the best response - assuming you continue to believer that the subject is notable - is to improve the article. It can be helpful to look at teh way similar articles rated good are formatted and written. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies - That looked like boilerplate text. It would help me if you could write specifically what you refer to? I see Wiki lists 6 types of disruptive editing?CanterburyUK (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Message of Thaqalayn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be a non-notable journal. I find only an announcement by an advertiser that it has been publishing for 17 years.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CanterburyUK. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Jordan Peterson is covered by a one-revert rule restriction. Technically, you broke this rule earlier today, so I urge you to read up on it and exercise some care. Let me know if you have any questions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HI Firefangledfeathers Firefangledfeathers (talk)

thanks for posting -can you explain - I see only 1 revert? CanterburyUK (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also -did you send the same warning today to Shibbolethink when he reverted my new content?

Or to ScottishFinnishRadish on the 6th, when he reverted the first text on this College of Psychiatrists issue? CanterburyUK (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those users have reverted just once. You, however, reverted once to restore your preferred version of the Toronto college of psychologists section, and then again, to restore it after I put back the WP:STATUSQUO version. Hence, 2 reverts in 24 hours. While text is in dispute, it is best to keep the status quo version until a new version is agreed upon. This prevents edit wars. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shibbolethink

I was surprised to see your post appear on my talk page.

Especially in the middle of a dialogue with Firefangledfeathers about what THEY had written - not at all about you or anything you had one.

Is that common Wiki etiquette, to jump into other people's conversation, un-invited? CanterburyUK (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink: Hi Shibbolethink

seeing as you are now on my Talk page: can I nudge you to respond in the Peterson Talk page to the request I made there:

• "How about we cooperate more moving forward - to ensure a better dialogue in the future - would you be OK if we both agreed to answer any questions we put to each other (content questions of course)?"CanterburyUK (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CanterburyUK,

• On the reverts, here's the deal: you added the OCP content on 6 January. It was removed by SFR. Your first series of edits today re-added some of the removed content, including the subsection and the comments from Poilievre. This counts as a revert. Your later edit re-added a bunch of content that Shibbo had removed, including the subsection heading and Poilievre's comments.
• Shibbo answered you already about what's different between you and the other two editors. Incidentally, SFR is already formally aware of BLP DS.
• Pings don't work unless you sign in the same edit as you add the ping. I highly recommend using Template:u or Template:ping rather than copying from a user's signature

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers:HI Firefangledfeathers

thanks for taking the time to explain your thinking - But I'm still not getting it. Maybe I am missing something.

The first edit you link to was me putting up a bunch of NEW content and sources. It was not a revert.

The second version you point to -yes, that is the only Revert today that I consider I made. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CUK, I think a number of your comments/concerns on the article talk page make sense and I suspect some of the gut concerns I have with articles like this are shared by you. That said, an admin once said they treated every page as if it had a 1 revert per day limit. Note a revert is any time you reverse, either exactly or roughly, an edit recently made by another editor. Some people think they are OK if they revert two different things rather than the same disputed content twice... nope, not OK. Also back to back edits count as 1 edit since they could have been done as part of 1 large edit vs a sequence of small ones. Anyway, the admin's point was two fold. No one can accuse you of edit warring if you only make 1 revert per day. Perhaps they can claim you are being too bold but not edit warring. Also, even if other editors get frustrated with talk page disagreements, they typically will be more amenable to compromises so long as you aren't making disputed changes to the article. But the other reason is that often you will be more successful if, after your edit is reverted, if you talk it out with the other editors. Sometimes you will get nowhere but if you are trying to make a change and two editors will revert it if you do, well you will hit the revert limit before they do and thus you can't win. However, if you are polite (and you seem to be) and talk without making article page changes, well, many editors will try to find a compromise with you. This is my long way of saying, even if you think the others are wrong, in the long run you will be more effective if you don't make edits to the article when it's reasonably clear others will reject them. Springee (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee:

Phew - my Talk page has never been so busy - now you too Springee are jumping in!

Thanks for being helpful.

"if you are polite (and you seem to be)"

• thank you -good to hear it comes across that way.

"you will be more effective if you don't make edits to the article when "

• Yes that is very helpful.

I guess today, the text I put up was so substantially different, in my mind, it was all new content.

Thanks for the advice! CanterburyUK (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers:

is this the 'ping format' -you suggested? CanterburyUK (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It worked! Yes, the first link (to your edits from the 6th) is not a revert. The next two links are the reverts. Reverts are restoring disputed changes in whole or in part. Today, you twice restored bits of material that others had objected to. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers:HI Firefangledfeathers

I get it now - but still confused why you consider it a Revert.

On the 6th I posted 9 sourced links.

Reverted as one block by Shibbo.

Today I posted: 8 sourced links.

2 of which were the same as the 6th. The rest different.

All 8 were deleted by Shibbo, writing: "Wildly UNDUE, implemented without consensus"

It was those 8 today that I reverted.

Shibbo stated: "implemented without consensus" - are you saying they only meant the 2 of the 8? CanterburyUK (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that's what Shibbolethink meant, but it doesn't affect the revert math. Partial restoration is a revert. I doubt anyone will seek out sanctions based on this—I certainly won't—but I'd be careful, were I you, not to make it the beginning of a pattern. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider if your comments are likely to persuade editors. There is an issue that if you post too much on a talk page editors will feel you are bludgeoning the discussion. At some point you have to accept there is only so much convincing you can do. More sometimes ends up being less when it comes to talk page comments. Springee (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Springee -point taken! CanterburyUK (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it does strike me as a shame that so few editors are active on the page - supposedly a high profile topic.

Reading around the many Wiki pages on how to edit - it's my impression that this page often fails to meet those guidelines: eg

• Improve, Don't Remove. If something doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, try to fix the problem rather than just remove what's broken. (Nothing stops new contributors from coming back like having all their hard work end up in the bit bucket.)

CanterburyUK (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That recommendation is typically not applied when it comes to WP:BLP pages, which have a higher standard for sourcing and inclusion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink: Thanks for being helpful Shibbolethink.

Do you think it helps encourage involvement of a wider and more diverse set of editors - if that principle is set aside on the Peterson page?

For all that it is a high profile and controversial subject matter: I don't see the level of activity on tweaking the content, as that high profile would suggest. CanterburyUK (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

The page is also under GENSEX arbcom restrictions, in addition to the BLP ones mentioned above. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shibbolethink

You've posted to my page again.

I'm confused - you post messages to my page - but when I ask questions about them - you do not reply? (as above)

There seem only 2 possibilities

• you do not read my questions. (In which case: on what basis would you expect me to read your own coments to me?)
• you read my questions - but chose not to reply - (which would be - a little uncivil ?)

Or is there a third option I have over-looked? CanterburyUK (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Jordan Peterson 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 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 being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please self-revert this edit. You've already made one revert in the last 24 hours on Peterson's article, and it is subject to a 1RR restriction. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sideswipe9th @Sideswipe9th:

The edit you refer to, I commented:

• added Pierre Poilievre mention - ( of which no one in Talk had objected to)

So it had already been on the Talk Page. Ie - I had already complied with your Text:

• "Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward ..."

What is your advice - having put that source on the Talk page for some days, and had no objections: what other path could I have taken? CanterburyUK (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could have waited until a time where you hadn't just made a revert, or you could have asked on the talk page for someone to add it mentioning that you'd just made a revert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK -thanks @Sideswipe9th: Sideswipe9th

Appreciate you taking the time.

I'd hope that my track record here shows I'm a good faith editor. CanterburyUK (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS {Reply to|Sideswipe9th}} Sideswipe9th:

Are you a regular editor or a editor with more admin or rights for oversight of the Peterson page?

Just wondered how you came to be raising this issue with me, that's all. CanterburyUK (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're trying to be nice, as to prevent you from being blocked. You would be well advised to make no edits to the article without affirmative consensus on the talk page, as you've been consistently editing again consensus which seldom ends well on a contentious article that is subject to discretionary sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @ScottishFinnishRadish:

Thanks for commenting... although I'm mystified you've jumped into a conversation between Sideswipe9th and I.

What feature in Wiki gets to alert you that I have updated my talk page -so you can come here within minutes?

Nothing I can see in Wiki with my login - notifies me when other users edit their talk pages?

Am I in the dark about a wiki feature? CanterburyUK (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What feature in Wiki gets to alert you that I have updated my talk page See Help:Watchlist and Special:Watchlist. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I originally came to your talk page too give you the blp discretionary sanctions alert, but saw you were already alerted. I figured I'd pipe in here. You can also watchlist any user talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the info. CanterburyUK (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making a new talk page section every time you disagree with someone about something done on the page which is related to a section that already exists. Just add to that section or, if you must, create a new sub-section. To continue doing this may become a problem wrt WP:BLUDGEONING, as it continuously increases the prominence of your concerns in comparison to other editors comments. Likewise, you should not expect every user on Wikipedia to reply to every question you put to them. No one is under any obligation to answer your questions. This doesn't necessarily mean they dislike the question, or that they are offended, or that they do not read the questions. it also is not uncivil, at least by the definition set forward in WP:UNCIVIL.

In fact, that page explicitly recommends: Consider ignoring isolated examples of incivility, and simply moving forward with the content issue. You may find that most users on wiki will not respond to direct characterizations or accusations wrt their behavior on article talk pages, as this is not the place to raise these concerns. User talk would be the appropriate place to do so.

But more than anything, no one is obligated to answer your questions. Especially if they do not think answering them would be productive or a good use of their time. Such behavior of continued personal questions and talking about conduct where you should be talking about content, could even be interpreted as WP:SEALIONing behavior, which could be a component of WP:TE, and reason to get blocked. You appear to be a very new user, and so I am telling you this to help you find your way on wikipedia, and avoid having sanctions placed against you! Just keep that in mind. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink:

There is a repeating pattern of regular between us -a pattern that I am not finding helpful - so I'd like to break it.

Please will you stop giving me unsolicited advise about my editing practise or editing practise in general. Let me make my own way and succeed or fail in that. Others here have been offering advice, that I have engaged with -so I am not without helpful advisors.

Please restrict yourself 100% to discussions of content.

(Note: I am implying nothing regards your motive or what you think or feel when you give me give me unsolicited advice )

I will no longer reply to any unsolicited advise about my editing practise you write - unless you frame it in positivity and stated recognition of the good-faith intention of my editing.

As an aside: I believe that my record in the Peterson page is positive - in making the page a better page for for readers.

- that my intervention removed a statement that was mis-leading readers and mis-representing Peterson

PS - your message makes a number of straw-man arguments about what you think I have done or why; and what you think is bad practise - but I am not responding to them -even though I disagree with many. CanterburyUK (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, Shibbolethink is trying to help you here, and is giving you good advice. You are trying to run before you can walk, you are not listening to advice you are being given, and you are trying people's patience. I've been around a while, and I've been involved in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of talk page discussions, and I can assure you that people get blocked simply for being time sinks. I don't think you have any bad intentions, but you need to start listening to what people are telling you, else your editing experience here may end up being curtailed. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Garth Summitt:

How does your unsolicited advice regards my editing style (I am implying nothing regards your motive ) fit in with this Wiki advise:

• "A newcomer brings a wealth of ideas, creativity, and experience from other areas that, current rules and standards aside, have the potential to better our community and Wikipedia as a whole. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; perhaps what the newcomer is doing "wrong" may ultimately improve Wikipedia. Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is trying to achieve before concluding that their efforts are wanting or that they are simply "wrong". "

Some editors here have praised my efforts - so can you expand: exactly what do you mean by:

• "your editing experience here may end up being curtailed".

CanterburyUK (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that your account may be blocked from editing. I'm not threatening to do that myself, I'm advising you to take on board the advice that you are being given by vastly more experienced editors. I appreciate that you didn't ask for my advice, but I am offering it nonetheless; you can choose to ignore it if you wish. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Garth Summit:

You wrote: "your account may be blocked from editing".

But I'm wondering on what basis I would be blocked? I can see Wiki has strict double-Revert rules and I might be blocked for 24 hours - though other editors here have hinted that my reverts so far would be unlikely to cause any block.

I have helped the page in at least two significant ways - correcting where it had misled readers and under-represented Peterson.

I'd like to hear the exact , specific basis you think I might be blocked for?

I'm not for a moment suggesting it is your intention - but it does sound a little like a veiled threat.

But if I'm over-stepping some line I'm not aware of, please do reveal it to me.

PS - on the Peterson page I've not seen many examples of the former of this wiki practise: "Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is trying to achieve before concluding that their efforts are wanting or that they are simply "wrong". " - but seen lots of the latter. Just my view. CanterburyUK (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been given various links to read through, in the first post in this thread. All I am saying is that you should read those, and take them to heart. There is no threat, veiled or otherwise, just advice. By the way, pings will not work if you do not spell an editor's name correctly. Girth Summit _(blether) 01:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit:

Can you expand on "I can assure you that people get blocked simply for being time sinks". I searched wiki but came up empty handed for 'time sink' in editing guidance - maybe my search missed something? CanterburyUK (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pings also don't work if you get the spelling wrong, and then fix it afterwards. If you make a mistake the first time, to trigger a notification you need to add a new ping, signing the post in the edit you add it.

Time sink - it's covered in WP:DE. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit:

On pings I apologise - somehow I had got Garth into my head for your handle.

I looked at WP:DE but a search for 'time sink' found nothing.

Any specific part of it you had in mind for what I might be doing?

Thx in advance. CanterburyUK (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDHT is probably the most relevant section in these circumstances. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you're a star - thanks. CanterburyUK (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Just to let you know I've undone the change to capitalisation you made in Peterson's article. Per MOS:JOBTITLE, when referring to generic positions like "professor of [subject] at [university]" we use lower case as those titles are common nouns.

Steven Pinker is an exception to this because he holds a specific professorship that is otherwise unique; the "Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology". Accordingly the position Pinker holds is a proper noun A similar counterpart with an enwiki article is the "Lucasian Professor of Mathematics", which is a specific professorship held by only a single person at a time, and to whom the current holder is described as "the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics". Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th:

Thanks for taking the time to let me know - that's very kind.

Your knowledge of the minutia of Wiki rules is impressive!

For me - on top of learning those -I'm trying to not lose from the front of my mind: What will be most helpful for the reader? CanterburyUK (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to how to write and format prose the Manual of Style has entries for pretty much everything. You'll also want to familiarise yourself with the core content and conduct policies at a minimum, and knowing how to search through the rest of the policies and guidelines that can cover anything from all content to specific types of content is a good skill to pick up. The reliable sources guideline is key everywhere, as all content in the article space needs to be supported by reliable sources. Figuring out how to search the list at WP:RSP and the archives of WP:RSN are important to help identify if a previously discussed source is reliable or not.

There's also some specific policies and guidelines for specific content areas; BLP applies to all biographical content anywhere on Wikipedia (including all talk pages), MEDRS applies to all medical related content, MOS:IDINFO has all of the key points for trans and non-binary related content. There's some others for other contentious content areas, but as I don't edit in them I'm less familiar with them.

Honestly though, you've picked a tough article to learn the ropes on. Peterson sits at an intersection of several contentious topics; biographies, gender identity, American politics, climate change. Those topics are all individual minefields, and where they intersect with each other can get messy. Don't be afraid to just walk away from the article and go and edit somewhere or something less contentious while you get familiar with the main rules. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th:

thanks -that is comprehensive.

I'm not sure that walking away is ideal - I feel quite pleased with myself having instigated 2 significant improvements for the reader.

And at the moment - I'm not sure I find the Peterson page scores well against: Manual of Style/Lead section - which is the most important part of the page for the reader. CanterburyUK (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is CanterburyUK. Thank you. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been page-blocked indefinitely from Jordan Peterson and Talk:Jordan Peterson per this information. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 13:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

These page blocks have been upheld at WP:AE, see [1]. Bishonen | tålk 11:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Canterbury I've some advice if you'd welcome it. You were page blocked from the Peterson article and talk page for a reason. There are currently 6,612,813 other articles on enwiki that you can still freely edit.

I would advise that you please take some time to reflect on the words of the other editors and admins in the AE discussion with regards to why your conduct on that talk page was a problem to other editors and how you can avoid that in the future, then go and edit some other articles for at leat the next six months but the longer the better, and build up some familiarity with the relevant policies and guidelines that I'd linked before. If you can demonstrate the ability to edit on less controversial articles without the same problems, then a future appeal has a greater chance of succeeding. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CanterburyUK (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My initiatives have helped correct two factual errors on the Peterson page. I'm just here to make the page better for readers - and yes I have in couple of ways inadvertantly broken the rules - but some editors have praised what I've been doing here - and it's clear I've been acting in good faith. A permanent edit-block seems harsh; and excessively rules-based - after all - Wiki's rule 5 : "Wikipedia has no firm rules." I have demonstrated Good Faith: "In addition to assuming good faith, encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith. You can do this by articulating your honest motives..." Wiki says: "Good faith and newcomers - It is important to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules, but may nonetheless turn out to be valuable contributors. A newcomer's behavior probably seems appropriate to them, and a problem in that regard usually indicates unawareness or misunderstanding of Wikipedian culture."

Decline reason:

Given how long the activity was that led to these blocks, and that they're enforcing ArbCom discretionary sanctions that we now call contentious topics, I think it's a little too early to presume we might have changed our minds. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Konstantin Kisin‎. 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. Bon courage (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Vladimir.copic (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Owen Jones. Thank you. Vladimir.copic (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I only just saw your comment here.

You've raised a formal complaint against me know I realise - it's a shame we couldn't have used the Owen Jones Talk page to dialogue - it was me that back in December, before I posted any new content, started a chat there. And there that I posted notice of each new block I created. Yet you only contributed to talk after I requested you to.

Hey ho CanterburyUK (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is CanterburyUK. Thank you. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for persistent issues with neutrality (due weight) and source reliability on biographies of living persons, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Please note that, after 1 year, this ceases to have the special status of an arbitration enforcement block, and from that point on can be appealed using the normal {{unblock}} template. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CanterburyUK (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like a temporary unblock to allow me to request responses to the points in 'Statement by CanterburyUK' - as there have been no specific responses to any point I made. And some commentators seem to have not read my points CanterburyUK (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As this is an arbitration enforcement block, no admin may unblock you, temporarily or otherwise, outside of the arbitration enforcement appeals process, detailed above. If you wish to appeal this decision, please follow those instructions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I request a temporary unblock - so that I can request information as follows:

I would like to hear point by point responses to my 'Statement by CanterburyUK' Because otherwise I can't learn what specifically about my understanding was not suitable for Wikipedia.

(And it would seem to be only fair in the general case to respond to the specifics of anyone's Statement: showing where there was agreement and where not. Wouldn't any normal formal or disciplinary process provide that?)

Specifically I would like to hear a response to my sentence:

• Noteworthy is that 4 editors including me wanted to keep the Hamas section (they made small edits to it) versus only 2 against (Aquillion and @Vladimir.copic).

Secondly: some commenters have shared their opinion that they support a ban - but have NOT give details as to why.

• CanterburyUK's response to the case, posted today, only makes me more convinced that an indef is the only solution here. Black Kite
• Given CanterburyUK's response here is just this (plus a request elsewhere to Vladimir.copic to withdraw the AE request).. Number 57

This comment seems not to have read at all my comment because I addressed this (that the existing para my extra text was added to in ought to be deleted for the same UNDUE reason)

• the fact that they're trying to insert UNDUE material about Jones into other BLPs (Brendan O'Neill).... Black Kite

Regards one of the commenters:

• How can an editor of 15 years still not be aware of WP:UNDUE (this edit makes over 45% of the Jones article about his views on the 7 October attack)

My answer would be that - it would have been alot less than 45% of the page if not for the fact that the bulk of the extra content and sources I provided for Jones 2020 book had not been deleted. CanterburyUK (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've made a hash of the header there. To hard to figure out. It looks like you've not followed instructions. Ping @Tamzin: who is not only faster and smarter and younger than I, she also placed the block. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied things up. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 21:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @Tamzin CanterburyUK (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]