User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65

☕ A@📧mail ☕ 🐣c🐣 😎 💀d💀 😎 ⭐b⭐ 🧮 🗄️ 🧹

⬅️ Previous Archive Page (#64) ☕ 🗄️ ☕

Next Archive Page (#66) ➡️

🌳 🍀 🌳 🌿 🌳 🌱 🌳 🗄️ClueBot Detailed Index Archive #65🗄️ 🌳 🌱 🌳 🌿 🌳 🍀 🌳
1	Speculative	2024-09-21 10:29	2024-09-21 10:29	1	241	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65
2	Disambiguation link notification for September 21	2024-09-21 19:52	2024-09-21 19:52	1	294	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65
3	"That is the wiki way"	2024-09-24 11:51	2024-09-28 00:13	16	11103	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65
4	Question about RSP	2024-09-27 15:55	2024-09-27 21:04	2	1502	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65
5	Sinclairian	2024-09-27 20:41	2024-09-27 21:03	2	642	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65
6	Trouted	2024-09-27 22:21	2024-09-27 22:21	1	324	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65
7	Belated welcome back	2024-09-27 22:37	2024-09-27 22:37	2	466	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65
8	Re: DYK	2024-10-01 21:12	2024-10-01 21:54	7	3547	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65
9	DYK for Moses Benjamin Wulff	2024-10-05 00:03	2024-10-08 00:18	2	1826	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65
10	User talk pages	2024-10-09 04:52	2024-10-09 04:54	2	812	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65
11	Ape language experiments	2024-10-10 19:12	2024-10-10 19:28	4	1883	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65
12	Charles McRobert" Admittedy addled!	2024-10-11 15:11	2024-10-11 18:00	2	977	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65
13	Disambiguation link notification for October 13	2024-10-13 07:53	2024-10-13 07:53	1	285	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65
14	Instagram	2024-10-14 03:41	2024-10-14 05:18	4	1361	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65
15	Just because some information is verifiable...	2024-10-14 18:29	2024-10-14 18:39	2	955	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65
16	Notice of noticeboard discussion	2024-10-19 01:42	2024-10-19 01:42	1	417	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65
17	DYK for Abramo Colorni	2024-10-19 00:03	2024-10-20 05:07	3	2008	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65
18	Question	2024-10-19 02:24	2024-10-20 14:22	19	10045	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65
19	Jewish skulls	2024-10-20 02:50	2024-10-20 03:32	2	702	User talk:Andrevan/Archives/65

Speculative

There are no sources to support that claim 2A0D:6FC0:1D4C:3E00:DA8:BD60:55A8:D078 (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aniconism in Judaism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fiery furnace.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

"That is the wiki way"

Your demand that other editors propose and make changes incrementally to the existing article, word by word sentence by sentence (since this article is under the consensus required restriction) so we can see everything that will added, removed, or changed, that is the Wiki way. when those other editors have spent weeks/months planning a complete overhaul is unreasonable, and your assertion that this is the only correct way to make changes is incorrect. This is arguably disruptive editing at the talk page of a contentious topic. Please try to work collaboratively instead of insisting your own preferred method of editing is the only one you'll accept. Valereee (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Valereee. Thanks for the note. I'll certainly keep your message in mind and try to improve my commentary and arguments. While I've edited for a long time, Wikipedia policies, and norms, and consensus are often changing and evolving, so it's helpful for me to keep abreast of the latest developments. It would be helpful if you could link some essays or policies so I can understand better how my talk page commentary could be considered disruptive or is otherwise out of sync of how things should be done nowadays. My logic for arguing for incremental and iterative change and retaining much of the material removed in the proposed rewrite drafts include WP:PRESERVE, Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems, and collective ownership. I do recognize and will abide by the consensus that forms. Best regards, Andre🚐 13:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The ones that comes to mind most quicklyly are WP:BLUDGEON, WP:SEALION, and WP:AGF. You have accused other editors, at least eight times in a single day by my count, of cherrypicking simply for including on the list of BESTSOURCES -- which as has been made clear several times in that discussion is intended to be a list of best sources, not the only allowable sources -- books that are primarily about Zionism (of which there are likely dozens of recent academic examples) rather than general texts about Judaism (of which there are likely hundreds). You've asserted that general texts are less likely to be biased, over and over again, without presenting any evidence I've been able to find. You've focussed on the idea that most of the books suggested for this list have Zionism in their titles -- which makes total sense when one is looking for books about Zionism -- as somehow equating to a requirement for that, which doesn't actually seem to be true.

You have insisted that all changes be made incrementally and word by word, sentence by sentence.

And this is just in the two discussions I've been able to wade through so far.

The net result of including general sources is a BESTSOURCES list that could literally be 1000 books, making it likely anyone trying to familiarize themselves with the body of work will throw up their hands in and walk away. The net result of arguing, word by word, over an article this long and contentious is an editing process that would be so frustrating that it's likely other editors will throw up their hands and walk away. Doing things that make other editors get so frustrated they walk away is disruptive. Valereee (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Valereee. I'll take that good faith feedback into account and try to take a closer look at my activities, and take a break to let things cool off. However, I will point out that cherrypicking is not necessarily a bad faith situation, it can be done unintentionally, and refers to an unintentional blind spot in source selection. The issues about sources being titled or about Zionism, that I was attacking, were proposed by at least one other editor, but happily, we seem to have clearly moved past that at this point. WP:DUE clearly says that weight is all reliable sources, so leaving out more general work could be cherrypicking. I will also point out that BLUDGEON contains some rules of thumb to determine if one is BLUDGEONing, which do not seem to apply to my activities strictly speaking, but I'll consider how the spirit might be applying. I did provide evidence for my source arguments, in a separate section with references[1], and I've also added a bunch to Bibliography of the Arab–Israeli conflict . and I am not the most prolific text generator on that talk at all, or responsible for 1/3+ of text. I certainly object to SEALION, such an allegation requires detailed diffs or it is uncivil, and itself seems to lack good faith. I will also point out, since you are the primary author of Politics of food in the Arab-Israeli conflict, you are WP:INVOLVED in issues of the conflict and shouldn't be acting as an impartial admin. Thanks, Andre🚐 17:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not involved. I write about food. Every once in a while food intersects with Nationalism, which is what happened at Falafel, which resulted in Politics of food in the Arab-Israeli conflict as an attempt to keep Falafel from becoming The politics of falafel. You can read my comments at falafel, which were basically, "This is a FOOD. There may be political implications, but it's a FOOD and we should be addressing it primarily as a FOOD." Valereee (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree. A recent ANI thread about another admin who thought he wasn't involved found that he was. The article clearly has politics and Arab-Israeli conflict, so you're WP:INVOLVED. Since you're not sanctioning me, I don't need to bring that to WP:AN/I, but if you're saying this is a formal admin warning, then I suppose I have to. Andre🚐 21:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I always welcome community input. Valereee (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure, but that's a bit of a non-answer. I have no desire for "teh drama." So, is this a formal admin warning or a friendly collegial editor warning? Andre🚐 21:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Kinda hate to have to word it this way, but if you insist: It's a formal warning about behavioral concerns from an admin who considers herself uninvolved. If the community believes I'm involved, it's a friendly collegial editor warning about behavioral concerns, which really you should take just as seriously. Valereee (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

[2] Andre🚐 21:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

TPS -- @Valereee, fwiw, I can empathize as I feel like some articles that are consensus required have had an editorial freeze put on them. This seems like it's by design though, and would suggest perhaps editors try and seek out lifting that restriction before attempting to do such a large rewrite/refactor. I don't have nearly the experience you or AndreVan have, but I thought I'd share my thoughts on the matter. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus required restriction makes things feel a bit different than normal, I agree. Andre🚐 13:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

See also The wiki way, I believe the "wiki way" actually dates to the original wiki or earlier. Like this quote from Mark Janssen, The wiki way is about radical collaboration while preserving everyone's contribution. The idea is to add and refine, rather that delete another's input. Subtract only when a greater synthesis is made that simplifies the conversation Ward Cunningham also has a book called that from 2001 or so. Andre🚐 13:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW, also, my comment is not a demand but a polite request and an opinion on the best way to proceed;. AFAIK, it would be improper for users to ask me not to respond on Talk:Zionism but to participate in a Wikipedia:Userspace draft ("But please take these comments to the corresponding talk page") instead. I believe changes to Zionism need consensus on Talk:Zionism. See also Follow the normal protocol and WP:NEGOTIATE Andre🚐 14:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This thread has inspired me to add a new section to my userpage: User:Valjean#"The wiki way" to document and preserve the "sum of all human knowledge" Thanks for the inspiration, good quotes, and good links. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice! :-) Andre🚐 00:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Question about RSP

Hi Andrevan. Because you’re active on the RSP Talk page and a very experienced editor, I’m wondering if you have input as to the correct method for asking that Bloody Elbow prior to March 2024 be added based on an RfC and two other discussions on RSN: [3], [4], [5]. I started two of these discussions as a paid consultant to One Championship, an organization which was written about by Bloody Elbow, so I declared a conflict of interest . It seems to me that Bloody Elbow now meets the specific criteria of WP:RSPCRITERIA but I think an independent editor(s) should make that determination. I have looked and don’t see a specific protocol for this situation. I’d appreciate your take here as well as any advice about how to proceed in good faith. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, but I'm not sure if I'm the person to help with this. Andre🚐 21:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Sinclairian

I'm not trying to get more bad blood with Sinclairian but his recent edit summaries have been things like "stupid" or "idiot". he has been ignoring attempts to interact positively and he also is refusing to listen to other editors, certain he is correct. it's frustrating. Ogress 20:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Next time it happens, please let me know. Andre🚐 21:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: OH ALL THE REASONS! Andre🚐 22:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Belated welcome back

I'm obviously very late to have noticed this, but welcome back! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh hi and thank you! Much appreciated. Andre🚐 22:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: DYK

Leon Trotsky was said to be particularly fond of a restaurant called Triangle Dairy in the Bronx, whose waiters were Russian emigrés, but refused to tip, leading to verbal abuse, intentionally poor service, and an incident that caused him to be burned by hot soup.

Apologies for placing it here, but I wanted to get a quick response since you're currently online. I have issues reading this sentence. When you say "but refused to tip", it almost sounds like you are referring to the waiters instead of Trotsky. One solution is to split it into two, perhaps something like "According to one story, Leon Trotsky was said to have been particularly fond of a Jewish dairy restaurant called Triangle Dairy in the Bronx, whose waiters were Russian emigrés. Trotsky refused to tip after eating, leading to verbal abuse, intentionally poor service, and one incident where waiters intentionally burned him with hot soup." Assuming of course that is accurate...any objections? Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. I agree. No objections! Andre🚐 21:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, changed. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Awesome. And you are always welcome at this talk page. :-) Andre🚐 21:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again. There is one other thing. Regarding the hook for this subject: aside from the two secondary sources, there's also the original Hoffer 1965 Esquire article which is still online and accessible with a free login.[6] It's fun to read, so if you haven't already read it, take a look. Anyway, it doesn't say he was "burned", it does say he had "hot soup spilled on him", which is also what the other two say. I realize this is probably just a quibble, but maybe the content and hook should be fixed on this point? Giffin 1968 characterizes it as an "intentional 'accident' with hot soup", while Rubenstein 2011 says he had "hot soup spilled on him". I think both of these are true to the original Esquire article. Something to consider? Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, spilled is more accurate than burned. The hot soup was spilled on him, we don't actually know if he was burned per se. Also, great find with that original article. I am going to read it now. Andre🚐 21:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks again! Let me know if you have any other ideas or changes. Andre🚐 21:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Moses Benjamin Wulff

On 5 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Moses Benjamin Wulff, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Moses Benjamin Wulff founded a printing press that reprinted The Guide for the Perplexed for the first time in centuries? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moses Benjamin Wulff. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Moses Benjamin Wulff), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Apparently a DYK isn't worth a lotta pageviews these days (about 2,000). Or my hook was too boring... Andre🚐 00:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

User talk pages

User talk pages are not eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#U1. Moving the page history to User:Andrevan/ArchiveOld and tagging it with {{csd-u1}} is gaming the system. I had merge the entire history back after realizing what you tried to pull. Do not attempt to do it again. ✗plicit 04:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, I screwed that up. Andre🚐 04:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Ape language experiments

Hello! You reverted some edits that added a lot of unencyclopedic junk back into articles. There's a broader discussion about this going on at both the linguistics wikiproject and the talk page of Great ape language. Feel free to join in, but notice that a lot of the material you added back in was 100% uncited and treated the personal communications of apes signing as credible beyond their acceptance by experts. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm participating in the discussion, so I'm not sure why you notified me of it. And this edit [7] which I reverted was clearly sourced, so your statement here is incorrect. Andre🚐 19:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to this revert, which was unsourced and unencyclopedic. Also, as to the why I pinged you, I'm afraid it's because your full screen name showed up in my notifications and I didn't map it to the one you use in your signature. Apologies. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I'll leave that one, then, as you are right that koko.org isn't the best source. Andre🚐 19:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Charles McRobert" Admittedy addled!

Hey!

I have to admit that my biggest contribution isn't to the pages of Wikipedia but my donations, which are often. My other? The Web Archive (Wayback Machine).

Google should fund Wikipedia. It's nuts! There must be somebody who will finance Wikpeida into the green.

I'm less worried about Wiki. But the Wayback machine got sporry for a while and that is where all of my Web content exists.

I remind you that I am proficient in six languages, but am best at Slavic languages such as Czech and Hungarian. Charles McRobert (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Google does fund Wikipedia: Relationship between Google and Wikipedia. Happy editing! Andre🚐 18:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abramo Colorni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magic mirror.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Instagram

Hello. I was wondering why you feel it is necessary to delete an official instagram page as an EL to an article on a person, where it is their official page and the subject of the article has no other Web presence, along the lines of a regular website for the person. Thanks. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:71B8:4A87:DD56:6B5F (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, in that case I guess it is OK. I thought it was a personal account. Andre🚐 03:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Best. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:71B8:4A87:DD56:6B5F (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. The draft looked ready so I moved it to mainspace. Andre🚐 05:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Just because some information is verifiable...

Doesn't mean it should be included in the article, for a variety of reasons (including the fact that even RS make mistakes all the time). Here is an example: "Netanyahu believes Arabs want to annihilate all jews – women, children and men"[8] VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Vice regent, that's a spurious argument. It was supported by 3 reliable scholarly books. And clearly not an error at all. Andre🚐 18:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Abramo Colorni

On 19 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Abramo Colorni, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Renaissance-era weapons designer Abramo Colorni performed magical illusions and card tricks for his patrons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Abramo Colorni. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Abramo Colorni), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Woohoo, thanks! Andre🚐 00:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

5000! nice! beat my 2000 last time. Maybe a function of Friday night. Andre🚐 05:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Question

There appears to be at least two non-EC users substantially involved in this article. Given that the issues associated with the article have become intertwined with the A/I conflict, are the non-EC users not supposed to make or revert any edits to the article until they have made 500 edits? Are their edits actually invalid and supposed to be reverted based on the stated ground? Steven1991 (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct, any of their edits or even discussion that touches on A/I is forbidden. Andre🚐 02:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

As such, would reverting any of their edits based on the stated ground be considered potential edit warring? Steven1991 (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR: On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring. So looks like no it would not, any edits that concern ARBPIA broadly construed or discussion should be revertable. I would advise you to tread lightly though when it comes to "broadly construed" or peripherally related. I always thought that broadly construed did a lot of work, but it may depend. Andre🚐 02:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The mods don’t seem to care about this. One of them has basically made dozens of objectionable entries without hindrance, while accusing me of all kinds of stuff when they are not supposed to make edits in the first place. It is quite frustrating. Steven1991 (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You can file a report, but after you warned them they're probably going to step more lightly, and it looks better / is a better practice overall to warn them at least once or twice before going to escalate for sanctions. Leniency is generally a good idea. Just log down the diffs. WP:DIFF learn how to make them, learn how to log them and present them if need be. The easiest way is to copy the url to a diff and just stick it in brackets [9], but there are also other ways, like Special:Diff/1251970481. Either way, if you have diffs of repeated disruption or ignoring the ARBECR after a warning, you can file a report at WP:AE to sanction the user or just share the diffs with a friendly admin if you have one that will listen. You're still new and you're already in a lot of drama-filled areas. However you are learning quickly and there are likely to be other users challenging you as well. Demanding an apology too often, even though it may be merited, is likely to annoy people so best to build a thick skin and focus on the smoking guns when you have the receipts. Sorry for mixing metaphors, but you should also try to have fun and enjoy it and don't take it personally when other people are doing things that we don't like and agree with, unfortunately it's a reality. I'll spare some more choice observations and just advise you to hold your cards a little closer to your chest. Say less smile more. Andre🚐 03:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess I would spend less time on the specific page and focus on others instead so as to make the participation more rewarding. Steven1991 (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Sigh, someone totally uninvolved in the matter just turned me into the aggressor when I am the victim. Steven1991 (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that. I recommend that you stop doing things like filing SPI reports until you understand better what they're looking for on that. Similarly, I would advise you not to respond with long bullet point lists and talking about rights or overusing process. Try to use a lighter touch. You wouldn't be able to make any edits if you end up topic banned or blocked because you exhausted the patience of the norms after being told repeatedly by others. I'm saying that because I see the thread on ANI getting overheated and I thought we were trying to dial down the stress. You don't need to defend yourself if you already have, and it's frowned upon to keep saying the same thing especially if it's long. Concision is encouraged and try to whittle down your responses to the most targeted and incisive parts rather than just responding with all of your thoughts all at once. I'm telling you this in the interest of keeping you around here. If you do end up blocked, make sure your unblock request is not litigating the block but explaining clearly what you will do differently and how you'll avoid doing that. Andre🚐 07:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I believe I have done the contributions to the relevant articles I deem deserving of enrichment. I can always look for something else to have fun on if I wish. I would say there is a lot of stuff in real life worthy of doing as well. What do you think? Steven1991 (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Definitely take a break, because if you keep responding while agitated you'll almost certainly get at least some kind of block. I admire that you're trying to make good improvements, so focus on that and take a break until you can respond more slowly and deliberately. Andre🚐 07:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Who will be the one to decide? The patrolling mods of the board? Steven1991 (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The only admins I saw respond to your thread were El_C and Liz. Both are reasonable and evenhanded and you should listen to what they said. Andre🚐 07:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This site is somehow too cumbersome to manoeuvre. Sad to say Steven1991 (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

One tactic that always helps is learning quickly, adjusting, pivoting, apologizing for mistakes and not repeating them. E.g. copypasting the same text is a huge no-no. I tried to tell you before not to report someone after warning them but save your receipts. Don't blow up landmines by accusing people. Etc. Definitely don't edit while hot under the collar and go off. Andre🚐 07:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

How does it really work? How likely would the most undesirable happen? Steven1991 (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is such a difficult place to get used to. I am concerned that I may not be able to contribute more. @Piotrus Steven1991 (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Umm. I am not sure I grasp what is going on there, but AGF, if you are in trouble, consider asking for a long topic ban from the topic you got into trouble with, then show everyone you can be constructive in another topic area. Maybe it will help. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I see a number of wise, calm editors here urging User:Steven1991 to do the right things. I have said what I hope are calming words on the ANI thread. I sincerely hope Steven1991 can abandon Wikipedia for today and come back when they feel more enthusiastic about the community. If he feels he must communicate, please keep it to friendly talk pages. Wikipedians are on their own for their behaviors, which sometimes involves self-restraint. We wish Steven well today. BusterD (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Jewish skulls

The only reliable source I have found about Jewish skulls is a pirated video on Dailymotion: Jesus The Real Story: Episode 3 - The Last Days - BBC 4. תיל"ם (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not think that would qualify as a reliable source, though. Probably better not to write about Jesus' skull shape. I don't think it would be a helpful thing to include at this point. Andre🚐 03:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)