User talk:Asarlaí

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your outstanding work in the Ulster related articles. Boundarylayer (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! ~Asarlaí 20:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your conscientious editing as here, for instance. What do you think constitutes the majority of "other causes" of deaths of MoD personnel? Just curious. More suicides than have been publicised, maybe? Yours, Quis separabit? 05:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it. I'd say most of the "other causes" of deaths would be accidents such as vehicle crashes, accidental firing of weapons, falls, and so on. However, I'd say suicide wouldn't be far behind. Only the MoD would know for sure tho... ~Asarlaí 22:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

1996 Manchester bombing

That's a lot better and more relevant now, good work. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mabuska. I'd considered removing that stuff too. ~Asarlaí 21:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Black and Tans

Really excellent work. It saves me having to do anything! I hope it doesn't get reverted though. I left some more sources on the talk page if that's any use to you. Jdorney (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Far-right Russian nationalism in Ukraine

@El C: as you semi-d Russian separatist forces in Donbas, you should now that this user has started his edit warring again.

At first, some of us removed the content he was copy pasting both at Far right politics in Ukraine and Russian separatist forces in Donbas. But after the users agreed to keep the content but get rid of the misrepresentation and cherrypicking (this user ignored the whole "conclusion" chapter of the source he relied on). After that, this user happened to ping the other contributors[1] on talk page (discussion) and falsely alleged another user of censorship.

But nevertheless, no one opposed the new modifications by another user that were made here.

Since then, Asarlaí is resorting to avoid engaging in talk page and continuing the edit war to retain his misrepresentation of sources on both articles. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

As myself and other editors have noted in the discussion, it looks like yourself and Segaton have been working to censor information about far-right forces on the pro-Russian side in Ukraine. Since more editors became involved and it's clear the consensus is against you, you've stopped repeatedly deleting content wholesale, and have begun misrepresenting the sources instead. Because of your latest reverts here and here, the current versions of those articles now misrepresent the sources, as I explained here. But you've both ignored my comments yet again.

You both have a pattern of ignoring other editor's rebuttals, repeating the same false claims, and working together to repeatedly revert these two articles. I also note that your accounts were both created in 2019-2020, you both seem to be non-native English speakers, and you both have a history of editing articles related to India.

Unfortunately, not many other editors seem willing to get involved. Perhaps El C or another editor could direct me to the best place to raise these issues. ~Asarlaí 17:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

See further discussion about article content at Talk:Far-right politics in Ukraine#Neutrality and removal of far-right Russian separatists.

Nomination of The Troubles in literature and popular culture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Troubles in literature and popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Troubles in literature and popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Some guidelines for you

Do you understand what is WP:CANVASSING and WP:TAGTEAMING?

If you read about it, then you would know that you are not allowed to make messages like this. Recruiting editors for targeting particular editors reeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and you need to stop it. Segaton (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Segaton, better late than never: that message was not against any rule. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

List of Celtic deities

Sorry, I got carried away--I see you're also still working on it. I'll leave it alone for a while, and will come back later to clean up those notes, duplicate citations, etc. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies, the article needed a good cleanup. ~Asarlaí 09:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

And thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Redirect

I think you may have gotten carried away with some of your redirects, I have reverted some of them where there wasn't a clear explanation. I'd suggested a deletion review would have been more appropriate if you think notability isn't established. WCM_email 08:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Wee Curry Monster. I've now left explanations on the articles I had missed out. They were all created by the now-banned sockpuppet of a banned user. The sparse references did not show lasting notability. More references showing notability had been requested for at least six months, but still hadn't been provided.

This user and their sockpuppets made numerous Troubles articles, doomed to be permastubs, because they're about non-notable incidents as far as the Troubles go. The incidents are already detailed on the various Troubles timeline articles. Many of the stubs were poorly-written, poorly-referenced, and made up mainly of irrelevant details on the 'background' and 'aftermath'. The only other edits to these articles were by users trying to clean-up the mess. ~Asarlaí 10:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the explanation, I probably lean to the view that a deletion review would have been preferable as it gives the opportunity for wider community input and enables articles to be expanded if notability is established. But as content created by a disruptive editor I can see your rationale. WCM_email 11:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Balmoral Castle

@Asarlaí When making edits, regardless of what they relate to, it is important to follow what a source actually says. Your edit at Balmoral Castle stated that the most likely etymology was a Gaelic term meaning "hut of the big clearing". This isn't what the source states, it doesn't describe this as "the most likely etymology", it merely lists a footnote saying that the name is from Both Mhor Iail (doesn't specify the language) meaning "hut at the big spot" JoeyofScotia (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@JoeyofScotia the source does say "We think Both Mhoir-ail is the most likely". Although it doesn't explicitly say so, this is clearly Gaelic, and the entry begins "Balmoral...from Both Mhoir-ail, in Gaelic [ba'vor'al]". But you're right, the source does indeed say "the big spot (of ground)", I must have been looking at another that said "big open space". ~Asarlaí 10:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dead and Euronymous.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dead and Euronymous.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Controversies section of Traditional Unionist Voice Wikipedia page

Hello, Asarlaí.

Would you like to discuss these edits on the Talk page of the Wikipedia page for the Traditional Unionist Voice political party? There's already a section for 'controversies' on that Talk page and I've begun a new thread at the top of it.

Regards

BrownBowler (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Asarlaí, in order to get the requested WP:BRD cycle on this subject started, I've added a request for clarification over the parts of my 17th Feb 2023 edits which you found to have unnecessary detail in them or which didn't match the content of the reference sources.

If you're busy or not available to discuss the subject, please let me know via my Talk page or via the Talk page for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownBowler (talk • contribs) 15:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Asarlaí, have you an interest in continuing the discussion on the Talk page about the Traditional Unionist Voice party? If so, when you get a moment, would you take a look at the latest suggestion I made there? It's in the Talk section about the Controversies paragraph. BrownBowler (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, Asarlaí. I thought I'd have a go at inviting a Third Opinion on the appropriate choice of phrase to use, i.e. "British soldiers involved in the Troubles" or "Troubles-related prosecutions of former British soldiers" - see Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. This note is just to let you know I'd done so, since I believe that's the required etiquette. Regards BrownBowler (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Asarlaí, I've added a few observations to the Controversy section on Talk page for Traditional Unionist Voice political party. They are about the edit on the Irish Language controversy. If you have the time, maybe you could take a look. Regards BrownBowler (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The war started on April 6th, not April 12th 2014

The War in Donbas (2014–2022) and the absolute rebellion began on April 6, 2014 in Donetsk and Luhansk, and on April 12 it only escalated into an armed uprising. In the period of six days (April 6 - 12), there were already dozens of injured and wounded. The first military corps of the armed forces of Ukraine entered the Donbass on April 9, and the uprising in Sloviansk and Kramatorsk was still three days away. April 6 is the precise date of the beginning of the war in Donbass (2014 - 2022) when the rebels seized state institutions in the two largest cities of Donbass, Donetsk and Lugansk. The following day, the unrecognized Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics were formed, and in the next six days, the rebels occupied various administrative offices. There are sources of information about all this. I don't hear anything vague. – Baba Mica (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

New articles and templates

It is obvious that on May 10, Ukrainian forces started a counter-offensive in the region of Baḫmuta and Horlivka, because today Ukrainian officials officially announced that the Ukrainian counter-offensive started a few days ago. The results are evident in the vicinity of Baḫmut between 10 and 19 May despite the loss of control over the city of Bahmut itself on 20 and 21 May. On May 22, Ukrainian forces penetrated the northwestern districts of the city of Horlivka, which means that the article Battle of Horlivka (2023) or Second Battle of Horlivka is required. – Baba Mica (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Darker Dreams (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Just FYI, the rules of dispute resolution say that you should not reply to another editor, but rather make your responses in a new Additional statement section. I've notified the moderator, but if you could just move your reply to your own additional statement section, it would resolve the breach of protocol. Skyerise (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your addition of a reply to my additional statements section. Please follow the protocols of the process and create your own subsection for your responses. Skyerise (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you are unaware of the "protocol", I'm just here to confirm that Skyerise is correct, if that's of any help. Cheers. —Alalch E. 12:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I thought it was only the original summary statements that shouldn't be replied to. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 12:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration Request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# Witchcraft and related topics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, - Darker Dreams (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

European witchcraft

I'd just like to thank you for your help getting Euro-specific material moved to this article. Reducing the European content in Witchcraft makes that article more balanced, I think. Skyerise (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Skyerise, same to you. European witchcraft has needed worked on. It needs more sources, and some more European content could be copied into it, but I don't think we need to remove much more of it from Witchcraft. After all, Europe is where the term originated and is one of the few parts of the world where there have been massive witch hunts. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 21:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it could at least be summarized more concisely as it really predominates and overshadows the article's global content. That talk pages is a mess.... I made sure discussions about new proposals get discussed on the related article page rather than at Talk:Witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft and related topics declined

Hello, the request for arbitration, Witchcraft and related topics, has been declined the Arbitration Committee. They had concluded that arbitration is not appropriate at this stage.
For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration.
For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft and related topics

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darker Dreams (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring on various articles

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. StairySky (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You're the one alleging WP:OR, so it's up to you to explain what exactly is OR on the talkpage. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 11:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The onus is on you to gain consensus for the changes you wish to introduce, instead of edit warring. You can do so on the talk page. StairySky (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm waiting to hear any legitimate, policy-based reasons for your reverts. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 11:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It fails WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR (sources don't refer to the links you introduced). You'll need to gain consensus for these changes instead of edit warring over them. StairySky (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I would argue your reverts are WP:TENDENTIOUS and go against WP:NPOV. For example you removed the fact that the Donbas 'republics' are in Ukraine, or that the flag-waving stunt was condemned by local councillors. Key bits of referenced detail were deleted. Also, off-Wikipedia sources generally don't refer to Wikipedia articles anyway, so that's a non-argument. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 11:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's constructive to re-direct things to focus solely on those things and not all the others. But to address that, I wouldn't have any particular issue with you reintroducing those things. So we can move on from that now.

"Also, off-Wikipedia sources generally don't refer to Wikipedia articles anyway, so that's a non-argument." I assume this is in reference to me saying "sources don't refer to the links you introduced"? I meant that the sources don't, for instance, say PBP is promoting disinformation, not that they don't speak of Wikipedia. StairySky (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, some of the claims objectively are disinformation and there are sources accusing them of that. But I never added that to the article, as I thought it might be unbalanced. The wording doesn't accuse anyone of deliberate disinformation. I only linked to the relevant articles discussing the claims, and added a bit of referenced detail I thought was key for readers' understanding. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 12:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources still don't list PBP etc. And anyway, it's POV to assert it in Wikipedia's voice. StairySky (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. Which sources don't list PBP and what's being asserted in Wikipedia's voice? – Asarlaí ^(talk) 13:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

No sources given which mention PBP etc call it disinformation. StairySky (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't call it that either, not on their article. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 18:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Look at the page you're linking to. StairySky (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the title of the link, so "disinformation" no longer appears in it. But if someone's making an exceptional claim, why shouldn't we link to the very article discussing that claim? – Asarlaí ^(talk) 08:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It's still an issue because it redirects to the same page and to "Russian allegations" StairySky (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft

Friendly note to make sure you realize that restoring that tag was your 3rd revert. Skyerise (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Skyerise, I thought it was only the 2nd? If it's the 3rd I'll self-revert. But this behavior is out of line and I'm very close to bringing it to ANI. I read through the sources and couldn't find anything that supported the statement, so I asked them for quotes to back it up. Instead of simply doing that, they reverted me, warned me for 'edit warring', then said "oh the quotes are on the talkpage somewhere". Where? Could you not help us out here? See if you can find anything in the sources that backs up the statement? – Asarlaí ^(talk) 13:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)