User talk:Sormando

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Sormando, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --🐦DrWho42 (👻) 09:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Abukir (1799), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mustafa Pasha. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sormando I came here to address this matter on your Talk Page but noticed it was already done. That's not how sourcing works on wikepedia. What you did on that page does not constitute a source. Jules Agathias (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Battle of Abukir (1799)[edit]

Battle of Abukir (1799) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sormando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jules Agathias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3RR closure at 01:58 on 21 September 2022

Hello Sormando. Both you and the other party have been warned for edit warring as a result of the complaint that you filed at the noticeboard. Either of you may be blocked if you revert again without first getting a consensus in your favor on the talk page. If agreement can't be reached, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sormando, it looks like you violated my warning here, on 22 September. Can you explain why I shouldn't proceed with a block? Under the warning, Jules Agathias is *not* obliged to reply to you but *you* are required to wait for consensus. You didn't wait. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Nothing in the warning states I am obliged to wait for a period of time.

I have waited 4 days for a reply from Jules, have made 3 different posts requesting a consensus or reply from him on his talk page, and have made a long post on your talk page describing the situation. To this end, I have exhausted all avenues for dialogue from Jules.

If you will read my post on your page, and the page history revert notes, you will notice that there is no room for consensus or dialogue, Jules is engaging in active vandalism of several pages, and has a history of edit warring, vandalism and even IP sockpuppetry by the look of it. Sormando (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Battle of Abukir (1799). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You continued to revert the article after being warned to stop. Your obligation to reach consensus does not go away just because the other party has not edited Wikipedia since September 20. You have posted nothing on the article talk page. WP:DR offers several options for you to pursue. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other party has not replied since Sep. 20, after I had already made several attempts to reach a consensus on their talk page, not the article's talk page. Is the distinction important?

As for the rest, your original warning does not contain any mention of who is obliged to wait for reply, nor any specifics of time.

I'm fine with being blocked for a period of 24 hours, so long as it means that I remove the vandalism Jules has done with the article. Sormando (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of making charges of vandalism without evidence. A person who reverts due to a good-faith content disagreement is not a vandal. EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the post that I have made on your page and you will come to the same conclusion that this is vandalism. The imbecility of removing cited and verified information from the article can, perhaps, be dismissed. But what about replacing the citations with false ones? Lining up these two actions together is pretty much vandalism. Sormando (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Replacing the citations with false ones"? Please explain and give a link to where this happened. I read what you posted on my talk page but couldn't figure out what you consider to be a "false citation". EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Here is an infograph summarizing this particular instance of Jules' edits to the article, hopefully this will be easy to read and uncluttered.

A direct, detailed explanation of that was included in the original edit warring complaint, which I obligingly linked (my reply to the complaint) for you to see, I will paste the full contents of that post below for you to read and include a TL;DR rundown:

":Addendum; to highlight the ignorance and odd behavior of this user using one microcosm, the user Jules has questioned an addition I have made to the article, the historian Paul Strathern has mentioned in his authority that Muhammad Ali had been rescued from the waters in Aboukir bay during the battle, with a reference attached to this piece of information. The user Jules had removed the citation and replaced it with "Citation Needed" selectively, but other portions of information I had added, were removed outright, citation and all. The user Jules later on decided to re-add some portions selectively, while claiming to be "properly sourcing them" (I had already done so), but he left some parts up with "citation needed" while, once again, selectively removing other portions. Then, in a truly perplexing move, the user Jules then decided that, despite me providing a direct citation to this information, went out and apparently tried to verify it himself on the internet, and replaced the citation required tag he had dutifully added with a source, which I have went to verify myself and found no reference to this information.

Links:

The aftermath section, paragraph one, the last few sentencies; "Among the Ottomans rescued from the water was thirty-years old officer of Albanian descent Muhammed Ali, who six years later would rule and transform Egypt"

The source I had added originally as a citation for this information, Page 397, 2nd paragraph last sentence.

Reversion dated 17 Sept. by user Jules, showing his citation needed tag next to sentence.

The user Jules then provides a different source to this information that I had added, although this source makes no mention to this whatsoever, which the user Jules claimed are pages 51-55 in this 1991 Johns Hopkins University Press print of "The history of modern Egypt : from Muhammad Ali to Mubarak"."

TLDR: I added info to the article, specifically a sentence about Muhammad Ali (a ruler of Egypt) participating in the battle and being picked up by English ships from the water - this info comes from the authority of P.397 of Paul Strathern's Napoleon in Egypt. Jules first removed this sentence in one of his reverts, then re-added it, removed the citation and placed a "Citation Needed" tag, despite it being cited complete with a link to Archive.org (which I obligingly added with page numbers after his first revert, to make it clear to him, even added a small subtext with page numbers in each time I cited references in the page so he can verify them himself if he wished), so far so good, but then he replaces his Citation Needed tag with a completely different source - "The history of modern Egypt : from Muhammad Ali to Mubarak", authority of P. J. Vatikiotis, and he added a page range of 5 pages. Examining the source Jules included, with the same print, does not show any reference to this, and even searching keywords (such as Aboukir) does not yield any kind of reference or proof that this authority contains reference to the fact that Muhammad Ali was in the battle. Keep in mind that this is just an isolated example that I use to deconstruct the vandalism Jules has done with the page. He did this with a lot of other portions of the article, including removal of other sources by other users, and adding fake figures not included in other citations he claimed do.

Sormando (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made an image that sums up this particular example of Jules adding a false citation, it's small, readable, to the point and includes all the relevant reverts made by Jules and will help you understand without all the clutter. Sormando (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 18[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Second Punic War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mago.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E V-l-B[edit]

"I will reorganize these portraits into a gallery not before long, in addition to a large number of other paintings and portraits not currently available on Wikimedia Commons" - please do that on Commons, not here. And I wouldn't do it in a Commons gallery, just put them in the main categories. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Cashier edits[edit]

Besides the fact that you should discuss your suggested change to Albert Cashier at the talk page and make sure there's consensus for the change in wording, there's a simpler reason to revert your change: it's just bad grammar. —C.Fred (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics: gender-related[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Feel free to {{reply}} below if you have any questions; you can also ask any question related to editing Wikipedia at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023[edit]

Your recent editing history at Albert Cashier 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 post a 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 you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page 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 three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Not only does your edit contain an egregious grammatical error, but it also goes against established consensus. "Assigned female at birth" has been used in the article since 2019, and while guidance to use the term is not part of MOS:GENDERID, the header from the Cashier article with the phrase is mentioned. —C.Fred (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gettysburg[edit]

Sormando - your recent edit to Battle of Gettysburg changed the Confederate casualties, meaning the InfoBox does not match the casualties in the text (Aftermath section). Have you consulted with @Donner60: on this? TwoScars (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]