User talk:Izzy Borden

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Izzy Borden, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Help desk, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains^(talk) 18:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read[edit]

Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:Bare urls. Thanks. I presume you know your source doesn’t mention Cave 8 although you are using it to source text that mentions Cave 8. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just read this. I wasn't using a bare URL, as I provided the title . I wasn't using it for a source for "Cave 8", but as source that this is what the cave is called.

And I have just added an academic source for the same, wasn't hard to find.

Important Notice[edit]

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

Doug Weller talk 18:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"several people have reverted this"[edit]

who are these "several?" others also agree with "misinformation." soibangla (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

me, X-Editor, EditPatroller296, Tomfowarstonium for starters.

That's not several, and others agree with misinformation. Also, please make a modicum of effort to learn rudimentary editing skills. soibangla (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several means more than two, open a dictionary (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/several) if you are unsure what a word means. If some agree with you and some don't, work to find some wording agreeable to all, don't try to bully your point of view into the article.

It's not several, it's a few. Can you at least learn to indent? Can you do that much? soibangla (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like a said, open a dictionary if you don't know what a word means. I gave you a handy link above, to save you the trouble of looking for a dictionary. Read it and see what it says.

couple, few, several, many. learn to indent soibangla (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to open a dictionary, and read. Izzy Borden (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/couple-few-several-use#:~:text=Couple%20is%20used%20to%20refer,a%20couple%20and%20a%20few.soibangla (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you figured out step 1, opening a dictionary, now on to step two: Reading. Here is the Webster entry for "several" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/several. Note defintion 2(a): "2a: more than one". Note defintion 2b: "more than two but fewer than many". Even your link, which is not the definition but rather an explanation of common usage, with many nuances, says 'Couple is used to refer to two things' and 'Few is used the same way as couple ' and 'Several is usually used for a number greater than a couple and a few'. Ergo, several is more than two. Izzy Borden (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't need to open a dictionary to understand common usage that grade schoolers know. It's just the way it is. LOL! soibangla (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you actually do need to open a dictionary, or maybe repeat grade school. Again: Here is the Webster entry for "several" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/several. Note defintion 2(a): "2a: more than one". Note defintion 2b: "more than two but fewer than many". Izzy Borden (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you learned to indent, after I asked you several times. Now learn common usage of simple terms. Bye now! LOL! soibangla (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I learned to indent, now your turn - learn to read: Here is the Webster entry for "several" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/several. Note defintion 2(a): "2a: more than one". Note defintion 2b: "more than two but fewer than many". Izzy Borden (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links[edit]

Please see MOS:Internal links - in fact that whole page. It's common for new editors to overlink. Eg in quotes and common terms such as law firm. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's this about? the link to "law firm" was in the article before I edited it, and I haven't linked anything within quotes. Izzy Borden (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it was just an example. Another is I just saw an editor linking "journalist". Doug Weller talk 15:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Thanks for the link, BTW. Izzy Borden (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, happy to help. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022[edit]

Your recent editing history at Arming teachers 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alerts for gun control and the Arab-Israel conflict[edit]

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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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.

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

Doug Weller talk 09:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil on talk pages[edit]

You’re coming across as patronising at best. Note that talk pages are covered by sanctions also. Doug Weller talk 18:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you think that. Are you following my contributions? You seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time on my page. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the articles you edit are on my watchlist. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I didn't mean to be patronising (though I did find the claim that 'I tried but failed to find the precise questions Rasmussen asked in the survey.' a little hard to believe. It was literally the first link in the Rasmussen poll). Izzy Borden (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from casting aspersions upon me[edit]

Thank you. soibangla (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] for what principled editing looks like. Izzy Borden (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not relevant to my request, apart from seeming to suggest I am unprincipled. soibangla (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is directly relevant. Izzy Borden (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you are calling me unprincipled? Keep talkin'. soibangla (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words in my mouth, but do learn what it looks like. Izzy Borden (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to deny you suggested I am unprincipled. Then tell me how you didn't twice directly question my motivations before that. soibangla (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fadel Shana'a[edit]

Hi, this edit here removed information on the deaths that was in the source with the edit summary not in the source. Please be more careful, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry , I missed that, though I doubt it is accurate - all other sources, including another article by Reuters (!) give figures of 3-4. Izzy Borden (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves[edit]

The requirement at WP:RM is that "potentially controversial" moves need to be discussed. Please do not make moves you know will be contested without discussion. Thank you. nableezy - 23:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, wasn't aware of that. Izzy Borden (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

prior accounts[edit]

Have you used any other account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 21:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Izzy Borden (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Cities[edit]

This edit is clearly disruptive, I would suggest you revert your edit. Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What was disruptive was your unilateral removal of the tag, in violation of the guidelines for such removals. Hash it out on the talk page first, and get agreement from the editors who added it. Izzy Borden (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok with your other edits to the article, and will add a citation where you pointed it out. The tag has been hashed out on the talk page. A new source has been added as requested. If you personally think the article has a non-neutral POV, please could you explain with specific sources? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was removed shortly after one of the editors who had an issue with neutrality added it, saying the issue is not resolved - see [2], which was followed by the unilateral removal here - [3]. If @Tombah and Shrike: have no issue with the article as it stands, I am fine with removing the tag. But given the sequence I listed here, I'd like to see them explicitly say so on the article's talk page. Izzy Borden (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is the proof that there were no reasons for adding the tag. Instead we are led to believe that two other editors are apparently unable to represent themselves and need intervention from and be represented by a third party on their behalf. As I said to begin with, obvious disruption. Selfstudier (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you continue with these bad faith allegations, I'm going to have to ask you to stay off my page. Don't post here again. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izzy, since they have not responded, please could you review the article yourself? My belief is that Tombah already made the edits he wanted, and they weren't reverted, so presumably it is ok now. You did the same, and your edits still stand. I don't think there is anything NPOV in there - if there is, someone just needs to bring the appropriate sources and we can add them in. There is certainly no edit war, or any kind of editing dispute. I suggest we leave it until the end of today to see if anyone can be bothered to edit further / bring new sources, and if not we remove the tag. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike hasn't been active since his tag was removed, so I'm nit sure he's even aware of this discussion. But I also don;t think it is reasonable to have them hold the article in this state of limbo for an extended period of time. Let me ask Tombah directly on his page, and if he has no objections, you can remove the tag in a day or two. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK to remove the tag now? Tombah's remaining point relates to WP:NOTABILITY, unrelated to neutrality. Per above, everyone's edits have been retained, and if anyone subsequently has a brainwave about a missing viewpoint, that would be great. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it per Tombah's acknowledgement. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Note that Shrike hasn't been active since he made his edit, so this may be reopened when they return. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Izzy Borden

Thank you for creating Manasseh Hill Country Survey.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000:, I appreciate these kind words. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a very interesting topic. North8000 (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality[edit]

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.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tiara Mack. BlueboyLINY (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueboyLINY: you may disagree with their edits, but to say they are vandalism is transparently false. Endwise (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:NoCal100 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]