Cpotisch

https://an.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:1EC1:D400:30B6:73DC:233D:2AF4 (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Superliner (railcar), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Joaquin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add or change content, as you did at Del Rio, Texas, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that, though I would note that what I said can be seen in multiple places on those routes' Wikipedia pages. I got rid of the extra info which I now understand is not relevant to the Del Rio page, but added the main, important, and easily verifiable information about Amtrak service to the city.Cpotisch (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Springfield, Illinois. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is all commonly known information and is literally listed on the Wikipedia pages for those stations. Those pages are directly linked to in the information I have added, so I think that it is pretty clearly sourced.Cpotisch (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just because information is sourced in the linked Wikipedia articles does not mean that sources are not needed for content in the Springfield, Illinois article. Pretty much all content needs a source. You did well putting the Amtrak timetable as a source though! –Daybeers (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I didn't read far enough into the article. My apologies. - Donald Albury 14:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Donald Albury: All good. Thanks for replying! Cpotisch (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Are you able to add the Adirondack and Maple Leaf to Grand Central's former Amtrak services in the infobox? How many others are there, and do we list some or all of them? Is there a way to include one or two and link to a section describing the rest? ɱ (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ɱ: I *can* add them, but my feeling is that former services should only be listed if it was a significantly different “iteration” of that train, since it just isn’t possible to add everything to every former station. Countless Amtrak trains have served GCT, and there’s neither the time nor the space to list anything close to all of them. Since the Lake Shore and Niagara Rainbow were standalone trains and served Grand Central the whole time, I thought it made sense to list them. But since the Adirondack and Maple Leaf still served all the same stops along the way during the GCT era, it was a pretty minor change, and so I don’t think it’s worth listing. You know what I’m saying? Cpotisch (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to ping @Cards84664:, @Epicgenius: here too. I don't think the former services section really serves the reader well right now. It needs dates and chronological order, and should either include all former services or none, or provide some link to the full deal. Are the NYC, HR, or NH services fully listed in the infobox? Right now it seems to suggest it only carried one Amtrak line for only one year, and possibly carried Amtrak, NYC, and NH all at the same time... As well, the former and future services boxes are below the railroad names, especially making the LIRR one confusing.

This is my ideal format, as far as I think/know about these services:

Former and future services

Preceding station | Railroad | Following station

Former services

HR (1913-1914) (across all three columns)

Hudson

Harlem

NH (1913-1968) (across all three columns)

Main

NYC (1914-1968) (across all three columns)

Main

Hudson

Harlem

Amtrak (1971-1991) (across all three columns)

(List of services to the terminal) (full list to be added in the linked section)

Future services

LIRR (across all three columns)

City Terminal Zone

Best, ɱ (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

You know, that does make a lot of sense. :) I obviously want to hear what the other Wikipedians think about it, but I would be happy to add all the Amtrak routes that used to serve GCT. I think it would make sense to list them here and the Yonkers station page, since that’s the last station before it branched off. But I’m not very familiar with those other railroads, so I can’t really help there. And I don’t think it would be possible to add a link to a list of those trains. I guess there’s nothing wrong with a long list of Former services, though, so that’s not a big issue. Cpotisch (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I made another edit, because I am now certain that this list encompasses all Amtrak routes that used Grand Central. I also am not sure if it would be currently possible to add a link or do any of the other proposed changes above. I hope someone can help make that possible! ɱ (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

In future, best to avoid removing appropriately cited material from Featured Articles, as you did here. Neither The Washington Post nor Spiked represent "far-right" sources, and even if they were that would not in itself be reason to remove them. Thanks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Midnightblueowl: This was three months ago, so I don’t fully remember my exact reasoning for that edit. WaPo is obviously not a far-right source, so I apologize for deleting that portion. However, Brendan O’Neill from ‘’Spiked’’ is absolutely a right wing and unreliable source, who continuously misgenders Alcorn in the article referenced. I mean, does ”a new breed of illiberal liberal" who were intolerant of anyone holding conservative views on social issues not sound seriously POV to you? I think it makes sense to keep the info from the Washington Post, but ditch that of Spiked. Cpotisch (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

the political bias reeks here. 207.173.46.157 (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see that you added a massive amount of unreferenced content to this biography of a living person, much of which was duplicative. I also notice that you have been blocked previously for adding unreferenced content, and you apologized for doing that in your unblock request. I am asking you to remove all of the unreferenced content, and to be much more careful about following policies and guidelines in the future. Consider this a warning from an administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for removing that content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Harris IS NOT the veep nominee 'yet'. She will be nominated on Day 3 of the convention, August 19. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can you please review contributions of Swtadi143 at Kamala Harris article. Ytpks896 (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Someone had already reversed Swtadi's edits, which I think is the right call. The citations were indeed excessive and unnecessary. Cpotisch (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi-Kamala Harris is also a writer and have published some books. I added a category to the article about Writers from Oakland, California. However, you removed the category with no reason given. IThe category was needed. Thank You-RFD (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I definitely did not remove any categories. You've got the wrong guy. Cpotisch (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

My apologies-thank you-RFD (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

All good. Cpotisch (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

why is Wikipedia is holding out on Georgia and North Carolina. I don't get it,do we have to wait until Fox News calls it.Alhanuty (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This was hardly a "minor" edit and should not have been marked as such. See WP:MINOR for more information. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just would like to thank you for the work you have done on the Senate Election page. I worked on it myself this morning, and had to put up with saboteurs who kept trying to revert my edits. Thanks to those like you, me, and others, Wikipedia can become likely the most unbiased source for election information. Regards, Brycecordry (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I appreciate the words. And thank you very much for your work. Best regards. Cpotisch (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I notice you have once again inserted 'unsuccessful' at the start of the article in regards to his election campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=1000117329&oldid=1000005121. You've now done it multiple times despite being reverted by multiple editors, so this is me politely warning you to stop. The intro is about summarising the facts of what something was, this was factually a re-election campaign and whether it was successful or not is described in the body. You don't start the article about a sports team for a given season where they didnt win a trophy as "The 2015 Miami Heat NBA season was an unsuccessful campaign played between X and Y months etc" just because they didnt win the playoffs for instance, or you'd have to do this for every single sports team and article for someone or a team that didnt win any kind of competition in a given season or tournament. Furthermore, the standard is not applied to any other political campaigns like Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign or Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign. It's simply not encyclopedic, and 'success' is arbitrary in any case (would winning the nomination, taking part, losing by a few key votes across a few states, making a certain number of money over the campaign etc etc be considered successful?).

Leave it alone. Davefelmer (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Kindly, send me maybe three instances of editors other than you reverting my edits because as far as I can see, you're the only one. Meanwhile, multiple other editors have also added the word "unsuccessful," and you've reverted them. And in this case, it's not arbitrary; a campaign is pretty freaking unsuccessful if the candidate loses by seven million votes and 74 electoral votes, particularly if it's an incumbent, as they usually easily win reelection. For that reason, it's also quite notable, and different than Romney's and Clinton's campaigns. So as I said, please show me these reversions that "multiple other editors" have done to my edits, and then I'll oblige. But you personally don't get to "politely warn [me] to stop," as there is no consensus that I have to stop. Cpotisch (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Here's one for starters https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=997029370&oldid=997028920, you can keep fishing around and find the others, but that is not how an encyclopedia works. It's not your place to give your hot takes on what a successful or an unsuccessful campaign is, success by nature is arbitrary, and people could then start doing that anywhere and for anything. "A season is pretty freaking unsuccessful if the team didn't even make the playoffs", "a tournament is pretty freaking unsuccessful if you start as favourite and go out in the Quarter Final", a "tennis player is pretty freaking unsuccessful if he never wins a major despite being ranked the best young player in the world at 17", "Joe Biden's campaign is pretty freaking unsuccessful if he only won the Presidency by 70,000 votes across 4 key swing states and lost seats in the House in a year of a pandemic, race riots and a recession that was all blamed on the opposite party" etc etc there's an encyclopedic standard abided by here on other similar political campaign articles and that there is already telling you to stop from the get-go. You don't just keep reverting again and again until 6 editors have to explicitly revert you back to stop. Davefelmer (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dude, that edit was not a reversion of any of my mine, and one but you has told me to stop. And you're the only person who doubts that it was unsuccessful; it says deeper in the article that Trump's campaign was "ultimately unsuccessful." That sentence has been there for months, it wasn't added by me, and no one has removed it. Rather, it comes down to notability, and whether it fundamentally defines the article. If it does define the article, it goes in the lede. My argument is that a) incumbents usually win, so it's pretty notable that he lost, and b) that Trump's attempts to overturn the election after losing have defined the past two months. Thus, it is a key trait of the campaign. You're the only person I can find who thinks otherwise. Also, Democrats kept the House and won the Senate, and went from controlling just one branch of the federal government to controlling all three. That point is as tangentially related as your point about the House, but yours is more absurd. I'll start a discussion on the talk page in a bit, and we can work from there, OK? Once I do that, will you find the six editors that have apparently removed it and have them voice their concerns? Cpotisch (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your entire post is yet more of you giving your personal opinion about why something is successful vs why something else isnt, which only proves the arbitrary nature of success and why it isnt listed like that on articles like this. Hillary's article from 2016 also says she lost lower down, so why not add 'unsuccessful' to the start of her article then? And you can't seriously be ignorant enough to think that nobody has an issue with YOUR edit of the exact same thing that other editors have reverted from other people before. Like, what kind of logic is that? "Other editors have reverted this same edit before, but not enough have reverted specifically me doing it, so I think it's fine". Does that seem in any way rational to you?

I am fine with you starting a discussion on the article talkpage about it and look forward to weighing in with my thoughts on it there. Davefelmer (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to revert, because it will be accurate in less than an hour and a half as I write, but Leahy will not become president pro tem until after the Senate convenes at 4:30 PM Washington time, Jan. 20, and the three new senators (Ossoff, Warnock, and Padilla) are sworn in. That's when control changes. Then there will be a resolution electing him PPT. JTRH (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ah, got it. Sorry about that. Do you happen to know if Ossoff, Warnock, and/or Padilla are officially senators, yet? I'm seeing conflicting information here and in RS. Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The following discretionary sanctions apply to all people who edit this article: If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Onetwothreeip: I see. Does restoring half of it count for that? The last person to revert said that the real issue was the lede sentence, so I restored the section I created. If that violates it, I'm happy to self revert. Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Restoring any of it would be a violation. You can ask the person who reverted you to self-revert if you believe they would accept a portion of your edit. In this case I was the first person to revert, and I don't agree with so much detail in the article this soon after the subject's presidency has ended. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Understood. I'm gonna seek consensus on the talk page now if you want to weigh in there. I'm about to explain more of what I'm proposing, but maybe, if you haven't already, you can take a look at my earlier arguments and consider them. Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

In addition, please note you’re currently in violation of the 1RR restriction. Please self-revert. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yep, reverted. Sorry 'bout that. Didn't notice that rule or realize that restoring half my edit was in violation of it. Cpotisch (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

It’s okay, the definition trips a lot of people up. Do see WP:3RR for the definition. It concerns the same material, a portion of it, or any other material. For example, because I reverted you, I can’t revert any other edits, from you or someone else, for 24 hours, outside of the listed exemptions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Module:Adjacent stations/Subway has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2020 Georgia Senate election. 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) 05:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looks like the center alignment of all infoboxes has been screwed up; it is now left-aligned. Seems like a template somewhere has been corrupted. Cpotisch (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please post your infobox query at Wikipedia:Help desk. They might want to know which specific ones you see this on, because any infobox I see looks like it always did. — Maile (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looks like it got resolved since I posted. Thanks for replying though. Cpotisch (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, before I start, I would like to say that I read the guideline & policies of Wikipedia. And, I strongly believe that I did not engaged in any unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. This doesn't make any sense. Ok, let's talk about the Bernard Arnault's edit. Forbes accounted his entire family fortune WHILE Bloomberg Billionaires Index only calculated his PERSONAL fortune. Please ensure you are famillar about the term "net worth". It's a value of the assets of a PERSON, (NOT FAMILY) minus the liability they owe. If Wikipedia managed to change from parameter "net worth" to "Family's net worth" then I had no objection. same situation for David Thompson, If he had a personal net worth of 44 Billion, then he would be the richest person in the Canada, BUT did you realize Forbes stated David Thompson & Family? Forbes make a huge mistake on this. They should calculated their personal net worth. Ok, I will gave you an example in case you did not understand. Walton Family is the richest family on Earth. But, If Forbes combine all the family members' fortune & let say the title becomr "Jim Walton & Family", won't it became the world richest person. Person & Family are different. This make no sense at all. I already replace Forbes sources with Bloomberg for like 2 months. Even other editors thanked me as I updated their net worth every Saturday on my local time. I don't see any objection from other editors when I use Bloomberg sources. Finally, I will discuss this matter in the article's pages. Please note I edit Wikipedia in a nuetral position. Thank you & Have a great day. LohShiSan2004 (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

You are fixating on the wrong thing.

First off, Forbes has been the primary net worth source here for years and years, and you are changing that source to Bloomberg in dozens of dozens of articles, even when there isn’t a discrepancy between the two. That means that articles are now much less consistent about where they are getting net worths from, since your countless edits still only make up a small subset of all the billionaires we have articles for.

However, the much bigger problem with your edits is poor grammar that has required extensive copy-editing to fix. I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but your English consistently fails to meet reasonable standards. You’ve added new, redundant paragraphs, and your sentences are simply not proper. You also keep on adding a space after $ signs, which is simply not correct.

Those edits simply are disruptive, and I will have to take this further if you keep making them. Cpotisch (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would love to accept any feedback from you. BUT, If you say I had removed any reliable sources posted by other editors. I strongly disagree. Both Forbes & Bloomberg Billionaires Index are not fully accurate. Each of them have their own unique way to calculate their wealth. I removed Forbes source because Bloomberg Billionaires Index has better and more detailed analysis about the individual net worth. Yes, Both Forbes & Bloomberg put lots of efforts on their list. But still, Bloomberg had more detailed information, calculation & overview of the net worth. I had read both Methodology for both sources. Thank you & had a great day. LohShiSan2004 (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok, Thank you for letting me know that adding space after $ signs, is incorrect. I will delete the space on any article I edited. BUT, I cannot agree on "Forbes has been the primary net worth source here for years and years, and you are changing that source to Bloomberg in dozens of dozens of articles, even when there isn’t a discrepancy between the two." LohShiSan2004 (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for dealing with the extra space. But you still need to get consensus before adding redundant sources in the infobox. Net worth is not so crucial to the article that we have to exhaustively list multiple sources, and until you get consensus to do so, the additions are still disruptive. Please bear that in mind because I don’t want to have to take this further. Cpotisch (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cpotisch, about your edit here [1], your addition "and by July 2021 had garnered more than 8.9 billion views" did not include a citation so I reverted it. I did find some subsequent articles in late 2020 that detail the amount of Youtube views, but the number is ever changing and I don't think it is necessary to keep up with it. Another editor previously linked the page List of most-viewed YouTube videos in the introduction and one of the citations currently on the page gives information that it moved to that list.

I'm sorry to remove your edit, but always remember that you need a citation, WP:CITE, and also remember to add an Edit Summary, H:ES, to your edit so that other editors can quickly see what changes you have made.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I see we share similar interests, you have done work on Amtrak routes and I have done a few tourist train pages and found the route portion of it intriguing. Keep up the good work!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Howdy. The office of Lieutenant Governor of New York is vacant. The Senate Temporary president has only assumed the powers & duties of that office. She's the Acting Lieutenant Governor, not the Interim Lieutenant Governor. There's a difference. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I put her down as 'Acting' in the infoboxes and the ledes. I used "on an interim basis" once, and that's correct. Cpotisch (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove my edit when it was fully sourced Justknowthatyourenotinthisthingalong (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Which edit? Cpotisch (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The edit where I added Larry Elder's comments into his section on his views Justknowthatyourenotinthisthingalong (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Cpotisch! I can see you are eager to have that discussion closed. Just to you know, I am keeping a tally of comments and keeping an eye on participation. When/if we get to the point that there have been no new opinions for several days, I will decide whether the result is clearcut enough that I can close it even though I am involved, or whether I should invite someone uninvolved to take a look at it. This is just so you know that the question hasn't fallen off the radar and that someone is monitoring it. These things do take time. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

One other thing. Somebody pointed out that when you reworded your original proposal for neutrality and signed it, that changed your signature date from 02:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC) to 17:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC). That is confusing and will make it hard to evaluate for closure, since it obscures how long the discussion has been open. Can you somehow modify that closure statement? Maybe you could modify it with a signature comment, something like this: "Note: This RFC was originally proposed at 02:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC). I modified my proposal at 17:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC), to make it more neutrally worded." Then I suppose you should sign that comment as well! just so that everything is clear. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Will do. Thanks for letting me know! Cpotisch (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@MelanieN: It’s been two days since the last response, and they supported adding it. What are you thinking at this point? Cpotisch (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since you posted this, another opinion has come in - less than 48 hours ago. I suggest you be patient and let the discussion truly die down. Note that each of the additional recent edits has strengthened the consensus - and the stronger the consensus, the more acceptable it becomes for an "involved" close by me. Maybe tomorrow, if no more come in. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is no consensus on ranking him. Please remove your political biases and do your job correctly. thanks2600:8805:C980:9400:1C2E:831F:CAEE:8765 (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Everyone has political biases, and hiding them is neither necessary nor helpful here. As an editor who wants to make a potentially controversial change, my "job" is to build consensus in good faith. That's what I have done, and that's what you can do try to do. I'll leave it for you to evaluate whether that's worth your time. Best, Cpotisch (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's funny how you are cyberbullying calling me "useless", when you are a right-wing radical concocting blatant lies about the election with 0 proof. At least I have found a shred of physical evidence in my hand as well as variable other claims and sources. My theory isn't a new trend like yours. But making blatant lies about modern politics is your goal. You will go to any measures to persue your manipulative, psychopathic, narcissistic, little game. Good luck! 107.77.253.15 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I’m confused. Which edit are you referring to? Cpotisch (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have blocked the IP for harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Than you to Cullen, considering to remove this ego-driven robot. 107.77.253.15 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

In reverting the edits to the Astrology page, you removed a number of high-quality academic sources, including:

• Astronomies and Cultures, edited by Clive Ruggles and Nicholas J. Saunders, published by University Press of Colorado
• A Brief History of Ancient Astrology, edited by Roger Beck, published by Wiley-Blackwell
• Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy, edited by Clive Ruggles, published by Springer
• Ancient Astrology, by Tamsyn Barton, published by Routledge
• Power and Knowledge: Astrology, Physiognomics, and Medicine Under the Roman Empire, by Tamsyn Barton, published by Routledge
• "Why did Feyerabend defend astrology? Integrity, virtue, and the authority of science", in Social Epistemology 30.4

Among others. I do not see where the 'weasel-word-filled edits' were, and these edits did not lend false credibility to to the subject.

I understand your view that astrology is pseudoscience, however, this is not a universal position within the social sciences, and in history and anthropology (I am an anthropologist specializing in the historical archaeology of the Western United States) we take a much more value-neutral position.

Please discuss this further on the talk page before making any more large edits.

--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 02:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

See this discussion raised by Mychemicalromanceisrealemo. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello -- I noticed you moved Rutland (town), Vermont to Rutland, Vermont (town). I don't have strong opinions on the move if you feel like you have a good justification but wanted to let you know that there are a few other town/city combos in Vermont (Newport and Barre, notably) that you might want to also address. Jessamyn (my talk page) 01:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello. My justification was simply that most articles put the disambiguation at the end of the title, as that makes it clearer that the parenthetical is not actually part of the name. So that’s why I made the change, and I’ll definitely move those other ones. Thanks for letting me know! - Cpotisch (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Appreciate your interest in the recent elections, but you've got to add citations to your material. And, in fact, I'd simply advise not changing much of anything until such time as the new legislatures are sworn in. Criticalthinker (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Can you be specific about which edits you take issue with? Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kathy Hochul, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. BlueboyLINY (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's not how the sourcing policy works. The lede summarizes content in the body of the article, and that statement is already in the body. I restored my edit and added two sources for your edification. Cpotisch (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yesterday a user add a footnote in the "LGBT section of wikipedia page Elissa Slotkin claiming that Secretary of defense support the flag ban amendment but the source itself only says he support banning hate flags and LGBT flag is not hate flag, this is blatant lie? If you were fair,shouldn't you delete this misinformation and replace it with what the source trully says? 165.91.13.234 (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC) 165.91.13.234 (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have nothing to do with that edit so I don’t why you’re bringing it up. If I have time later, I’ll fix it if there are issues. Cpotisch (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Because you allowed it even though it is opely lying but deteted well sourced facts. 165.91.13.234 (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry, Based yout latest edit you are trully a fair editor. And I want to ask you should this belong to the wikipage of Elissa Slotkin Slotkin was only MI dem to vote to overturn nuclear weapons testing suspension

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2020142

This one should fit the standard because there is second hand coverage from Leagye of conservation voters who condemned this vote.https://scorecard.lcv.org/roll-call-vote/2020-142-maintaining-suspension-nuclear-weapons-testing 165.91.13.234 (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Based on policy I see no reason why my edit on Sabina Matos' page should be deleted and the excuse they use are all based on their personl opinion that changed what the source originally says. Like deleting the "in part on" in "The investigation is focused in part on part-time field campaign workers who gathered and submitted the signatures for Matos." or adding " 's campaign" in "with the Democratic lieutenant governor now facing multiple criminal investigations into forged signatures on her nomination papers" Can you explain to me which wikipedia allow them to do this but ban me from what the source says. Thespeedoflightneverchanges (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Providence Journal, in this article published yesterday, reported that the office of Attorney General Peter Neronha said that it "would not say whether Matos herself is a target of the investigation, or just the field workers her campaign hired". It is a violation of the important Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy to state or hint or imply or infer that Matos herself is under investigation, unless the attorney general or his office makes that statement. Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

According to polling a majority of Americans and Marylanders consider the state to be northern. Many other academic pieces exclude Maryland from the south. BTW thank you for noticing that error I made on the 1964 presidential election page. I'll be giving you a barnstar for that. https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/maryland-considered-northern-state-goucher-college-poll/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-states-are-in-the-south/ Jon698 (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Except that West Virginia is a southern state. Cpotisch (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Making sure you saw this filed by Andrew Robbins (pretty sure @thisAeon on Twitter who follows/is followed by @Progflipawi), if you want to comment. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

just saying, whether they're left wing or right wing, people like you are the worst. Your political ego shows a real lack of mental capacity and desire to look like a bigger person than you are. Wikipedia isn't for venting your political bias. 207.173.46.157 (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Drmies: it doesn't look like this account has made any edits other than this one and another derogatory one to my page. Maybe a block would be sensible? Thanks, Cpotisch (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hmm it would, I think. You should see the filter log. I guess they don't like Canadians? Congrats on the win over Venezuela: I enjoyed watching no. 14. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’m baffled at what I’m seeing. I’ve been burnt out from editing wiki due to the wear and tear of witnessing and being the subject of this kind of absurd, so-stupid-it's-not-even-hurtful bullying. I don’t know EEng, but the "Oh, that’s just him!" response reminds me of the way another editor's chronic tantrums are handled. Anyways, you’re not crazy, you’re not wrong, and obviously nobody should have to put up with being spoken to that way. I wish Wikipedia would make it as much a part of its culture to have zero tolerance for bullying as it does for, say, original research and socking. This would be such a better place and project. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate you reaching out! Crazy to me that he’s been coddled for this long. Maybe the block will result in some improvement but I’m not optimistic (especially given that the last time he was blocked for incivility he bragged about it). Cpotisch (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's not coddling. It's a general reluctance to risk losing someone highly valued, even though they're sometimes a bit prickly. It can be frustrating to those of us who are on the pointy end of that prickliness, but it in no way is coddling those people. It's balancing their negatives vs. their positives. You or I can disagree on where that balance is landing, but it's not coddling.

It looks like you haven't done a lot of GAR. GA is not that high a bar, and I can pretty much promise you if a GA was created and taken to GA by someone highly-skilled and currently-active, you don't need to babysit it. They probably already are. Valereee (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just to be clear, Cpotisch, editors do get coddled here at Wikipedia, but I'm not one of them. The editors we coddle are those unable to recognize when they should talk less and listen more, but opinions vary as to how long that indulgence should last. EEng 00:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@EEng: I've said this before but I don't think I've said it directly to you, so I'm just going to make this clear so we can hopefully move on. I sincerely apologize for the way I handled the whole Sacred Cod situation. I completely misremembered how I had dealt with the article earlier this year; through some sort of Mandela effect, I was convinced that I had previously brought my concerns to the talk page and that you had shouted me away. I should have checked, so that's on me and again I apologize. I recognize that, given this, the way I went about my concerns was very incendiary and you were rightfully frustrated.

I have several years of editing experience, although this was my first GAR. I think it's generally been quite well-received, and I frankly have not encountered any user who engages in the way that you do, so I was quite taken aback. It felt very hostile and in the case of the "boner" joke, very offensive. You say you were joking/frustrated/whatever, and I hope that you can understand that it came through to me very differently than how it was intended. All of this is to say that going forward, if we run into each other, I intend to keep in mind that you're doing your best to improve Wikipedia, and I truly would appreciate it if you responded in kind. All the very best, Cpotisch (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do appreciate your taking the time, and I accept your apology. For my part, I apologize for blowing my stack; the little angel on my shoulder was out sick that day, and the temp angel sent by the agency was completely not up to the job.

I never for a moment doubted your intent to improve Wikipedia. I'm going to say, however, that I don't think you were (as you say) doing your best, because I feel you have unrealized potential along those lines. The several years since your first edit is irrelevant; the fact is that your 5k of edits, and almost complete lack of engagement in difficult editing situations [2], put you at the early end of what I predict will be a most productive editing career if you allow yourself learn from more experienced editors.

I certainly hope you've never encountered anyone like me before. What a dull place this would be if editors were all predictable automata. Vive la différence! EEng 04:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please don't poke the bear like this. Be satisfied that an admin has actioned your ANI filing despite his usual defense squad showing up in full force, be the bigger person, and move on. Messages like this just put fuel on the fire and can be construed as gravedancing. I've made this mistake in the past and don't want you to fall into the same trap. I say all this as someone who fully agrees with the block and that his comments towards you were completely unacceptable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate that, and I take your point. Moving on now. Was just frustrating to get a nonsense revenge ANI threat. Cpotisch (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here's my own unsolicited advice. I think some of the accusations against you were unfair, but I hope you take very seriously the multiple people who suggested your actions were over the line. EEng's words were hostile, rude, and not collaborative, but I think your own actions were, in a very different way, also hostile and not collaborative. I'm not saying they were equally wrong either, but I do hope you take a chance, out of the stress of the thread itself, to reflect on the feedback offered and consider different actions in the future. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Understood and this is already something I’m pondering on. I generally have a fairly strong history I think of collaborative editing, but I’m well aware that when so many editors have the same gripes about my approach, the problem probably lies with me. Cpotisch (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since you provided such a gracious response, the thing I found strikingly missing was any attempt to discuss the article with Eeng (and anyone else who might have cared) on the talk page before opening a GAR. I know you have your reasons you didn't do that, but I have found doing the right things, in a collaborative tone, can produce good results in some instances where I wouldn't have predicted they would. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I totally get that. I think the main culprit on my end was that I completely Mandela-effected a past effort to resolve it on the talk page. Had I remembered that no such effort had been made, it would have absolutely been my first step this time. So that’s of course completely on me for not checking until after I had already recounted things wrong, but it came from an earnest place of thinking I had already exhausted that option. Again, thanks for the feedback. Cpotisch (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply