User talk: Kashmiri

Thanks for the Zurich RM

Thank you for getting it done. I sadly missed the vote itself, but I am delighted to see the vote swing the right way this time. It still boggles my mind that there are people arguing for the umlaut - I suspect they don’t actually live in Zurich and don’t realize the real-world usage. (Nor that English didn’t simplify the German name, but actually directly adopted the French name, as it originally did for a great many Swiss cities.) Anyhow, thanks again! Cheers! — tooki (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

No probs :) That wasn't too difficult. I wish we had fewer editors who'd make such nonsense arguments as there, beceuase next they'd perhaps argue that Pakistan is a "lazy spelling" of Pākistān, Mumbai of Muṁbaī, and Tokyo of Tōkyō. We're lucky that they had limited themselves to the age-old anglicised name Zurich, and glad it's resolved. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Twitter: Requested Move 20 June 2024

Hello! I totally agree with your assessment regarding the speedy close of this RM. That said, I was interested in what a reasonable period of time would be before the next RM, since it seems inevitable unless some de-rebranding happens. Which is funny, because a parody Musk post was submitting a poll to revert to Twitter or stay with X, and the overwhelming majority wanted Twitter back... I guess we'll see! Cheers, Matthieu Houriet (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Cheers! — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia

Please review this tutorial.

WP:GF Tobyw87 (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Virgin Money UK.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Virgin Money UK.svg. 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) 03:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:GMS (software) § "customer testimonies"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:GMS (software) § "customer testimonies". 142.113.140.146 (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Your this edit has been reverted. Please gain WP:CONSENSUS on the article talk page before removing well sourced content. BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@BlackOrchidd You have two hours to self-revert all your edits made in violation of 1RR, as communicated on your Talk, or I'll take it to AE. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- Primefac (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac : The Reddit account is anonymous and unconnected to a real identity, so OUTING doesn't apply. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom, the Oversight Team, and the general community consensus have long agreed that linking to any undisclosed profile on another site is considered outing. There are certainly those who disagree along your lines of thinking (i.e. "it's two anonymous profiles, who cares") but at the moment they are in the minority, and would need an RFC to overturn this long-standing consensus. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

"Profiles on other sites" is in the literal text of the OUTING policy. This isn't some interpretation the OS team has made interpreting policy, but rather a straight forward application what the community decided policy says. In many discussions I tend to take a more wholistic view than many other oversighters - including in evaluating your conduct during the COI arbcom case - but I don't see any wiggle room in that edit. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Thanks for chiming in. It matters a lot to me when fellow editors notice what's happening to my account.

These words you quoted were only added recently without a discussion. Earlier discussions on both the scope of personally identifiable information and the balance between COI and OUTING went both ways, and we for example had this consensus for years, too.

Anyhow, this is still a grey area, marred by many discussions, with policy wording changing on a regular basis. While I might have been more careful, I'll be emailing the ArbCom separately as advised by the template. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This block has been assumed by the Arbitration Committee and all queries should be directed there:

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

---

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Is it possible to get a little more explanation on what happened here, or is the Committee's recommendation that we go crawl around on Wikipediocracy in search of morsels? jp×g🗯️ 04:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

JPxG, is there something unclear about the last sentence in the template? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: It should be clear based on the content of this section ("August 2024") why Kashmiri has been blocked. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand that the ArbComm has more context, and I cannot see the REVDEL'd edits but the literal policy of WP:OUTING, as I read it, is good intentioned but doesn't match my understanding of how the present internet works, particularly the vector surface for privacy. Before proceeding, what would be the best way for the community to re-review its understanding of WP:OUTING? Guidelines like Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing are incompatible with "anti-doxing" measures if User contributes are available in the various mirrors and permanent ubiquity. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM reverted

Your edit to the Reform UK political position talk page has been reverted.

This revert was not done by me. It was done by someone who also said “a million white girls have fallen victim to moslem rape gangs”.

Please could you review the change yourself? I’m concerned about the quality of discussion on the page. DWMemories (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)