User talk:TheCelebrinator

Welcome!

Hi TheCelebrinator! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Kleuske (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Trish Stratus. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Do not versions of your own in the articles. Stick to the reliable sources (her interview) in this case. Seek consensus in the talk page per WP:BRD if necessary, instead of edit warring. Bring your sources for the discussion. I've restored the WP:STABLE version as of now. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Kurt Angle's article lists his birthplace as Mt Lebanon Township instead of Pittsburgh, PA, so I don't see why this should be any different. Here is a source that lists her as "Richmond Hill–born": Article on TrishStratus.com TheCelebrinator (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Mention that in the article. here's a guide on how to do it. Good luck. Kleuske (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm FooBarBaz. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to King of england—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. foobarbaz 21:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was rude of me. TheCelebrinator (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at William III of England, you may be blocked from editing. DrKay (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi TheCelebrinator! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at William III of England that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

There was no violation of any policy. There are various examples online of William being referred to as the last King of England, which he technically was as no monarch after him styled himself as such. I don't see how mentioning that in a one-off sentence constitutes a major difference from the current article. TheCelebrinator (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Your userpage

It may be completely subjective, but talking about yourself in the third person comes across a little weird. Unless you're Gaius Julius Caesar, of course. Kleuske (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Clementine

There is no reason to change her picture. While there might be better pictures of her from later games, her appearance as a youth in the first game is what made her notable, and the later games lose the discussed perceived image of her that came as part of her reception from the first game. Masem (t) 12:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I left a message on the 'Talk' for the image file. Please continue the conversation there. TheCelebrinator (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TTW Kenny Glad.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TTW Kenny Glad.png. 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) 02:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of video games ranked by Metacritic score (July 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Umakant Bhalerao was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of video games ranked by Metacritic score and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, TheCelebrinator! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of video games ranked by Metacritic score (August 5)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Zxcvbnm was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This page goes against WP:NOTMIRROR - Wikipedia does not host copies of one website's list of statistics. That is a job for Metacritic themselves. Also duplicates 2022 in video games#Critically acclaimed games.

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm This is not a copy of any list. As previously stated, Metacritic’s list includes many duplicates and multiple versions of games that take up much space in their rankings. My list by contrast ONLY incorporates unique (ie: highest-rated) versions of the video games listed to allow for a more comprehensive ranking. Also, my list, which did not at all draw any inspiration from that 2022 list, deals with games not just published in 2022, but as far back as the 1980s. Therefore, the reasons left behind here are factually wrong and I ask for a review. TheCelebrinator (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

If you want to argue your case you can go to this discussion, however two admins with indepth knowledge of policy stated their belief that the page is against WP:NOT, so I think it is highly doubtful that it will ever be approved. A number of editors including myself believe that the basis behind the list involves an unaccepable amount of mirroring Metacritic rather than having a standalone basis for a list, and that it is already included elsewhere. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I have already addressed those claims on that page discussion. The outcome of any collaborative discussion that seeks to attain consensus shouldn’t be prejudiced. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You did indeed seek consensus and every single editor who responded stated that your article was against the basic tenets of policy which leads me to believe the rejection of the article was and still is correct and that you should move on to a different article to improve. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

AI Images on 2024 United States presidential election.

Please do not use AI Generated images, such as the fake Donald Trump mugshot on the 2024 United States presidential election wikipedia page. It is completely not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Doobie777 (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Doobie777: It seemed to me like it was a real photo. I guess it shows how realistic AI can be. TheCelebrinator (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

You should never post a image if it "seems" real & only if it is confirmed as real. Ensure you have sources and can back up everything you write. Doobie777 (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Please do not add inappropriate images to Wikipedia, as you did to 2024 United States presidential election; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. — Czello ^(music) 11:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I tried to use publicly available photos (such as ones released by government departments) but it appears I picked the wrong one. TheCelebrinator (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a perfectly reasonable one to use on the Donald Trump page. There is no reason to use a fake mugshot of all things. Doobie777 (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I was looking for a more recent photo as that one is 6 years old. Plus, I wanted to use a photo that would match the subject's current status. TheCelebrinator (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at LeBron James, you may be blocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

How does adding a redirect by which the subject is commonly known (such as UK for United Kingdom) vandalism? TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Your redirected the page to Goat.[1] You also marked the addition of content and redirection of the page as minor. Do not misuse the minor edit tag. If you continue to disrupt wikipedia you will be blocked from editing. DrKay (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do not mark edits as Minor when you are including details such as the edit you have done for 2024 United States presidential election. Please also ensure you are citing your sources - can you cite that "the indictments against Donald Trump are expected to be leading campaign issues." or it will be marked as Original research Doobie777 (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mug shot of Donald Trump. [2]. You've done the same thing to LeBron James as stated in the previous warning. Do not misuse the minor edit tag and attempt to redirect articles again or will result in a block. Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 02:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

This was NOT an act of vandalism. The article is named "Mug shot of Donald Trump", but it's not necessarily the most common way to look up that article. "Trump mug shot" and "Trump mugshot" currently do not redirect to the article as they should, so I tried to fix that. How is that vandalism?!?! TheCelebrinator (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

You need assistance on redirects? That's on WP:REDIRECT. Also, why was the edit marked minor? That edit isn't a minor edit, per Help:Minor edit#What not to mark as minor changes. If you need further assistance on redirects, feel free to ask! Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 03:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I have only been editing Wikipedia for about a month or two. I made a technical mistake because I misused the redirect tag. It wasn't on purpose. I later created redirects for both of those search tags manually. Redirects are relatively minor edits in my book.

I'm not perfect, but I certainly wasn't trying to vandalize anything like you alleged. TheCelebrinator (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think redirecting pages are minor edits? Essentially this isn't the first time this has happened. That's why I assumed it was vandalism. Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 03:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Minor edits are edits that don't substantially affect the flow of the article. A new word here and there, for example. In this case, a redirect wouldn't even go noticed by most readers as it only exists in the source code of the article. TheCelebrinator (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Help:Minor edit states that minor edits should be marked for edits such as formatting, layout, grammarical, spelling, and punctuation errors, correcting wikilinks and fixing citations, and reverting vandalism. One of the points under "What not to mark as minor changes" is Adding or removing content in an article. You added a redirect which is adding content to the article, and it shouldn't have been marked as a minor edit under that circumstance. Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 03:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, it seems I was mistaken, then. Thank you for pointing that out, I'll keep that in mind from now on. TheCelebrinator (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your cooperation. Happy editing! Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 03:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ketel Marte's 18-game post-season hitting streak

The article Ketel Marte's 18-game post-season hitting streak has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This record is not independently notable. It was created due to WP:RECENTISM. The record is mentioned on Marte's article in a sufficient manner and does not need to be WP:SPLIT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Ketel Marte's 18-game post-season hitting streak for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ketel Marte's 18-game post-season hitting streak 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/Ketel Marte's 18-game post-season hitting streak 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 until the discussion has finished.

– Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kenny (The Walking Dead) (November 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kenny (The Walking Dead) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of election bellwhether states in the United States (November 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MicrobiologyMarcus was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of election bellwhether states in the United States and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 17:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from List of prime ministers of Canada by time in office into List of premiers of Quebec by time in office. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, thank you for the information. It was my intention to make the article as detailed as possible by using a pre-existing template found in a similar article. I believe I've succeeded in doing so, but I will learn to provide attribution next time. Thank you again. TheCelebrinator (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Travis Kelce

Before I get started, let me define first a term I'm going to use, the lede is the first sentence of an article.

There are very specific requirements for the lede. For starters, there is no such thing on Wikipedia as being notable for being a celebrity's boyfriend, especially when you've already established your own notability like he has. Second, his notability is as an NFL tight end. It's why he has an article in the first place. Not to mention he's had a successful career in that field on the way to in 5-10 years being inducted into the Hall of Fame, on top of winning 2 championships.

Point blank, stop adding comments about being Taylor Swift's boyfriend to the lead.--Rockchalk717 16:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Look man, none of that actually matters because the vast majority of people only know him as Taylor's bf. That's why his Google Trends shot up the second he started dating her. He was a nobody before then. TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be new here and clearly don't understand how things work here. Yes, his notability as a NFL tight end does matter now. Number 1, almost everything you said there is unequivocally false. If that was accurate, his social media followers would have more than doubled after they started, which didn't happen. Also, his podcast was one of the most popular sports podcasts before they dated. And, you are seriously living in a fantasy land if you think a 2 time Super Bowl Champion who hosted Saturday Night Live in March that has his own dating show several years ago who's endorsement deals skyrocketed this offseason before they started dating was a "nobody". Number 2, it does matter because Wikipedia policy requires the lede to establish notability per MOS:LEDE. Even if what you said was accurate, once again, from a Wikipedia standpoint there is no such thing as being notable for being the boyfriend of a celebrity. If Taylor Swift was a dating a normal person, they wouldn't get an article. The handful of celebrities married to non-celebrities, their spouses do not have a page.--Rockchalk717 04:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

None of that matters because Taylor Swift is the most popular person on the planet and so everything associated with her takes precedence over whatever prior accomplishments he might have had. Kelce's career as a football player was stagnating until Taylor put him on the map, so he's now famous and getting all those deals you're mentioning. He needed Taylor's clout to get over with the public. Before then, he was only known by a few hardcore American football fans like yourself, but he's now finally mainstream because of Taylor. There's no evidence he was well known before then. TheCelebrinator (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Travis Kelce. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop adding "Taylor Swift's boyfriend" to lede. Rockchalk717 22:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Does it offend you that your darling player is mostly known as being one celebrity's boyfriend? I sure hope it doesn't, because that's the truth. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Travis Kelce, you may be blocked from editing. No more discussion of this. Stop adding the claim is known for being Taylor Swift's boyfriend to the article period. Rockchalk717 06:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

If you want to end discussion of this, that's because you're admitting that your arguments, or lack thereof, are without merit. I will be forced to request mediation on the issue if you don't agree to sit down at the table to discuss. TheCelebrinator (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheCelebrinator (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was falsely accused of vandalism when, in fact, I had always been acting on good faith to make the most substantial and productive edits I could make. Notably, the blocking notice, enacted by a user I had never even met, lists no such instance of "alleged vandalism." Legitimate dsiagreement on editing policy should not be interpreted as a blank cheque to blacklist whoever you might disagree with.

Decline reason:

You're not "blacklisted". You're blocked for 24 hours. Once you got into a content dispute, you should have immediately gone to the article talk page to attempt to gain WP:CONSENSUS for your content. I agree that the "vandalism" charge is wrong; you're being disruptive, however. Come back tomorrow and use the talk pages. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheCelebrinator (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Actually, the reason I was blocked had nothing to do with the Kelce article. It was for a completely other different thing, related to a dispute about including the length of tenure of Canadian premiers/prime ministers. I had tried to seek consensus on the article talk page, but by the time I saw anyone reply there, I was already blocked from editing. You can verify how I tried to "gain consensus" on that article's talk page. Therefore, I already did as you said.

Decline reason:

I agree that your edits on Canadian premiers' bios, while they were undesirable trivia, were not vandalism. However, your insistence on emphasizing Travis Kelce's notability as framed by his relationship with Taylor Swift violated our policy on biographies of living persons, and you should have stopped after the first time your edits were reverted, instead of replying with snide comments as you did above. The fact that you kept this up after the article was protected, and the fact that you created several new redirects on this theme, both suggest that you are not here to contribute constructively. You will have an opportunity to prove me wrong when your block expires, but your appeal is declined. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheCelebrinator (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There are now two separate administrators/reviewers who have concluded that I have not committed vandalism, which is the official reason given for my ban. Therefore, why uphold a block for which you agree the reason was not valid? It wasn't for anything to do with the Kelce article, it was for a completely other, ultra- minor (or at least should have been one) dispute about some line acknowledging a bit of trivia, of which there is plenty on Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

This block appears to have expired. SQL^{Query Me!} 02:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In what possible world was this edit helpful? Apart from being uncited, it's also utterly meaningless. As she is the premier immediately after Jason Kenney, she was "the longest-serving premier of Aberta since Jason Kenney" the moment she took office. It's far from the first time you've made garbage edits like this. --Yamla (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• In fact, I had added the exact same line to all Canadian premiers. As I'm not exactly familiar with the politics of every other province except my own, I added the line for all premiers with the hope that, in cases like this, a user would notice and change it to the appropriate wording. There are cases where a premier's tenure is among the top 10 and thus needs mentioning, like with my own (Quebec's). By the way, I got all my sources from the articles that already exist on Wikipedia on PM/Premiers' length of tenure. I don't think it's possible to cite within Wikipedia.

• P.S. Maybe it should go without saying, but English isn't actually my native language, being from Quebec. Therefore, there are times where linguistic confusion can occur and I can end up saying something completely different than from how I could have written it in my mother language. I don't think that should be grounds for falsely accusing an editor of vandalizing. If you have a problem with any of my edits, there's a talk page for that. Banning people arbitrarily isn't the solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCelebrinator (talk • contribs)

Pretty easy to see you have never edited that article's talk page, see here. You most certainly should not be adding that exact same line to all Canadian premiers. Relying on others to clean up your inappropriate edits is disruptive. And this has nothing to do with English not being your native language. It would also be utterly meaningless in French. --Yamla (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to another article altogether, namely, Travis Kelce's. It's unfortunate you didn't see that.

You also exaggerate the impact that a line acknowledging a premier's length of tenure would have on an article's cohesion. Disruptive editing would refer to an edit that would disrupt an article's overall flow or cohesion. A one-off bit of trivia, because that's all it was, doesn't come to close to that. Even your fellow administrators (two of them, mind you) acknowledge that what I did does not constitute vandalism (which carries malicious intent), the reason officially stated for my ban.

P.S. Are you a francophone? Do you natively speak French or otherwise know how to speak the language? If not, then butt out of making such assertions about other languages. TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Your block, not ban, is for disruptive editing, not for vandalism, if you want to get technical about it. I do not agree that your edits were not disruptive, as you were repeatedly violating WP:BLP after being warned to stop. As you continue to defend those unacceptable edits, in my opinion it would be reasonable to extend your block, not lift it. Choose your words for your next diatribe wisely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually the block log said "vandalism", but I just fixed it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, fair. Still, Wikipedia is not a court of law; you don't get off because the paperwork wasn't filled out correctly. Blocks are to prevent disruption, and if you want to be unblocked then you need to demonstrate that you will not continue editing disruptively if you are unblocked. If you'd like to try to explain why your editing on Travis Kelce was unacceptable, I'll consider unblocking you. Rockchalk717 made a decent effort in a thread above, and you are not blocked from reading the biogrpahies of living persons policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I would love to do that, but unfortunately, I cannot "explain" why my edit was acceptable or not until I am unblocked - a block extends to pretty much everything here on Wikipedia. It's a bit paradoxical to ask me to "prove" I was acting in good faith - not trying to disrupt that is - only to keep my account blocked and prevent me from doing that. I believe in following established predecent and conventions. I believe in trying to sort out disputes with other users in a consensus-buulding manner instead of acting unilaterally. But obviously, I can't do that until this block still applies, which it does. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to discuss the edit with other users, I'm asking you to explain here why that edit was unacceptable and will never be acceptable. I'll give it a try for you. We have a policy, the biographies of living persons policy, which says that we do not publish unsourced contentious or negative information about living persons. It is to be removed immediately and without discussion. You've repeatedly made edits describing Travis Kelce, an all-star professional football player with multiple championships and professional records who according to our article is "considered one of the greatest tight ends of all time" (with sources), as "best known" or "universally known" as Taylor Swift's current boyfriend. That is patently false, and we do not publish information about living persons which is provably incorrect, no matter what your personal opinion is. The policy includes talk pages, by the way. There is no debate to be had on this, and the fact that you still insist on "discussing it" (and given your recent history of "discussion" being rudely telling people that they're wrong) means that I am not convinced that unblocking you will not lead to trouble. It would be irresponsible of me to unblock you if you insist on making these edits. Is this starting to make sense to you? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't add the "universally known" claim about his being Taylor's bf, some other user did.[3] That's another person's doing. I later added outside of football, towards the end of the lede, a mention of his dating Taylor Swift. Do a simple Google search about Travis Kelce - virtually every current newsarticle discusses him in relation to Taylor Swift. Whether it's "best known" or "universally known" or "widely known" (I am prepared to admit that perhaps the phrasing could have been different - I don't follow the NFL but Kelce appears to have achieved some measure of success there), part of his notability is in relation to her. I don't see how you can deny that.

Look at Joe DiMaggio's article - it mentions his dating another famous celebrity, Marilyn Monroe. Incidentally, the phrasing is almost identical: "Outside of baseball, DiMaggio is also widely known for his marriage and life-long devotion to Marilyn Monroe." I don't see why it worries you that we should add a similar sentence about Travis and Taylor. TheCelebrinator (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

In other words, I am prepared to admit that Kelce's main notability is as an NFL player. I personally never heard of him before he started dating Taylor, but I guess that as a Quebecer, football isn't quite as big here as in the States. That's one thing. But you can't deny that part of his notability is as a result of Taylor. That's what I'm mainly arguing for here. TheCelebrinator (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't add the "universally known" claim about his being Taylor's bf No, but you went out of your way to re-insert it. — Czello ^(music) 00:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I added that at the end of his lede, with the explicit mention that it's outside the football world. A bit like DiMaggio's article mentioning Marilyn Monroe. What does it say? "Outside of baseball, DiMaggio is also widely known for his marriage and life-long devotion to Marilyn Monroe." Widely is a synonym for universally, I think, but I don't know. I confess, I'm not a native English speaker, Czello, so it means something else there. TheCelebrinator (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're not a native English speaker I could be misunderstanding the placement of this, as it's in an odd place (and, in hingsight, looks like a typo of university), so I'll WP:AGF on that. I retract what I said. — Czello ^(music) 00:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith. It takes courage to admit you were wrong and give the benefit of the doubt. TheCelebrinator (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, first off, it is not up to you or any one individual to decide what it is and isn't acceptable to mention in an article. There's a consensus that needs to be reached for that beforehand. I was ready to engage in talks to reach such consensus (about mentioning Kelce's status as Taylor's bf), but unfortunately, it seems like nobody wanted to take me up on my offer, at least not until after I was blocked.

Second, I did not make any other edit to Travis Kelce's article when it came to that issue. I was told by another user to "stop", because you see, he didn't want to talk it over with me, and that I would be blocked if I didn't "stop". So what I did was answer that I would seek mediation (consensus) about whether or not to add the mention in the lede. It's what anyone should have done - seek consensus instead of going about it unilaterally. Go look it over yourself - I didn't make any subsequent edits to Kelce's article, pertaining to that issue.

And third, the block WAS for vandalism, not for disruptive editing. That's a new charge you're inventing right now. Look at the log. It says vandalism. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Recommend TC be unblocked, if this has to do with adding trivia to Canadian prime ministers & premiers bios. I recommend such trivia not be added to those bios & that TC seek a consensus for such additions at the talkpage of WP:CANADA, when he's unblocked or his block expires. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of confidence. As previously explained, my block was initially only given for that mention of trivia you stated on their bios. Since nobody here is arguing I broke any relevant guidelines pertaining to that issue, I would like for the block to be lifted so I can make my case on the other issue. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

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. Andre🚐 12:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It's hardly an edit war when you've made only two series of edits on the issue. TheCelebrinator (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It's still edit warring if you're continually making edits, even just one series of reverts, contrary to consensus without discussion, so please do not try to make those edits again, but discuss them on talk. Andre🚐 20:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

But that's exactly what I've done. As soon as I saw that my proposed edits caused a dispute (meaning, some editors actively tried to revert them), I've created a talk on the very issue. So far, nobody has taken me up on my offer to discuss. If nobody agrees to come and sit at the table, then what do you do? TheCelebrinator (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Wait. Andre🚐 04:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I guess I'll die of old age by then. TheCelebrinator (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

You must be in your 90s, then. Not many of your generation editing on Wikipedia. Andre🚐 04:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

More like I'll be in my 90s by that time... but at any rate, if nobody takes me up on my offer to discuss, silence counts as consent, no? TheCelebrinator (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

No. Andre🚐 04:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, if only two people choose to participate in the discussion and they both agree on the same point, then that's the consensus. You can't have your cake and eat it too. TheCelebrinator (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Nice of you to finally join us. I was starting to worry I might find myself alone there. TheCelebrinator (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

"Taylor swifts boyfriend" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Taylor swifts boyfriend has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Taylor swifts boyfriend until a consensus is reached. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, I am not able to comment or give my opinion because some other user took it upon themselves to attribute to me some charge of vandalism, which you yourself have denied. Now, I would have thought that your agreeing with me on that would also mean that the ban therefore no longer applies, but apparently not. TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

These discussions normally run for seven days, so you should have plenty of time to contribute when your block expires. In the meantime, if you have a constructive comment you want to make towards the discussion I'll gladly copy it over for you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, if it's as you say, I would prefer to make such comment myself. That is, if you don't decide to extend the block like you've previously threatened to do. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Women's championships in WWE, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bayley. 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) 06:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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.

Andre🚐 12:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You also need to read wp:point. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

That's already been settled. I understand the procedure to follow in situtations like this. TheCelebrinator (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

You also need to know about wp:npa, as (as far as I can see) no one had called you an idiot there (or at least used that word) and the only person who uses "your" was me, and I certainly did not call you an idiot (by the way, its a typo, and context would have made that clear I meant "our words he is something". Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you take a look at the edit log, an user—an unregistered one at that—took it upon themselves to use that particular adjective. I got the news from a notification. They also didn't exactly have nice words to say about the rest of us, either. I personally don't care, I just find it amusing.

At any rate, I was not referring to you at all, why did you think that? TheCelebrinator (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Because the other comment had been removed, and thus was no longer visible on the talk page. Thus the only comment still visible was my one. It might have been a good idea to have acknowledged the comment had been removed. Or better yet, to have not complained about an edit that had already been actioned (and the IP warned about). This is why (on wp:talk pages we comment on content, not user conduct. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I am always open to discuss content and substance if, however, it's what interests you. TheCelebrinator (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Then stop commenting on users, (especially if their comments have been removed). Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

But I've already done that—how can I stop doing something I'e only mentioned once? It's you who's making a big item out of an off-handed remark. Like I said, I am always ready to argue substance when it'll interest you. TheCelebrinator (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Best to move on from the proposal at Donald Trump's page. In these last few years, I've seen (read or watched on the internet) where "racism" or "white supremacy" has been attached to Joe Biden. I doubt a similar proposal would be adopted at his BLP. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, let's just wait until enough time has passed or people have responded before calling it a day. TheCelebrinator (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you think we should call him a racist? Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe I've stated my position in my original post on the discussion thread. You can review it there. TheCelebrinator (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

A simple yes or no would have sufficed. But yes you have, now, and this is why this seems pointy, you do not support the addition, so why raise it when no one has tried to add it in a while? This looks like starting a conversation for the sake of it, not to genuinely improve the article (as you do not think an addition no one has supported would improve the article). Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

If you want to discuss it, you can go do it there. Why should we have this conversation on my own personal talk page? That's why I told you to go review it there. You don't have to do it here when there's already a discussion page made just for that. TheCelebrinator (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

And please read WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I have never implied that you are dumb. It's unfortunate you would insinuate that. I've always treated other editors with great love and respect. TheCelebrinator (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

YOu also need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Also what a user says on one talk page has no impact on a question on another talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Correct. So I get to disregard what you say here. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but as they are policy warnings, as such if you breach then I can report you. Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Good thing I've done no such thing, eh? TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Hi TheCelebrinator. Wanted to let you know that I closed the discussion you started at Talk:Donald Trump as it was clearly a pointy one. In addition to that, I'd like to say that you've received a lot of good advice here in your talk page from other editors, in that it's sometimes better to drop the stick and walk away from a discussion when things get heated. Also note that we take BLP violations very seriously, and this edit of yours was a breach of our policies. In the future, try not escalating a discussion in such a manner. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I probably shouldn't have made that specific edit, maybe. I'll admit to that. It's a very contentious statement if albeit not necessarily untrue. At any rate, I'm glad most (all?) editors saw it that way, too. That's exactly what I had hoped for. TheCelebrinator (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Preview – Consolidate – Summarize

Hello- Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

• Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
  • The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
• Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 18:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Merci pour l'info, mais je serais curieux de savoir comment vous m'aviez trouvé. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Car Saint Denis est sur ma liste de suivi. Eric ^talk 18:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, dans ce cas-là, il ne s'agissait que de quelques erreurs techniques. Parfois, ça peut être compliqué de travailler avec le code de Wikipedia, surtout sur mobile. Merci quand même pour l'info. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Trump/Biden

Howdy. Just letting you know, I've chosen to shut down the discussion at Donald Trump's talkpage, concerning your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

RIP. TheCelebrinator (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Travis Kelce discussion

It appears you think WP:3RR is a method to allow you to force your changes into a page. Nothing could be further from the truth - please read WP:BRD. If you make a bold change, and are reverted, you must discuss before the change is contemplated for re-introduction. Your edit comment read very much as a childish "nyah nyah. I got my change in and if you pull it out you are edit warring." Don't do that.

Lastly, looking at your past edit history and block logs, there is a distinct resemblance to a bull in a china shop. I suggest you slow down, read wikipedia policies, and start finding ways to achieve consensus rather than battling. See WP:BATTLE. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Let me add a couple more pages you should consider reading:

• WP:DEADHORSE
• WP:BLUDGEON (specifically WP:BADGER)
• WP:DR

Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 05:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

What? No, nothing could be further from the truth. You got it all wrong. My edit comment was actually an invitation to come and sit at the table and discuss, with the understanding that if you wanted to undo/revert, we could then discuss the potential change on the talk page. You see, I didn't know if you would see that I made a talk page just for that, which is why I made that edit to inform you that I had done so. TheCelebrinator (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, an invitation to talk does not include re-installing your edit. In particular it does not include stating "To prevent edit warring (>3 reverts), I suggest you go there if you want to undo". The undo remains until consensus is achieved on the talk page. If you cannot achieve consensus on the talk page, that's when you need to consult WP:DR. Or WP:DEADHORSE. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

But that's what we're doing right now. We're discussing the issue instead of edit warring, so my edit log message did what it was supposed to do. You're barking up the wrong tree here. TheCelebrinator (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

No. You insisted on your edit remaining while the discussion proceeded. That's why I intervened. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I did no such thing. I left the message so that if you wanted to undo, it would mean that there'd be an editing dispute—and thus to prevent edit warring (meaning reverting for a 4th time), we'd be able to discuss the proposed edit instead. Like I said, you got the completely wrong impression. Did I attempt to change it while we're having this discussion right now? But right now, we're beating off a WP:DEADHORSE, this is a sterile discussion so I suggest we move on. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic notice

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Trump (disambiguation)

Could you please explain this edit? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Since I was making sure that the disambiguation page also made it clear that Donald Trump was its main subject, I reworded Trump's description to better fit that. I used Biden (disambiguation) as a model. TheCelebrinator (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You added that he was "the 45th and 47th president". Magnolia677 (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I noticed the error and quickly fixed it within a minute. I was likely distracted or focused on something else. It happens. TheCelebrinator (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, should he become the 47th US president (Jan 20, 2025), his dates of service would then be "...from 2017 to 2021 & from 2025 to present" ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Your (over)participation at Trump

Re: Talk:Donald Trump#Section links?

To date, six editors have participated in that discussion. By word count, your participation comprises one-third. That would be somewhat excessive if you had a similar experience level to the others (it's not automatically a Bad Thing when certain editors choose to contribute substantially more than others, provided they're in fact contributing). But your experience doesn't even come close; it may not be apparent to you, but that shows. Your comments are very often tone-deaf or miss the mark. The same thing happened in the previous discussion.

I don't know whether the apt guideline/essay is WP:BLUDGEON, WP:STICK, WP:IDHT, WP:DE, WP:CIR, or some combination thereof, but you are sucking up too much oxygen for your knowledge level. Bear in mind the effect of all that on a new arrival to the discussion; they have to slog their way through all that junk or form an uninformed opinion, and usually the latter is what happens. I'm not accusing you of any bad faith, but if an editor wanted to sabotage that proposal, the most effective way would be to flood the discussion with comments that help no one (if I'm not mistaken, "derail" is a word you have used yourself on that page). Please talk less and listen more. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Before I say anything, was it really necessary to edit the same message 8 times and spam my notifications that way? A bit ironic when you're asking me to be more concise.

I won't get hung up over word count re: participation. Some people like to write less, some people write more. That's just a question of personal style—I won't apologize for that. Furthermore, I am not aware of any clause or guideline on Wikipedia that forbids or limits participating in an article discussion based on how many edits you've made or how active you've been on Wikipedia. Rather than resort to personal attacks, which is what this is, it'd be best to actually address the points I've made. BTW, I am far from the only person to bring up those points, so the "experience argument" goes out of the water there. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not asking you "to be more concise" on this page. That's entirely different, as you would realize if you had actually taken the time to hear what I said. Anyway, number of edits does not equate to size of content; I could do a hundred edits resulting in zero content. Sorry for "spamming your notifications", but I really don't think you were significantly inconvenienced by that.

• If you're already section-linking, you might as well just wikilink... Huh? That comment completely missed the point of reader steering, which had been introduced three days prior, and which you had already failed to grasp several times. I believe that's what we call IDHT. You don't have to agree with reader steering, but you can't just ignore it in your arguments. It suggests you're not really listening, which is not only unconstructive but also disrespectful to your fellow editors. If you are in fact unable to understand a concept, you should sit out related discussion until you do (optionally seeking enlightenment at the user talk page of your choice, where you're not cluttering up an article discussion).
• Where on earth did you get the impression that this was anything to be concerned about? A mere superficial understanding of consensus would tell you that the minority does not prevail; it's not Wikipedia Editing 101, it's Wikipedia Editing Kindergarten. Did you think for fifteen seconds before you posted that comment? Seriously, how did it contribute anything useful to the discussion?
• You often use terms and language that mean nothing to other editors, such as "It's basically a more-neutered wikilink." This serves no communication purpose, so it contributes nothing. Are we expected to read your mind? It's just meaningless word salad, and might as well be in Afrikaans for all the good it does. Dit is basies 'n meer gesteriliseerde wikiskakel. And that's but one example of many.

Now multiply this by, say, fifty, and you begin to see the problem. So far, there's no sign of it ending; at this rate we'll be at two-hundred such gaffes within a week; and that discussion will be open for weeks. Or substitute any numbers that float your boat; the fact remains that it's disruptive.

In my not-so-humble opinion (IMNSHO), one should be primarily in listen-and-learn mode[4] for at least a year (as I was at the start of my editing career). You might consider Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user; it helped me. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Your concerns have been noted. TheCelebrinator (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That's qualitatively different from "Points taken, and I'll try to improve." In Wikipedia editor language, it's closer to "Screw you."

ATP discussions are not for new-user education, which clutters the discussions, making them far longer, and makes complicated discussion even more difficult to follow. Please avail yourself of Wikipedia:Teahouse, user talk pages, and/or Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. IMNSHO, you are flirting with an AE complaint that could get you banned from the Trump article or more. Nobody wants to lose an intelligent editor that way. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Wut? What part of "your concerns have been noted" do you take to mean "screw you?" I can't for the life of me figure out where you got that impression. That's an absolutely ridiculous claim. TheCelebrinator (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, anything resembling "Points taken, and I'll try to improve." was conspicuously absent. Again, can't read your mind. Speak ambiguously and don't be surprised if you're misunderstood. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, if "your concerns have been noted" is now code for "screw you", then I guess you're the first person to come up with that "interpretation." It's hard to take what else you have to say seriously when you've made such a bad-faith take. TheCelebrinator (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess you're the first person to come up with that "interpretation." With five months and <2K edits, how could you know that? I'm the first person you've seen come up with that interpretation. Yet again, you're showing that you don't know the limits of your own knowledge. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe there's other people who seem unable to read a sentence expressed in plain English. If it helps you sleep better at night to know you're not alone in that, I'm happy for you. TheCelebrinator (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I repeat from an earlier section, bull in a china shop. You've already been blocked once, and with the attitude you're showing, your next block isn't likely to be far off. Slow down, read the policies, and understand them. The important piece you don't seem to getting is that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. That means working with other editors, not attempting to browbeat them into submission. The admins are very short with people who try to play lawyer by coming up with creative interpretations of the rules (or invoking reality dysfunction as in your argument with me above). They know what the policies are, and aren't interested in justifications of "that's how I read the policy!". Oh, and read WP:CIVIL, too. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: I confess to attempting to browbeat this user into submission, after a few days of a gentler approach yielded no improvement (and things were actually getting worse). I think the standard should be different for an editor with ten years and 62K edits, and I think a fair majority of the community agree with me. There are more important things than protracted tolerance of a new editor who greatly (persistently, defiantly) overestimates his ability, such as keeping ATP discussions on important topics useful and constructive. Given AE's bureaucratic learning curve, many editors prefer browbeating over AE complaints, PAGs or no. I've personally never filed one and hope I never will. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

But that's what I've done. You can clearly see an example of my working collaboratively on the Travis Kelce page. I proposed an edit—to add a mention of his dating Taylor Swift. It was denied, so I decided to have a constructive conversation and see what was going on, why some people were opposed. I then understood that, the way I had originally wanted to include it, my edit would give the wrong impression that Travis Kelce is notable for being Taylor Swift's boyfriend. So we then reworded it to a more acceptable phrasing. You literally could not have done it better and I recall you were a part of that conversation, too. So is not that working collaboratively with others, as you put it?

P.S. That block you refer to was filed for frivolous reasons. I was accused of "vandalizing" a page, a charge that two separate admins denied and admitted was wrong. The block was only kept in place because it had expired by the time it could have been lifted. So actually, I was exonerated of any wrongdoing there. TheCelebrinator (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Though I disagree with the idea of in-article linking, which you've proposed for the Trump bio page. I've no objections to your participation. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

No, no, you got it all wrong. We actually already had a discussion on the Kelce talk page where, after some delibereration, we agreed on an acceptable phrasing of the Taylor-Travis dating part. So it's already in the article :) TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Congrats :) GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

"DeSanctimonius" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect DeSanctimonius has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 16 § DeSanctimonius until a consensus is reached. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"2024 GOP" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2024 GOP has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 23 § 2024 GOP until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"Ketel Marte's 19-game post-season hitting streak" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ketel Marte's 19-game post-season hitting streak has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Ketel Marte's 19-game post-season hitting streak until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of video games listed as ‘must-play’ by Metacritic

Hello, TheCelebrinator. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of video games listed as ‘must-play’ by Metacritic".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 12:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Kenny (The Walking Dead)

Hello, TheCelebrinator. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kenny (The Walking Dead), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)