User talk:Ixtal

Archives (Index)

2021/July 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July 2023/August 2023/September 2023/October 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Statue of Israel Putnam on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shadow docket on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ethel Barrymore Theatre on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kenneth Lawson on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2017 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy and Talk:1987 vote of no confidence in the government of Felipe González on "Social sciences and society" Good Article nominations. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Minnesota State Capitol, Talk:Minnesota State Capitol Mall and Talk:Minnesota State Capitol artwork on "Art and architecture" Good Article nominations. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2021 North Kosovo crisis on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Long Island iced tea

The article Long Island iced tea you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Long Island iced tea for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HenryCrun15 -- HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Long Island iced tea

The article Long Island iced tea you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Long Island iced tea for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HenryCrun15 -- HenryCrun15 (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

List of most expensive artworks RfC

Hey there! I noticed your responses in the conversation and am wondering if you have thoughts on where to go from here. I haven't been involved in many RfCs -- what's the fair point to draw a conclusion & update the article (or to decide how to update the article)? SiliconRed (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd wait until th RfC tag is removed (30 days after the RfC is started), Siliconred. Where to go really depends on what the closure is. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Copy that! I guess I was a little early with the proposal, then (but... hopefully it is still helpful). Do you think it is worth closing "Separation of NFT sales and artwork sales", the earlier discussion? A few people are still adding comments there & I'm not sure they realize the RfC replaces that conversation. SiliconRed (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's best to leave that discussion open, Siliconred. Partially because (as you say) people are still adding comments there, and partially because it serves to weed out the long rants from the RfC, which is being home to much more concise and policy-driven arguments. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense! Thanks for the commentary. 😊 SiliconRed (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite at the pump

Thanks for the invite at the pump. First, my best attempt at describinbg the big fuzzy wp:notability ecosystem is at Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works A lot of what makes the whole thing so mysteriously complex is trying to reconcile SNG's with GNG. But right now we sort of need the SNG's (except for sports :-). A part of the issue is thaty the SNG's are needed / crutches for / enablers of / prevent solving weaknesses in WP:GNG. Another is discrimination against topics that don't have an SNG. Some enclyclopic ones that don't have an SNG either need one, or an improveent in wp:GNG so that we don't need 50 new SNG's to take care of those. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Getting started

Can anyone help me editing my user page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppet reel (talk • contribs) 16:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle

Hello, A. C. Santacruz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle".

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. If 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Liz. I should've speedy deleted that a long time ago. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Alt account

Hi! I've made this account in case I accidentally log out while out and about, as the password for my main account is stored in a KeePassX database on my computer. Just thought I'd leave a notice here for any page watchers that might wanna watch my alt account as well. A.C.S.Alt (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Devolution in the United Kingdom on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Help with reviving Wikiproject Finance & Investment

Hi! I'm planning on reviving the Finance WP in the coming months/year and wanted to get some tips or advice from y'all on how to go about doing so or some ideas on things to do first. The areas I feel might need most work in the first few weeks/month are: 1) determining some kind of coordination system for the revival process, 2) determining the big areas the project will need to focus, 3) improve how the wikiproject attracts and retains new editors. Feedback on these areas or guiding WikiProjects in general is much appreciated. Pinging some coordinators of WPs: @Peacemaker67, CPA-5, Gog the Mild, Hawkeye7, Hog Farm, Iazyges, Indy beetle, Parsecboy, Vami IV, Zawed, Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, and Tenryuu.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz, I've never had to revive a WikiProject but this might be useful (even though it's old). Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 14:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you identified the reasons that the WikiProject became inactive? Ideally, you should develop a strategy to avoid a repeat. I took a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Finance & Investment, and it doesn't show a lot of editors active on articles tagged by WPF&I. (It could be that there simply aren't a lot of articles tagged by the project.) A more realistic alternative might be to revive it as a task force of an existing WikiProject, like WikiProject Economics. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's because those that created it (Drewwiki and Leifern) stopped editing Wikipedia. I'm quite confused at the activity, as popular topics like Bitcoin are part of it (although community sanctions and a high rate of editor restrictions on the most popular articles affects this). Reviving it as a task force of Economics would be a good way to go about it, but I'm unsure how one would scope the interest in doing that (e.g. an RfC on the Economics talk page linked in WP:FINANCE). Thanks for the advice, Reidgreg! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Answer to your question

I answered your question on the WTW talk page, but on reconsideration just removed my comment(s) as too long and possibly digressing. The reply is visible in the talk page history if you are interested and did not see it. I'm not entirely satisfied with it AS an answer but it's OK as an approximate version of what I would ideally have said given time to write something more precise. Sesquivalent (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Closing Cases at DRN

You have closed multiple cases at DRN with the note that there has not been extensive discussion. I agree that the discussion in those cases was not extensive, and they were not ready for DRN. You then recommended that a neutral Request for Comments be used before filing a case request. I disagree, and would prefer that advice not be given in that form. DRN is one of the options after there has extensive inconclusive discussion at the article talk page. An RFC is another such option. In particular, I think that advising RFC prior to DRN reverses the order in which different stages of dispute resolution are in order. Sometimes DRN is followed by an RFC. On the other hand, if there has already been an RFC, DRN is very seldom appropriate. If the RFC resulted in a consensus, then DRN is likely to be bludgeoning a dead horse. If an RFC does not result in consensus, DRN is not likely to result in consensus either. So please don't advise an RFC first. It should be discussion first, then either DRN or an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your giving me advice on this, Robert McClenon. I am of course just a beginner at DRN and your experience and reputation on dispute resolution is one I am glad to learn from. Thanks for the detailed explanation.

In the case of the Irvington request, as the filer explicitly said the purpose of filing a DRN request was exclusively to get input from more people due to another editor's behaviour, I recommended an RfC due to its ability to outdo the negative effects of local consensus or niche-ness of articles through its notification system. I did not wish to imply that RfC is a strict requirement before a DRN case or that there is some chronological order between the two, but rather that the underlying need for resolution as laid out by the filer was one that would be best served by doing an RfC on the matter. Of course, the opposite party declined participation and that would've been enough to dismiss the request but I thought I'd propose the RfC option.

Regarding the Bengal tiger and Supercomputer requests, I see how my closing text was wrong and won't recommend an RfC before DRN in future content dispute requests. Again, thanks for dropping by my talk page :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:William H. Davis (educator) on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Booth Theatre on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nutty Narrows Bridge on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jewellery of the Berber cultures on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Memorial to Victims of Violence in Mexico on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Paramount Hotel on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:QAnon on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Brahma Chellaney on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Walter Kerr Theatre on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
36		The Jungle Book and Scouting (talk)	Add sources
22		Library Network of Western Switzerland (talk)	Add sources
1,413		Newspaper (talk)	Add sources
17		Ippolito Nievo (talk)	Add sources
41		Karl-Maria Kertbeny (talk)	Add sources
52		Chinese property bubble (2005–2011) (talk)	Add sources
4		History of the Republican People's Party (talk)	Cleanup
87		Renewable energy transition (talk)	Cleanup
145		Fossil fuel phase-out (talk)	Cleanup
6		LGBT Humanists UK (talk)	Expand
10		José Blanco López (talk)	Expand
6		Jesús Posada (talk)	Expand
26		Keith-Albee Theatre (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
50		Intergenerationality (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
108		Requetés (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
561		Satay (talk)	Merge
173		Russo-Turkish War (1787–1792) (talk)	Merge
227		AI accelerator (talk)	Merge
95		Energy policy of the European Union (talk)	Wikify
10		Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Kyrgyzstan) (talk)	Wikify
84		New Zealand property bubble (talk)	Wikify
9		Liquidity regulation (talk)	Orphan
59		Long Blockchain Corp (talk)	Orphan
14		Jupiter barrier (talk)	Orphan
121		Ocean Flower Island (talk)	Stub
8		Alberto Palacio (talk)	Stub
6		Román Rodríguez Rodríguez (talk)	Stub
4		Young Woman in a Black Dress (talk)	Stub
7		Musée Georges-Garret (talk)	Stub
11		Maher Kanzari (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bellesa on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Leon P. Miller on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Not apologizing and remaining absolute

I'm not going to apologize and I don't feel bad for my removal on the List of fictional characters with disabilities page or any of the things I said in the discussion. I fully expected it to be reversed, but I did the removal anyway because I was tired of the worthless (and frankly unnecessary) discussion on the talk page of that list page started by an IP address who never even contributed in the discussion after their first comment. In retrospect, I should have just reversed the comment by the IP address and never began the discussion to begin with. I still stand by the idea that there wasn't any consensus or "decision," in part because I feel there wasn't enough participation (no one seemed to care about that but me) to warrant a claim of consensus or a decision. It seemed certain users (not going to name anyone in particular) wanted to wrap up the discussion too quickly, almost like they had a vested interest in doing so. As a result of this discussion, I pulled out of the WikiProject focused on disability topics, and want no part in fixing up the Sexuality and disability page, which is an utter mess. I've made way too many concessions over and over when editing for LGBTQ topics on here, which I have come to accept as a necessary part of editing on here. I have no energy to make yet another concession (removing all mentions of LGBTQ identity from the list page) to make a handful of users happy. Apparently the "consensus" is to make the page anti-queer and anti-LGBTQ, i.e. imply that every character on that page is straight, which I disagree with wholeheartedly, but its what the users have purportedly "agreed" to. I have no time, or energy, to get into petty arguments anymore, or to imply that certain editors are leading the character to remove sexual orientation based on their race, gender, and ethnicity... I'll go back to editing "safe" pages where arguments like this one won't occur. I have no interest in creating a Disability and LGBT identities page either or "fixing" the list page. I feel as I'm not wanted there, as the discussion clearly indicates. I will not be returning to do any editing on that list page (which I've come to believe is a totally unnecessary page which should be merged into the disability page and turned into a redirect anytime soon or that mess of a page, the one named "Sexuality and disability." Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Historyday01 before anything, I want to say I appreciate the work you do on Wikipedia on animation (and other forms of popular media), characters, and lists of both. I hope you don't feel unwelcome by either my edits or comments on talk pages, as I would hate for that to be the case and deeply apologize if it is. Firstly, as much as I personally don't agree with allowing IP editing, we need to understand that they're an important part of the wiki ecosystem and shouldn't be dismissed wholesale. The IP raised valid concerns in a civil manner and there should be no expectation for an editor to continually engage in threads they start. On the consensus side, I strongly disagree and believe there was consensus in the talk page that LGBT identities should not be included in descriptions of character disabilities. You mention that you believe there wasn't enough participation in the thread for there to be consensus. While WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is certainly a thing that exists and might affect the consensus reached on the talk page, the fact that a small number of editors engaged in the discussion does not mean that the consensus achieved should be dismissed. If you feel that the consensus was negatively affected by the number of editors involved, there are plenty of ways to request dispute resolution or further discussion (e.g WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:DRN) which should be used. Dismissing the consensus and editing against it can be considered disruptive and won't get you far in the discussion anyways. If you feel certain users wanted to wrap up the discussion too quickly I would certainly recommend starting an RfC on the topic as the 30-day expected duration would prevent that from happening (or be a great obstacle to close the discussion prematurely). I understand editing LGBT topics can be infuriating and cause great deals of stress and impotence (I myself have been involved over at Irreversible Damage and ROGD in a terribly discouraging discussion for a few months now). I have experienced many of the feelings you share above with me. You are certainly encouraged to continue editing in safer pages if that'll help keep you part of the project. I personally would hate to see such a productive and unique editor like you leave Wikipedia. However, I don't think any editor in the discussion was trying to make the page anti-queer. Other editors as well as myself are queer and believe mentions of LGBTQ identity were not WP:DUE in the page and could be demeaning to LGBTQ readers and editors. If you disagree with that consensus and wish to get wider community consensus through an RfC, I'd be very glad to help draft a neutrally worded RfC for that purpose in my talk page, as I think both sides had compelling arguments and wider opinions on the matter would probably suggest a middle-ground approach that would mostly satisfy all sides. As a final note, I agree that the Sexuality and disability page is in a terrible state and can only feel sad that, in a world where I can't fight all the battles I wish I could, I'll have to leave that page for a more dedicated editor with more interest in that topic area to bring the article to the quality the encyclopedia needs. I hope none of my reply feels passive-aggressive or dismissive and even if you don't reply I hope we continue to meet on wiki in the future, Historyday01 :). I hope you enjoy the rest of your week and had a restful weekend. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Your edits and what you have done doesn't make me feel unwelcome... it was other users that made me not feel unwelcome. I'm not going to name specific people, as I have named specific people in the past and well, that didn't go so well for me, so I'd rather speak about it in generalities. I understand that IP editing is important, and I have come around to it, although sometimes it can be disruptive. Even if I had reverted that comment by the IP user instead of responding on January 26, I would guess that someone would have reverted my edit, and brought it back, pulling me into the discussion regardless. While I'm still not entirely convinced there was a consensus and feel the discussion was wrapped up too quickly, I suppose in this case WP:LOCALCONSENSUS could apply. I could, if I wished, "request dispute resolution or further discussion" but honestly. I'd be willing for you to draft a neutrally-worded RfC, even though I predict there would be the same result at the end of the day. I suppose it would be worth a try. I have dealt with that one editor you mentioned on the Irreversible Damage talk page before, who appeared annoyed you called out some editors as transphobic (like that is a bad thing? It's not). That discussion on there definitely seemed dispiriting. I would hope that none of the editors on there were "trying to make the page anti-queer" and I do have to agree that the Sexuality and disability page is in a terrible state too. I wish I had time to deal with it, but I've been trying to lessen my time on here and I still have pages that I'd like to create in the future. Your response doesn't feel passive-aggressive or dismissive. I guess, at times, I can be a bit too passionate about this stuff and it spills out in arguments, so I have to constantly restrain that impulse. Historyday01 (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you think an RfC is worth a shot. I have included a draft right below and would appreciate any comments you might have on it. I've worded it based on the options raised in the discussion. In terms of passion, I think your passion is a great thing. After all, it's what is driving you to make more content for Wikipedia and engage in discussions. I myself often let that passionate overtake me (my ADHD's impatience doesn't help with that, gotta say), but reading WP:CANDOR and If— often bring me back to the ground. Don't lose your passionate drive, Historyday01, it's something to treasure! My proposed RfC:

How should the list include information on characters' sexuality, gender identity, and/or relationships:

Wikipedia's interests in increasing the visibility of both disabilities and LGBTQ+ identities while diminishing the possibility of demeaning or hurtful presentations of these minorities sometimes may cause tension that is difficult to resolve. Issues arising in this area must be addressed with a high sensitivity to the competing concerns and editors must remain civil and continue to assume good faith from others in the discussion. This RfC is an effort to address such an issue on this page.

1. The list should not include this information and limit itself just to describing the disability of the character(s);
2. Add an additional column to the list titled "Character Notes" to include this information and other character descriptors that readers might find interesting or relate to, keeping the disability information in a "Disabilities" column;
3. The list should include this information in the "Notes" section (status quo)

Thoughts? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

That RfC looks good to me. I won't lose my passionate drive, for sure. Historyday01 (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Last thing, after reading what you had to say on that talk page, I will say is that I never want to hear from you again. Please do not interact with me in any form, whether involvement in any discussions or by posting on my talk page. That is all. Historyday01 (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Village pump discussion

Do my changes to subproposal 12 make it easier for you to understand how to contribute to it? I realize now while the structure is needed, the explanation could have been better. BilledMammal (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Honestly my main issue is that since none of the subproposals' discussions have been closed it's a bit difficult to figure out where to start as the discussion has been ongoing for about a month. Thanks for dropping by my talk page, btw, BilledMammal. Much appreciated :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Several cups of tea is probably the right place to start. BilledMammal (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)