User talk:DeCausa

Stop this

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

stop this. You've been told multiple times

You wrote this. This is not true. Please provide diffs of your claim.

On the other hand, you reverted without talk page discussion. Please do not do this. It is wrong and hostile. CandyStalnak (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Your user page says you are a lawyer! You can do better than that. Blanket revert is what dumb people do. You have good training and are capable of expressing your thoughts well. Please do it. I have confidence that you can! Good evening. CandyStalnak (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Here are the multiple times: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. You're completely clueless ("Blanket revert is what dumb people do") and have tried everyone's patience. Continue to edit war and to post ridiculous nonsense on the article talk page I foresee your time on Wikipedia won't be long. DeCausa (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

If that is the case, it is because some WP editors are very warlike and seek to punish and hurt others.

Instead, there should be civil discussion.

Buckingham Palace is clearly hiding something. It's likely because they want privacy, but that is still hiding something. This is NOT a conspiracy theory. Reliable source do write about the Palace being tight lipped. (See talk page for reliable source citations). Therefore, we must be very careful so we are not the mouthpiece of the Palace. We can do this by examining what they said. For example, they did not say she received any treatment. They only said that medical supervision was recommended. There are reliable sources that the Queen was not taken to the hospital. However, there are no reliable sources for the exact medical cause of death. There is a listed cause on the death certificate but there are scholarly citations that "old age" is not a medical cause. There is a way to satisfy both truth AND reliable sources. That is to say the death certificate list old age. Whether to add other information about listing old age is probably beyond the scope of this article since Wikipedia is generally not for really detailed scholarly knowledge.

Good evening. CandyStalnak (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Look at the stark difference between your behavior and DrKay's behavior. He shows maturity and insight in his talk page about the Queen. You threaten. That is not a sign of a good Wikipedian. Please don't be like this. CandyStalnak (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep your nonsensical ramblings off my talk page. There's nothing interresting or "scholarly" about your absurd conspiracy theories. DeCausa (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change from 'create' to 'appointed'

Thanks for that correction, it took some deep diving on the net to find that created is appropriate for the situation. Tebrennan (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I've seen some editors say many readers won't understand the specialist use of "created" but the problem is no one has come up with an alternative that reliable sources also use. "Gave him the title of" is probably the closest. They don't use "appointed" which doesn't work because of its hereditary nature. DeCausa (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

A thought

I am thinking Wikipedia needs to create a system where there is a built in periodic review of topicbans, to consider if they are still needed, if their limits are reasonable, etc., that is either pre-established or at least does not require the person they are posed against to actively petition for their change. Because the current system is clearly not working as has been seen with what happened. The amount people insisted I could not even discuss anywhere even if a very borderline case was maybe within the scope of the ban, made it so I did not even feel I could turn to another editor for advice on the matter. Plus, the last time I turned to another editor for advice they told me it was best I not participate in the Arbcom discussion against me, and later on in the Arbcom discussion people justified their very harsh penalties in part because I had not participated, so it is very hard to figure out what editors may give good advice, especially when you live in mortal fear of asking, because asking amiss is a reason for people to attack for issues that go way back. I think at one ANI against me someone once brought up an issue that had occurred 8 years before that. I think I was unwise in the wording I used, but the biggest problem I have here is that no matter how simple the problem is I not only cannot fix it but not even in any way make any indication to others there might be something that needs to be fixed, and on long articles it is not enough to read the intro, and go through the categories and determine that none of them have anything to do with religion, but I have to read every single paragraph, even if the edit is something that is an obvious discrepancy between the lead and a paragraph. Looking back I should not have made this request at all, and I should have only focused on something very narrow, but punishing me with an indefinate block (that in theory can be appealed after a year) for bad judgement on how to ask for a change in a topic ban makes no sense. I say the appeal can be appealed after a year "in theory", because no one has explained at all what would change in a year to cause people to even consider lifting a ban. In fact, those who argue "this is good for his mental health to stop him from doing something he really enjoys", show no evidence they would ever vote to overturn. Ever. No matter what happens.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Then there are statements like " I dont particularly find your views on a number of subjects all that endearing," from people supporting. How is that relevant to anything at all here. Unless they think that we should have articles with categories that totally do not match the content of the article and directly contradict them, what subject view is at play in whether I should be able to edit Wikipedia? OK, maybe my biggest annoance is people can and are basing this whole process on things that happened months ago, that have resulted in more regulations of what I can do. Which does not seem fair to use that as a basis for regulate me off of Wikipedia entirely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Re: "badgering", the principles I try to follow are (i) not to repeat myself in replies to multiple !votes, (ii) not to repeat what another editor has said in response to a !vote, (iii) never to add multiple comments at the same level of a discussion, and (iv) when replied to, never to reply at greater length than the reply I received. While I'm sure I sometimes fail at each of these, I'm trying to follow the principles involved in BLUDGEON. Newimpartial (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are telling me about your principles. Either you accept the point I and the other editor made or you don't. From my point of view, it's very noticeable how often you feel the need to tell the opposers that they are wrong: 1 in 3 opposers have comments from you directed at them - a very high proportion for a thread with so many editors posting. To at least 3 opposers you played the same emotive card of 'would you let Jews/other minority be treated the same way': [6], [7] and more subtly [8]. DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do you see that question as an emotive card rather than a logical comparator?

More generally, I don't think my comments (apart from some repetition of that one issue) have involved making the same argument over and over, to different people - the key point of BLUDGEON. Indeed, I have tried to develop my thinking progressively and to avoid repetition as much as I can. Newimpartial (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a dog whistle to Reductio ad Hitlerum. But the main point is the repetition. I haven't gone through all your comments because that would require more interest than I can muster, but I very much doubt that was the only instance of repetition. DeCausa (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it seriously isn't the Nazi card, just because "Jews" were an example I chose. The idea that any comparisons to antisemitism are therfore a dog whistle Nazi comparison seems bizarre to me and vaguely offensive.

My point was simply to question whether certain editors were treating anti-trans rhetoric differently than they would treat antisemitic or racist rhetoric. Frankly I find it very hard to believe that members of the community would be promoting such WP:BURO concerns as "it isn't a pattern yet" if an editor (much less an admin) had said that we have too many Jewish, or black, or female administrators, while leaving a trail of a handful of related comments to verify that yes, this really is what the editor thinks. How my comment transforms in your mind into Reductio ad Hitlerum I have no real idea, and I'm not sure I want to know. Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Perhaps the best argument that you're not bludgeoning a discussion isn't engaging in a back and forth about it on the talk page of a user that said you're bludgeoning a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think moving a discussion to a more appropriate venue ever counts as BLUDGEON. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please check the source I put before reverting next time

We haven't discussed the newly-cited source from the official Saudi embassy website which describes Majlis Ash-Shura as a legislative body. Descriptions of the system of governance should be stated as to what governments do. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@JohnnyPedro1998: Of course I checked your source. That's one of the reasons I reverted you. DeCausa (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

No clarifications given yet as to why you rejected the content cited from the government web page. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Surely it's obvious that the Saudi government isn't a reliable source for that? The North Korean govenrment claims it's democracy! There's plenty of RS that it's not a genuine legislature and naturally the Saudi government has a political incentive to present it differently to the world. DeCausa (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:FAPO. As I said before, the description of the system of governance should be stated as what governments proclaim it to be. The North Korea article still labels it a democracy with its own legislature, even though Saudi Arabia ranks better than North Korea in the Democracy Index. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"The description of the system of governance should be stated as what governments proclaim it to be" is your opinion and is neither Wikipedia policy nor fact. Our North Korea article most certainly does NOT call it a democracy. It would be ludicrous to do that and accept what the North Korean government says. Look at the infobox, it says: "Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship". That's because we ignore self-serving propaganda issued by governments (whether it's North Korea or Saudi Arabia) and reflect what reliable sources say. And reliable sources say that all legislative power is with the king and the Council of Ministers and the Consultaive Assemby is not a legislature. DeCausa (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It mentioned the fact it's a "socialist republic" which is what the country correctly identifies with, yet clarification was mentioned afterward. Going with your logic, the word "Democratic" should be omitted from the offical names of North Korea and the DRC since that's what they 'falsely' identify with. If a government says they identify as "X", Wikipedia SHOULD mention they're "X" regardless. Clarification can be mentioned later. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No. That's now how it works. "Democratic" is just part of it's official name, not a description of the country. We're not here to spout Saudi government propaganda. DeCausa (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Bro why did you revert my edit

I am new to wikipedia and I didn't know how to put a source properly in wikipedia. But I do remember putting the source at the end of the page. It is a very small yet interesting niche party in America. NO ONE literally talks about this. You may argue its relevancy but this is the only monarchist party currently alive in the United States of America so I think this should at least be mentioned in the Monarchism in the United States page. I hope you understand and thank you for reading this. Heneral Gregorio Del Pilar (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Heneral Gregorio Del Pilar: Hi, I appreciate you're new to Wikipedia. The text you added has a few problems in terms of Wikipedia's "policies" (as we call them, effectively they're the Wikipedia rules). I'll list them below as I think it may help with getting started with your editing here:

• You did put a source in, but it wasn't formatted properly (because of that one of the problems with it was it didn't appear in the citations list at the bottom). Have a look at Help:Referencing for beginners or Wikipedia:Citing sources which tells you how to do it.

• But even so, the source you used wouldn't be acceptable for the way you used it. One of the most important "rules" is that we must use only "reliable" sources. What these are is explained in two very important policies/guidelines which you will see often referred to by editors: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (often abbreviated to "RS"). Essentially, we should only use "independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The source used fails that because it was the website of the organization you wanted to write about. they could have said anything about themselves. What is needed is reliable mainstream media coverage or independently published books from a reputable author.

• The other problem is what we often call WP:UNDUE and is linked to the quality of the source. You should only give coverage to an organization (or any person/subject/fact/opinion etc) which reflects their overall significance to a topic - as evidenced by the amount of coverage they get in reliable sources. The amount of text you added about this organization was about a third of the length of the article. The fact that Washington was proposed as a monarch or that Hamilton favoured a monarchy are fairly significant facts. If the "United Monarchist Party of America" is one person in his basement in Idaho then there's no way that should get greater prominence (or even any mention). That's why we need independent reliable sources to judge how important it is in the overall scope of the topic - as well as getting the facts right. If that party has any sort of signicance it will be covered in the reliable media and may warrant a sentence or so about it. However, I have my doubts on that though.

• Probably the most important point is that you copied text from the website without putting it in quotation marks and making it clear that it was a direct quote. If you don't do that it could be a breach of copyright. This is a key thing for editing here - we must only use our own words unless it's a brief quotation where we make it clear that it is a direct quote. It's important that you read Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and WP:COPYVIO which explains this in more detail.

Hope that clarifies things - let me know if it doesn't. DeCausa (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright. I'll try to do better next time. Heneral Gregorio Del Pilar (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Wikipedia's rules arent straightforward and it takes a while to become familiar with them. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Tomb of Casimir IV Jagiellon

On 19 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tomb of Casimir IV Jagiellon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that of 12 experts who opened the tomb of a medieval Polish king in 1973, 10 died prematurely? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tomb of Casimir IV Jagiellon. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tomb of Casimir IV Jagiellon), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 22,343 views (931.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Hi, if you are interested, if you could spare just five minutes, please join this discussion Talk:Joseph Kallarangatt#Promoting conspiracy theories. Your thoughts are much appreciated. Thank you. 117.230.88.250 (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Kingdom of Wales

I have just noticed that you have deleted an entire accurately sourced Wikipedia page that I published for the Kingdom of Wales, which was a historical kingdom on the island of Great Britain from 1055-1063, you did this on the basis that there is already a “King of Wales” page, despite the fact that the “kingdom of Wales” page was about the kingdom itself, not the title of its ruler, they are two different topics. The page should be reinstated. IagoHughes (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not a real entity. It was a title that was used for less than a decade. But the main point is you literally word for word just completely copied another article. It adds nothing to the encyclopedia. If you had created the page rather than edit a redirect it would have been speedy deleted for duplication.DeCausa (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Jesus Article

Hello my friend, you may or may not remember me. Once again the Jesus article is being edited unnecessarily without consensus when the topic has been discussed extensively at Talk:Jesus/Archive 134. I suspect this may continue and I may need your help once again. The user that made the initial edit was User:Ebasti so just be aware of them. Many thanks for your continued help Thebighomie123 (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Leicester Square

any fan would be more interested to know the snackbar was in Leicester Sq than "the West End". Short of getting a letter from Mr Gadd, how am I supposed to prove it? Geekpie (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)