User talk:Bus stop: Difference between revisions

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Land art

Appreciate your watching this page: Jacek Tylicki, thanks...Modernist (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, Modernist. Bus stop (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Matthew Gordon Banks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Matthew Gordon Banks. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out

[1]...Modernist (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Student financial aid

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Student financial aid. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent change on American Jews

I undid your revert, because rather than giving an explanation for it, you stated an opinion. Whatever problems you may or may not have with my additions, please express them on the talk page.

Thank you. The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Jews talk page

I wanted to draw your attention to my edit here [2]. I am disappointed that you would invoke frames of reference, only to immidiately insist on one singlular frame. I was hoping we could talk about this rather than edit past each other. Newimpartial (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I agree that it is a good idea to drop the discussion on the talk page, which had drifted off-topic. However, when you say "You are convinced that we are discussing distinguishing between black people and white people, but that is not what we are discussing. What we are discussing is the distinguishing between Jews who are white (the majority of Jews) and non-Jews who are white", you are clearly missing my point. If it is not possible to tell between white and non-white (or black and non-black) people "by looking", then logically it is not possible to tell between white and non-white Jewish-Americans "by looking". So, to give a specific example, in the 2020 U.S. census (assuming that the MENA classification goes through), American Jews born of two Moroccan Jewish parents would have no choice in the census instructions but to identify with the new MENA group, and therefore would not be considered "white" for census purposes. Do you really think you can tell "by looking" that they aren't white? Or are you saying that they really *are* white, even though for most purposes people from Northern Africa are not considered "white" - perhaps this is most obviously true in Europe, but it is also true in Canada and increasingly true in the U.S. How can you not see that this is relevant to the question of which Jews are "white"?Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time

I can use input here:[3]...Modernist (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I think it was you that was the target of Joseph A. Spadaro (talk · contribs) wrath that bought him a 3-month block. Do you think 3 months is kind of harsh? I had thought to raise that question with the blocking admin - but it's really not my business, it's more like your call, since he was attacking you, not me (not this time, anyway). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, replying to your post on his talk page: He isn't blocked because he got into an argument with you; I mean, if we blocked everyone who got into an argument ... there would be no one left. You are not at risk of blocking. No one is blocked because they disagreed with someone else.

He is blocked for repeatedly using personal attacks, belittling comments, and insults, even after he was warned to stop, after a long history of doing the same thing to other people. I would never consider a block like that if it wasn't a pattern of behavior. Because of that pattern, I don't plan to unblock or reduce the block based on your comments. However, your comments might be considered by any admin reviewing the block, that's up to them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Galkayo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Galkayo. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Sven Hassel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sven Hassel. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Bus stop. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Salvator Mundi (Leonardo)

Hello Bus stop, could you keep an eye on this article Salvator Mundi (Leonardo), and it's Talk page. There seems to be much contentious editing going on, especially with regard to authenticity (See latest in Talk). Thanks. Coldcreation (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Coldcreation. I appreciate being alerted to this. Bus stop (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bus stop. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

That was a nice external link you added to the Rape article. I think the writer used Wikipedia for some of the text because it was word for word in one part of the article. I expect, though, that your addition will eventually be removed by other editors for reasons known only to them. But I wanted you to know that I appreciate your addition to the article. I hope it remains. I liked it. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Energy East

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Energy East. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2018 will be safe, successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Modernist! Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for the holidays

		Season's Greetings
		Happy Holiday Season Bus stop and best wishes for the New Year! Coldcreation (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Coldcreation! Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Art Gallery of Ontario

Not sure, but you may be interested in this conversation about the gallery section of Art Gallery of Ontario. Coldcreation (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I'm very sorry for writing very late. Thanks for you answer there Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2017_October_20#Commons_Category:Paintings_by_name--Pierpao (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Pierpao, and thank you for the question. Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:So Far Away (Martin Garrix and David Guetta song)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:So Far Away (Martin Garrix and David Guetta song). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee—what did I do? I realize that the discretionary sanctions say that it does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date but is there something I said that suggests I might do something else that might upset the proverbial applecart? Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at this time, although I would recommend against making statements like this one which allude to a broad world racism, without evidence. I know your intent wasn't bad, it's just not an entirely helpful part of your comment (your point could have been made without it is all I'm saying). But, no big worries at all, just wanted to inform you of the applicable DS system since you edited in the topic area.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the heads up, Coffee. Bus stop (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda Arendt. "Decency art" sounds like an art movement. I guess it is the counterpart to that other famous art movement, "indecency art". Thank you for the recognition. I appreciate it. Bus stop (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

forgive me to enjoy strange combinations in the header line, for brevity ;) - Today, I arrived at "horror sports". - Yours was longer last year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Horror sports" sounds very gruesome. Do they use protective gear? Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt—I hope I didn't offend. I wanna say I thank you again for the recognition. Bus stop (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the user writes about horror films and sports events ;) - enjoy the prize from the cabal of the outcasts! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Dorothy Tarrant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dorothy Tarrant. Legobot (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Douche Canoe

If you search ANI incidents you will see that harsh douche canoe is a well-used phrase in Wikipedia. I have restored your removal of my comment. I'm sorry you don't like the phrase, but do not edit my comments. Any negative connotation that you perceive in the phrase is all in your head. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resource officer

We've established with great effort that we are not going to name Peterson in the context of failing to engage the shooter. So now you're going to name him in a different context? Do you think people can make the connection via "school resource officer"? I think many can. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Revert it. I was only trying to clear up the typo. Bus stop (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't revert it, I'm 3RR-impotent. Anyway the typo needs to be cleared up. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it. Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article still names Peterson - because you named him. That's the problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the Talk page by accident. Now it is taken care of. Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article still incorrectly states Peterson High School. It's beyond me why you refuse to follow through on the correction you started—without naming the individual we have agreed not to name. How difficult can this be? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That's a good edit. I was unfamiliar with the previous instances of referring to him as the "school resource officer". Bus stop (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

question

Please keep an eye on this:[4], thanks...Modernist (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Modernist. Bus stop (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Andrew Wakefield

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andrew Wakefield. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP/N Stephon Clark

Hello BS. RE: This [5].
I have not mentioned WP:COATRACK anywhere. Please correct your misstatement about my position. I presume you meant no harm. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 12:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this remedies the problem I caused, SPECIFICO. Please accept my sincere apology. Bus stop (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Vevo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vevo. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

May I infer from this edit that you now understand the discussion in which you were taking part? (In particular, that Uanfala was not characterizing the edit in question as vandalism?) --JBL (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It would have been polite to leave at least an edit summary explaining your removal: you pinged me twice, leaving me with notifications that pointed to nothing. --JBL (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does it help when multiple people point out your error? We shall see. --JBL (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think everyone will be grateful if you drop whatever you have with that post by Piotrus. This is not remotely relevant to the discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uanfala—you say "Let's talk about the thread then." And then when I ask you a followup question—I asked it multiple times—you cease talking to me. You were editing elsewhere but you were not responding to me despite being pinged. Such is not the basis for honest and forthcoming discussion. I see that you are a capable editor. I ask you to sustain a discussion with me if you initiate a discussion with me. I'm saying this here rather than at AN/I because I don't want to appear petty or offended. But in general this discussion should be taking place in the relevant section of the AN/I page. Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I thought it was obvious I wasn't inviting you for a general discussion of that thread, but of the involvement of Bugs there – he was the subject of the whole discussion. And your own behaviour there seems to me like a sustained attempt to emulate the behaviour that is currently getting him banned from ANI. – Uanfala (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are inviting me to talk about or not inviting me to talk about. I just respond to whatever you post on my Talk page with the hope that I can persuade you that Bugs' participation in the thread about the blocked student-editor mistaken for vandalism-editing by multiple administrators and non-administrators might not rate him a 100% grade for editor participation at AN/I but I think it would rate him an 80% to 90% range—not anywhere near requiring a block. We should stop holding ourselves in such positions of righteousness. Much else was wrong with that earlier thread which I tried to point out in the present thread. When you have a cacophony of competing aims, participants try to shout louder than one another—not because they wish to be overbearing but because they wish their analysis of an underlying situation to be heard. I think it was only in haste that Bugs accused the initiator of the thread of reinserting a problematic edit. I believe that in his quick perusal of the sequence of edits that were interpreted as vandalism that Bugs saw what he thought was a reinsertion of the problematic material by the initiator of that thread. He quickly apologized. I assume good faith. I could address other points but this is long enough. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...for your support. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have been blocked, Baseball Bugs. Just my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't blocked, just temp-banned from ANI... which is probably just as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bourdain

@Bus stop:, can you explain why suicide is "not important enough" to be in the lede? It is the single most prominent aspect of recent news coverage, and, like the case of Robin Williams, it will long be associated with the name Anthony Bourdain.

I'm normally not one to engage in edit-warring, but unless you can offer a persuasive argument based on editorial factors, rather than personal ones, I will feel compelled to put it back. Thank you. Sca (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sca, I hope you don't mind but I moved this to Talk:Anthony Bourdain#Bourdain suicide in lead so that others may weigh in. Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Western dress codes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Western dress codes. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DS 1RR

You may be interested to know that you've violated 1RR on the Trump talk page.

The fact is that the text is already bolded because it was moved to header formatting and so your revert changes nothing. Nevertheless please be careful about reverts. 19:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—is the above post by you? Did you sign it? Bus stop (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's me. Signature didn't work right. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO—can you tell me why in this edit, this edit, and this edit you add bolding to the word "religion" in the section subheadings? Bus stop (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO—why are you saying in this edit summary that it is "clearer to leave them bold"? Do you not understand that "Boldface...is considered appropriate only for certain usages."? Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are both wrong. The 1RR rule applies to the article, not talk pages. WP:MOS applies to the article pages, not talk pages. 198.58.163.19 (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the stick

Can you seriously just stop ruining the Afd for Messen de Clerq? Your arguments are so repetitive and awful, and you just cannot stop repeating them and ruining the Afd. Maybe that is your strategy. Anyway, as I said there, it would be great if you could stick a sock in it and restrain yourself. Silence is golden.198.58.156.206 (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Competence says "A person should be able to collaborate with other editors". How about trying that?198.58.163.19 (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Disruptive Editing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meessen De Clercq

Warning Your persistent badgering of other editors in the ongoing AfD discussion is unconstructive and disruptive. Your belief that you are right does not excuse this behavior which is inconsistent with the type of collegial discussion we try to foster at AfD and elsewhere in the project. In addition to the obvious effort to WP:Bludgeon your fellow editors the walls of highly repetitive text that you have posted make the discussion unwieldy and are likely to discourage others from joining in. You have already been asked to stop this behavior, repeatedly, and yet you persist. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am no longer asking. I am telling you to desist. This should be understood as a formal warning. Ignoring it may result in your being blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem—I hope this edit is acceptable. It is an edit I made to that AfD which is more about procedure than about argument—simply that I should not be characterized (twice) in that thread as having a real life interest that precludes me from being objective about the article under consideration for deletion. If it needs to be stated—I have nothing to do with that art gallery. I never heard of it until the AfD was introduced. Bus stop (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made this edit, Ad Orientem. I hope it is OK, as it is only a question, and partly out of curiosity. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted again, Ad Orientem, I think in a restrained way. I hope this post is within limits. Bus stop (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits at the same AfD amount to more badgering, walls of text and general messing-up of the AfD. I think a block is in order, since you have now intentionally ignored the request to stop such activity.Notifying @Ad Orientem: to assess. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, for the love of G--. Please. I don't want to insist you to stay off the discussion entirely but you promised to be cautious and restrained. Some of your more recent edits have been insane. On which note @ 96.127.242.226, is there anything that hasn't been said that is relevant? I am going to advise both of you to bow out of this discussion. Seriously. It's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking 96.127.242.226 if they have anything else to say, Ad Orientem. The answer is of course not. That is why they are repeatedly telling me that my input constitutes badgering. They have told me that on the AfD discussion page three times[6][7][8] and they are crying that now on my Talk page. This is just a game to shut me up. I have an account. That is an important difference between my participation in that AfD and the participation of 96.127.242.226, also known as 104.163.157.79, also known as 198.58.163.19. This is just a game. Bus stop (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the game continues, Ad Orientem. Bus stop (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ENOUGH I have posted on the discussion. This incessant bickering stops now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Stev´nn Hall , improvements available at Draft:Stev´nn Hall

Hi Bus stop, thanks for your valued contribution in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stev´nn Hall. As the creator of Stev´nn Hall, I have made an alternative, hopefully improved text for the entry, now located at Draft:Stev´nn Hall. I wonder whether to change now the original page to this newly modified version or to wait until the discussion develops further. At any event you are welcome to use the new draft at your discretion to improve the original at any time. Thanks once again. Neuralia (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neuralia—I think you should just make improvements in "article-space". I don't think it is necessary to work on a draft even though the article is under consideration for deletion. I believe work can still be done directly on the article at the same time that a discussion concerning the possibility of deletion is taking place. I would consider informing the discussion on deletion of important changes you've made to the article since it was nominated for deletion. But I'm not an administrator. For expert advice you might pose a question to an admin. Bus stop (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Kunan

As a contributor to Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue#Saman Kunan article you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saman Kunan. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Cathy Newman

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cathy Newman. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the start

So on the talk page I have outlined the main concerns you have with how terms are used and sources ....pls try to follow BRD is the future as its one of the basics that keeps things moving forward here. I take it all should be fine now that your aware of the sources and how terms are used .....if not will ask others to explain more and get others POV. - Moxy (talk)

Notice of discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - violating BLP and asking others to

In your comments:

here 21:17, 25 August 2018

Done

here 22:13, 25 August 2018

Done

here 22:28, 25 August 2018

Done

here 15:47, 26 August 2018

Done

You violate BLP by giving your own opinion on the question of whether Prager "targets multiculturalism" and you ask others to give their opinions on how he does that - you are trying to draw others into violating BLP. Please strike these comments and please stop doing that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC) (redact)[reply]

Thanks for this. Our feelings and opinions and original research are not relevant in WP; please base discussion on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have left statements demanding others violate BLP and do WP:OR to provide evidence supporting what a source says, and indeed added a new instance, as shown above. Please finish striking. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog—I've referenced this in an inquiry at Wikipedia:Teahouse to be found here. Bus stop (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are treating BLP like a game. It is not a game. And of course people at the teahouse are not going to judge a BLP violation. That is not what they do there. This will end up at AE tomorrow if the rest are not struck. Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I took a quick look at the linked diffs and am thinking that labeling them as BLP vios might be a stretch. Editors need to be able to discuss controversial topics relating to BLP subjects and the article talk page is normally where that occurs. That said, I am somewhat concerned about WP:FORUM. There is a fine line between discussing controversial claims in a manner that is pertinent to the encyclopedic mission (i.e. is reliable sourcing adequate?) and getting into a political discussion, which is not. I would gently suggest you steer clear of discussions related to controversial issues that are not directly relevant to improving the article. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"targeting" multiculturalism

Since you asked how Prager targets multiculturalism: He does so, for example, by writing an article called "1,400 English Girls Raped by Multiculturalism"^[1] and by saying "The West is committing suicide through the vehicle of multiculturalism". ^[2]. Vexations (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to decline to discuss this, Vexations. But thank you for your input. Bus stop (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.nationalreview.com/2014/09/1400-english-girls-raped-multiculturalism-dennis-prager/

[2] ttp://www.dennisprager.com/prager-20170323-2-multiculturalism/

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 367: / Line 367: @@
 ::{{u|Jytdog}}—I've referenced this in an inquiry at [[Wikipedia:Teahouse]] to be found [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#concerning the striking of comments on a BLP|here]]. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop#top|talk]]) 20:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 ::::You are treating BLP like a game. It is not a game. And of course people at the teahouse are not going to judge a BLP violation. That is not what they do there. This will end up at AE tomorrow if the rest are not struck. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 05:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
+*{{stalker}} I took a quick look at the linked diffs and am thinking that labeling them as BLP vios might be a stretch. Editors need to be able to discuss controversial topics relating to BLP subjects and the article talk page is normally where that occurs. That said, I am somewhat concerned about [[WP:FORUM]]. There is a fine line between discussing controversial claims in a manner that is pertinent to the encyclopedic mission (i.e. is reliable sourcing adequate?) and getting into a political discussion, which is not. I would gently suggest you steer clear of discussions related to controversial issues that are not directly relevant to improving the article. Best regards... -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 06:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 == "targeting" multiculturalism ==