User talk:Ganbaruby
 | Welcome to Ganbaruby's talk page! Hit the "New section" button on the top right to start a new conversation. If I started a conversation first elsewhere, please reply there, and remember to include this code {{ping|Ganbaruby}} in the same edit to notify me of your reply. |
|
||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Teahouse Exchanged cont.
- Ascribe4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Hostagecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
@Ganbaruby: I tried replying on their talk page explaining that their claims were inaccurate. Among other things, User:Hostagecat repeatedly claimed AllMusic is unreliable and that I had not provide any sources when text did in fact have a citation, at the very end of the sentence they copy/pasted from. Instead of either accepting the facts I asserted or providing a clarification for what caused them to make such false claims they based their entire revert on—perhaps there was some sort of misunderstanding—Hostagecat broke off from discussion and filed an obscurant report. This complaint resulted in me receiving a warning by User:EdJohnston that I believe was undue. User:EdJohnston understandably had not been familiarized with the particularities of our conflict, accepted Hostagecat's claims without vetting if everything they said was accurate. When EdJohnston replied to me, for some reason they refrained from delving into the details I gave and instead turned their attention towards the 3rr and my earlier speculation that User:Hostagecat potentially might have been a sock, even though I had already stated Hostagecat has clarified they are not and that I assume good faith and believe them. EdJohnston has since moved on to other tasks without touching on the specific issues that I presented and has yet to respond to my request for assistance. --Ascribe4 (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ascribe4: This is a content dispute, which are solved by communicating with the other editor(s) to reach consensus. I don't see you trying hard enough to get to that consensus; you left one message, which was sadly unanswered, but then you go around badgering uninvolved editors to try to get them on your side instead of reaching out further. WP:3RR is a bright line rule, and 3+ reverts are a bannable offense, whatever the reason. The subject is outside of my realm of knowledge, so I have no opinion about any of this, and I don't know what you expect me to do about it. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 01:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ganbaruby:I left two messages on Hostagecat's page, following much communication via edit summaries. It was not and is not my intent to diminish the 3rr rule, it was just not the focus of my reaching out to others, so I do not understand the attempt to make it the focus rather the specific issues that were raised. Was the warning User:EdJohnston gave me specifically a product of the 3rr or for the obscurant report which I am trying to clarify that User:Hostagecat filed? I am assuming it is the latter as Hostagecat also had a 3rr but did not receive a warning. Either way, Hostagecat revert was based on false assertions regarding Wikipedia policies to begin with. Due to their avasivenss and flight, I simply sought out an editor to act as a mediator, preferrably the editors who had been previously involved, or point me towards one interested. Did not mean not bother, was just attempting to seek help to clarify issues relating to Wikipedia standards and resolve a conflict. --Ascribe4 (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello User:Ascribe4. Administrators can't make another editor agree with your changes, all we can do is be sure the proper steps are being followed. And nobody else has a duty to serve as a mediator. It seems you have made very little effort to actually engage Hostagecat. Why not write out a proposal for how to change the article at Talk:Operation: Doomsday#Issues with current state of the article. Your lack of response on the article talk is in contrast with the large edits you made to the article itself, about six times altogether in mid-February where you added 4,000 bytes or more. Hostagecat made some specific critiques of your version to which so far you've made no response. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ganbaruby:The mediation was simply request for assistance, not a demand of duty. That aside, I have to question if my attempts at discussion are truly only valid if they take place on an article talk page. As said before, I engaged directly with User:Hostagecat on their user talk page, which at first seemed sufficient, before they broke off from what I thought was assertive yet fairly cooperative discussion before filing the complaint. (I am trying to reach out again.) If you skim our discussion, you can see I had responded specifically to each of their critiques, explaining that AllMusic is deemed reliable on WP:RSMUSIC, getting them to concede that spelling errors were minor (i.e. removing the initials from the acronym "K.M.D.") and addressing how there was a citation as at the end of the my text, et al, all contrary to their previous claims. Rather than address how they came about making quite blatantly false assertions or if there was some sort of misinformation, they went and filed an obscurant report. It was taken at face value and I was given me the warning which I believe was undue.
- Considering that User:Hostagecat did not receive a warning despite also crossing a 3rr I must ask for clarification, was the warning specifically a product of the 3rr or for report itself? As I am trying to correct for the record, Hostagecat's entire revert and their report that came out of it were predicated on erroneous claims to begin with. It is the particular nature of these blatantly false claims Hostagecat made, which we all keep circumventing, moreso than than itself that I am trying to focus on, clarify and address. --Ascribe4 (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ascribe4: I don't see enough effort to communicate. Either the article talk or the user talk is fine, but try harder. Your recent comment is a step in the right direction. For the record, Hostagecat got a 3RR warning from me too. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 01:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ganbaruby: We are getting somewhat subjective with notion of what is enough. There is only so much I can do if I make an effort to communicate with someone (who appears to talk around me) on their talk page, and that person chooses to break off and file a report that gets me a separate warning. I made note of your 3rr with a link in my previous comment. I was referring to and trying to clarify the warning that User:EdJohnston gave me. Are they now aware the complaint that was filed and their warning was predicated on false assertions? Do they understand the user who came to them was basing their revert on falsehoods? If either of you are not inclined to believe me, one can easily just look on User:Hostagecat's talk page. --Ascribe4 (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ascribe4: Please, just move on. From what I can see, you broke 3RR and got a warning for it, which just means don't do it again. You're spending too much energy finger pointing and whining instead of actively engaging in conversation to try to improve the article. It's called bold revert discuss, not bold revert revert revert revert revert complain. I am not EdJohnston, nor do I intend to get involved in this content dispute; do not expect any more replies about this from me. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 00:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ganbaruby: Aside from being a first, I suppose was just perplexed that their revert, that this whole thing was based on claims that were simply just not true. And that the user I am engaging with refrains from addressing them, even now. I thought other editors would be quite concerned with a user going around making false claims and filing reports predicated on them. But I think I understand that from the perspective one completely unengaged with the conflict, they probably do not see any relevant difference between the two of us, so this consequently comes of as "finger pointing" to use your words on my part; even though everything I have stated can be verified just be skimming that one section on Hostagecat's talk page. I get the lack on interest, thanks for your time. If their are any other issue, I will consider your earlier proposals. --Ascribe4 (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ascribe4: Please, just move on. From what I can see, you broke 3RR and got a warning for it, which just means don't do it again. You're spending too much energy finger pointing and whining instead of actively engaging in conversation to try to improve the article. It's called bold revert discuss, not bold revert revert revert revert revert complain. I am not EdJohnston, nor do I intend to get involved in this content dispute; do not expect any more replies about this from me. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 00:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ganbaruby: We are getting somewhat subjective with notion of what is enough. There is only so much I can do if I make an effort to communicate with someone (who appears to talk around me) on their talk page, and that person chooses to break off and file a report that gets me a separate warning. I made note of your 3rr with a link in my previous comment. I was referring to and trying to clarify the warning that User:EdJohnston gave me. Are they now aware the complaint that was filed and their warning was predicated on false assertions? Do they understand the user who came to them was basing their revert on falsehoods? If either of you are not inclined to believe me, one can easily just look on User:Hostagecat's talk page. --Ascribe4 (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ascribe4: I don't see enough effort to communicate. Either the article talk or the user talk is fine, but try harder. Your recent comment is a step in the right direction. For the record, Hostagecat got a 3RR warning from me too. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 01:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello User:Ascribe4. Administrators can't make another editor agree with your changes, all we can do is be sure the proper steps are being followed. And nobody else has a duty to serve as a mediator. It seems you have made very little effort to actually engage Hostagecat. Why not write out a proposal for how to change the article at Talk:Operation: Doomsday#Issues with current state of the article. Your lack of response on the article talk is in contrast with the large edits you made to the article itself, about six times altogether in mid-February where you added 4,000 bytes or more. Hostagecat made some specific critiques of your version to which so far you've made no response. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ganbaruby:I left two messages on Hostagecat's page, following much communication via edit summaries. It was not and is not my intent to diminish the 3rr rule, it was just not the focus of my reaching out to others, so I do not understand the attempt to make it the focus rather the specific issues that were raised. Was the warning User:EdJohnston gave me specifically a product of the 3rr or for the obscurant report which I am trying to clarify that User:Hostagecat filed? I am assuming it is the latter as Hostagecat also had a 3rr but did not receive a warning. Either way, Hostagecat revert was based on false assertions regarding Wikipedia policies to begin with. Due to their avasivenss and flight, I simply sought out an editor to act as a mediator, preferrably the editors who had been previously involved, or point me towards one interested. Did not mean not bother, was just attempting to seek help to clarify issues relating to Wikipedia standards and resolve a conflict. --Ascribe4 (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Edit Request
Hello there, as for the second edit request that I sent to make some fixings on Algerian War page, it seems that no one answering in the "consensus" there. Can you please look at the talk page there and make the changes with some of the sources I had provided? What is written there is not serious. Do I need to wait to pass the 4 days so I could make the changes by myself? Dr Holy Joker (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't know, even Ganbaruby didn't reply to the message yet. Editor1234567891011121314151617 (Put here your chat stuff) 11:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Temples in Keelung
A tag has been placed on Category:Temples in Keelung requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Module:Adjacent stations/Iyotetsu
Module:Adjacent stations/Iyotetsu has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review
Dear editors, developers and friends:
Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.
Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.
Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Rosa (company)
Hello, Ganbaruby. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rosa (company), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Please Help Me
Good day, I am trying to make correct edits with sources provided, but there are vandals who are trying to get rid of it. I am trying to help, so could you please ban them from the page "Jessica Guo"? Thank you very much Sabre Fencer Canada