User talk:Bus stop

Please don't mess up my recently archived Talk page by posting anything that fails to meet my standards, which will be explained at a later time.

Your contributions

Bus stop, you and I have never really interacted but we've contributed to some of the same articles and talk page discussions. I just wanted to let you know that I hope you will not allow certain editors to bring you down, especially those who launch rude and unprovoked personal insults at you. I may not always agree with your positions, but you have shown yourself to be a very well-intentioned and friendly editor who cares a lot about improving articles. When someone disagrees with you, you show a great interest in understanding their arguments, effectively communicating with good, relevant questions in a very patient manner. Also, you have an excellent ability to remain civil in the face of incivility. I think you're a valuable contributor to this project, and I therefore hope you will always keep that in mind whenever you're dealing with strong opposition. You obviously care a lot about improving articles and the integrity of this project. We need more editors like you. So stay strong. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the encouragement. I was thinking of posting on your Talk page. I wanted to encourage you to create an WP:ACCOUNT. I can understand not wanting to lose edit history. But maybe you could incorporate a few of the present characters into a user name and announce (repeatedly?) your previous identity? The string of characters is an eyesore. But the choice is yours. Thanks again for the compliments. Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I appreciate your input about creating an account. For now, you can just call me Eyesore and I'll know who you're talking to. :) 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not hard to figure out that I'm one of the "certain editors", and I think I'll respond to the criticism.
I'll cop to being very direct and pointed on the rare occasion when I feel the need to offer criticism, and I understand that's annoying to some. I work on it constantly and I'm proud of—and surprised at—the progress I've made on it during my Wikipedia tenure. One of the reasons I stick around, when there are good reasons to quit, is that Wikipedia is a great place to work on improving things like patience. To the extent I'm not yet the person I'd like to be, I apologize. But I do not launch rude and unprovoked personal insults at anybody, by Wikipedia standards. Anybody who feels that I do is entitled to their opinion (and it's telling that they choose not to test their viewpoint at WP:ANI—rude and unprovoked personal insults would be a clear and sanctionable violation of WP:NPA).
One thing I'm still learning is how to stop responding to endless debate that won't affect the outcome. I just keep getting sucked back in. I'm trying again.
Bus stop, I know your heart is in the right place and your only interest is in improving the encyclopedia according to your views about what would be improvement. I have never doubted that for a second. I hope you know that about me. Cheers,―Mandruss ☎ 19:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Mandruss. Bus stop (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Fred

I think I was being fair enough. He is putting "himself" up for election, on a ticket of ridding the project of those he sees as bothersome. Note also that he is living in the distant past, and I think he means Giano, Eric (both effectively long gone) and now me :) Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

My motivation for weighing in here is to restore normalcy. I don't have a dog in this fight. Bus stop (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Dont understand that thinking but ok. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know much about the origins of the animosity that erupted at the bottom of this page. Nor am I that inclined to get up to speed on the matter. I know what WP:CIVIL is and I know that its exact meaning can be debated. It occurred to me to ask the candidate if they perceived any areas that are technically violations of WP:CIVIL but which can be considered acceptable. The three questions I formulated are designed to accomplish that purpose. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are innocently walking into this and taking everybody at face value, and to hell with the past, I'm judging on the here and now only. It didnt start "at the bottom of the page", read the rest of the page, but if you dont get it then that's your luxury. I dont really give a shit what you think, but you voiced against me at AN/I, and here is my perspective. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil—one either uses a forum in a valid way or not. You called someone "a caste conscious warrior", you told them that they "come across as a surly, dismissive and cranky, monosyllabic CIV warrior" and you asked them "[w]hy the hell should we elect you again"? Is that a legitimate use of a candidate screening process? Finally, the thread at AN/I was initiated by you. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

(Sorry for jumping in, Bus, but I just wanted to say something.) Ceoil, if you "dont really give a shit" what Bus thinks, then why did you come here and start this thread? And then respond to Bus twice? It sounds like what you're really saying is that you only give a shit about someone's opinion if they take your side. Just saying. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it was an obtuse way of expressing that i only give a shit if the person giving the opinion is somebody I respect, as in this case. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"[W]hy did you come here and start this thread?" I think their purpose is to lodge a complaint. Do I feel bad? Yes. It is an unfortunate encounter. I have enjoyed seeing Ceoil around, occasionally interacting, and they always have amazingly good images on their Talk and User pages. But I would have felt creepy about myself if I turned a blind eye to the ongoing skirmish at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Fred Bauder/Questions and then Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I regret the whole thing but I think it was unavoidable. Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Point taken Bus stop. I would'nt have posted here but I have respected you for years. Given your reply above, then now I understand. There is a lot of history behind what happened, but none of it to do with you. Would be pleased if you were to let this be a bygone and accept my apology for posting here after the fact. I was upset, but misdirected. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not a problem, Ceoil, and thank you for that expressed sentiment. Wikipedia can be a particle collider in which human beings are the particles. Collaborative editing is just a euphemism. Bus stop (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, art history seems to be an area that is one of the few exceptions, well except for modern periods were image use becomes a problem, sigh. I get a kick (and learn a lot) from the fact that we have some very knowledgeable and rational subject experts knocking about, incl yourself. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know nothing. But that doesn't stop me from pontificating. Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

My impression is that you know quite a bit, but will respect your modesty and not tell anybody. Ceoil (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Your efforts are very admirable. Just a random thought: editing Wikipedia has to be one of the worst hobbies anyone can have if their health is negatively affected by stress. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I sleep like a baby. Nothing upsets me. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe that's why you're a very good editor. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You "have" to be to keep sane in this place. Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

More input needed

Yesterday (Saturday), I asked the editor who started the consensus discussion on the Thousand Oaks shooting talk page if they would please publicize it since the "vote" is about 50/50. They did not reply to me. Today (Sunday), the editor posted this "Progress" comment in the discussion, but I don't see any mention of the discussion being publicized anywhere. I'll be gone until late tonight or tomorrow, but I wanted to let you know about it. It's a very important discussion, so I think inviting comments would be a good idea so we can try to get consensus one way or the other. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thousand Oaks

Re: [1]

Ok, I'm not going to participate in adding more clutter on that page, but I can't ignore comments like this. So let's do it here instead.

Are there any reasons that we should omit the victims' names and ages? Facepalm! Yes there are, and that's what we have been putting on that page for a couple of days now. You don't accept our reasons. You are not convinced. We get it. We are not convinced by your reasons, either. That's not at all unusual in Wikipedia discussions, in fact it's routine. You still don't get WP:SATISFY.

There is rarely one "correct" answer on a Wikipedia content issue. Almost always, there are only differing viewpoints. Editors state their viewpoints, and their viewpoints prevail or they don't. The world is not black-and-white but rather continuous shades of gray. So is Wikipedia editing.

I know you're not trolling us, but your comments there are becoming indistinguishable from trolling. I am honestly flabbergasted that a editor with your intelligence and experience is unable to grasp this simple concept. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You are linking to this but you are not linking to this. I removed the edit. I reverted myself. Bus stop (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Now perhaps we can agree to disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision

Look, that whole page has gone way of the rails. Dennis and I, and some others, have agreed to stop posting, to allow the page to calm down and consensus to form. I read your last post to me, but there is nothing new there. You are sticking to you opinion, and asking me to clarify and/verify mine. Read through all my comments, along with all the other opposer's comments, the answers you seek should be there. You can support this in the end as that is your right. But where does it end? Do we list every single person killed in 9/11? Or at Pearl Harbor? What about all ≈58,000+ US military killed in Vietnam? How many is ok and how many is to many? I'll leave you with those thoughts. But for now at least, I'm done posting there. - wolf 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bus stop. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Bus stop. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yoninah—I see you've taken care of it. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

But I still have a question about canvassing. Does it apply to that page? Yoninah (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Honestly I do not know but I think editors commonly communicate with other editors. Bus stop (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Note

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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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 wumbolo ^^^ 15:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A trout, for that fishing expedition

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

This is for the I'm-not-listening act at this thread (in response to Eli355's !vote), in which you badgered a respondent while accusing them of badgering, refused to drop the stick after multiple editors asked you to, and were offering an interpretation for which you had no evidence and which turned out to be completely wrong. Mandruss was being entirely reasonable in asking Eli355 if that editor's meaning was "All modern-day mass killing articles should list the names of all of the dead". You denied this interpretation was plausible, but this is exactly what Eli355 says they meant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Re this, I'm not going to add to the problem you create with repetitive over-commenting in discussions, cluttering them to the point that new arrivals don't take the time to read any existing discussion. This is another example. Stop repeatedly demanding that others make a case that convinces you. That is not how it works, and it's exceedingly annoying that you still don't get it. You are not required to be convinced. If you continue with that in that discussion or others, at some point it will be worth somebody's time to take you to ANI on a disruptive editing complaint. That of course would be an early step on the path to a community ban. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, Mandruss. In my opinion I personalized the discussion. I will strike through my comments to you as they were a little strident and a bit over the top. Bus stop (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

We have a shortcut about this, as I recall: WP:SATISFY.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we know. I've linked that for Bus stop at least three times in the past several months, in various venues. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings

	Seasons Greetings
	Wishing you all the best and continued success for 2019 and keep on going. Yes I don't know how to do basic white on black, sorry! Ceoil (talk)

Season's Greetings, Ceoil—Thank you! Bus stop (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Strikethrough

Just FYI, the HTML element for that is <s>...</s>. The <strike>...</strike> one hasn't been valid HTML since the 1990s.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2019 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Bus stop! You created a thread called Editing dispute, possible next steps at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Charlie Patton

Thank you for the wonderful song that I had never heard before. Something in return [2]. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Ceoil! Bus stop (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Palace - Come In. (ps yes love Janice, the Palace song always reminds me of the stones "cant always get what you want") Ceoil (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Puzzledvegetable (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I just want to clarify one point. I completely agree with you when it comes to your opinions about the IDF. I've been to Israel, I have relatives that either live there or have been studying there for a considerable time, and I wholeheartedly support Israel. It is the only democratic country in a region characterized by dictatorial governments, and that is not lost on me. However, this article is biased towards the IDF. It contains a lot of subjective terms that make the IDF seem perfect. I fear that if the article is like this, people will be inclined not to treat the information as seriously as they otherwise might. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it needs to be impartial in order to present its information in a meaningful way. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC) + edit

Do you think it is the most productive thing to add a Peacock notice? If you feel the article "contains a lot of subjective terms that make the IDF seem perfect"—why not just work on those specific problems? No one knows which specific areas you have in mind because the Peacock notice is nonspecific. I think you should consider removing that notice after a limited period of time. I haven't worked on this article to any real extent so I may be unaware of its problems. But I just thought I'd mention that the notice on the top of the article seems to me to be counterproductive. (Just my opinion.) But maybe short-term it announces intention to address a certain sort of problem. There is always room for improvement. (My motto.) Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I personally don't think any of these notices are productive, because I've never seen any of them do anything, but I also see no harm in having it there. I will try to replace subjective words, but if it gets me the attention that my last attempt did, I just might not have the patience. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

That is why it's called collaborative editing. Didn't you notice the collaboration? Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

My response to your last question on Stefan Molynuex's BLP discussion

Hello Bus stop,

I wrote this out and it took me forever. The point seems moot, but I'd figure I post anyway since you apologized. You asked why I didn't add the sources to the Stefan Molyneux article page, here is my response and an analysis with the hopes of preventing confusion in the future:

Bus stop I didn't added those sources to the main article because:

1. I didn't provide the sources, that was MPants at work

2. because I hadn't read those sources yet

3. because I was trying to read everything in the White genocide conspiracy theory section of Stefan Molyneux's talk page and this BLP page before commenting (Due diligence).

Generally speaking it seemed like you had your mind made up before discussing with other editors. You immediately repeated what Jwray said as if it was an obvious fact--both of you stating that "RNZ is the TMZ of New Zealand" which isn't just saying it's politically biased (like if you compared it to Air America), it's WP:Battleground behavior. Any knowledge of RNZ or even a passing glance at it's Wikipedia shows it's more like National Public Radio for NZ. Characterizing a public radio station as at all like TMZ, even if it's not in bad faith, is negligent and breaking WP:CIVIL.

So things got off to a bad start, but then it seemed like you were either not seeing people replying to you like here or were saying things like:

"The article is presently using the direct quote. (In the past it had been using a paraphrase.) But that only makes the matter worse. We are inserting an internal link into a quote. I think this is sometimes acceptable and sometimes not acceptable. I don't think the nature of the White genocide conspiracy theory article lends it to insertion within a quote. Such an internal link would be better placed in the See also section."

Like you just restated the same opinion you've already said before and still without a source. This is frustrating, especially for a newbie like me. This response took me forever, mostly because I was learning how to do things and making sure I understood everything around the discussion. So when you said:

"we would not be at liberty to tar and feather the subject of a biography even if it were not a BLP. I am ignorant of the policy, but I'm sure there is one, that compels us to paraphrase instead of quote a source..."

Better decisions could be to just go find the policy, ask another editor, or better yet try creating a new or more specific policy. Wikipedia is not a forum so pontificating on policy that may or may not exist is not why we are here. Researching policies and taking initiative to find other sources (instead of complaining about just one). It saves us all time, keeps Wikipedia consistent, you'll learn things (and be able to teach them), and then it won't be he said, she said or "I think..."

TL;DR Spend more time crafting your own response that is well sourced and is up to date with the current discussion. I did not feel that I could give a good response until it was clear that you had missed something that I didn't. Let me know what you think! Or not, totally up to you.

Cheers,

Pokerplayer513 (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard tussle

Just wanted to thank you for sticking up for me the other day. I was reminded when I did something similar and I was hoping the other editor would defend himself against the erroneous charges. But I've found it's a lot easier to stand up for someone else than it is to stand up for yourself in here. And I'm sure you've noticed, it's not very productive when it involves MPants. I think his assertions and my edits speak for themselves so I don't feel the need to entertain his attacks, but I didn't want you to feel like I left you out to dry. I'd like to echo what Eye Sore said. We need more editors like you. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Everybody's got a saving grace. Eyesores are a beautiful thing. It just depends on how you see them. Thank you for your kind words. Bus stop (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

Regarding your latest edits at Jewish religious clothing. Don't you think an experienced editor like you should refrain from edit warring. In general, I mean. It becomes bothersome, no? Especially in this case, where there are two editors who disagree with you. And the discussion s ongoing. Please also take WP:BRD to heart. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Flore (artist)

Please leave out little back and forth at Flore (artist) collapsed. there's no need to conceptualize wiki space as a battleground. I'm planning on avoiding any interaction with you in future, and suggest you do the same. We obviously disagree often enough on trivial things for it it to be a hindrance to the editing process.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jewish religious clothing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jewish religious clothing. Legobot (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Should not be altered after they have been replied to (as you did here [[3]]).Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven—that was more along the lines of an edit conflict. I apologize. Why not just remove or alter your edit so that the sequence of comments make sense? Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You did not even bother to read the post you were replying to, why therefore should I see any value in continuation of that discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

"You did not even bother to read the post you were replying to". I thought I read it. I made a mistake. I misread it. I apologize. Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Policy violation

As stated in my edit summary, your revert is in violation of the Wikipedia policy WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." This is regardless of how many editors immediately present are unaware of the policy or choose to ignore it. Please self-revert and, if you like, seek consensus for inclusion on the talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A different editor has started the talk page discussion, so all that remains is to remove the disputed content pending a consensus to include it. Since you're an ethical person I trust you'll do that in the spirit of fair play, just as I would respect a consensus to include a list despite disagreeing with it. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

good faith editors

Also read others responses, maybe if you had done that here [[4]] you might have realized that in fact I has said exactly what you were asking for clarification as (as I do in fact literally say what you think I might not have realized I was saying).Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lady Louise Windsor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lady Louise Windsor. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for American politics

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 shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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 the 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.  Bishonen | talk 15:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC).

Hi, Bus stop. I believe your previous DS alert for American politics has expired. Bishonen | talk 15:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC).

Disruption continues at Aurora, Illinois shooting

You have three experienced editors asking you drop the stick, and no experienced editors who feel this warrants further discussion. That means you drop the stick or face a disruptive editing complaint. You exhausted my patience in this topic area some time ago and I would strongly support a topic ban in such a complaint. Consider yourself warned. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Virginia Beach shooting‎

Just a reminder-- y'all might want to discuss more and revert less.Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not averse to discussion, Dlohcierekim. Is the proximal reason for this heads up this edit? Bus stop (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I got an identical "warning" from that admin. Since my revert in that exchange was the completely routine R in WP:BRD, it's more likely they were referring to earlier stuff that is old news at this point. Either that or they don't understand BRD, which seems unlikely. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss—we are not insensitive to the emotional dimensions of the topic of this article. In this edit your concern seems to be with using "fewer words". This is a matter of judgement but in my opinion, when referring to the enormity of the crime of murder, the loquaciousness of "Prior to the shooting" is appropriate. But this is a matter of opinion and judgement. Perhaps you're right. I am just endorsing the previous version by reverting. I hope there is no harm done. Bus stop (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't confuse content with process. No, there is no real harm done, it's not a big content issue, but I hope you will bear in mind that reverts and editsums are not substitutes for article talk page (not user talk page) discussion, nor an expedient way of !voting. BRD is a thing, but BRR is not—even when you are not the B editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I support keeping the lists, because its journalistic record. Notice how opposition persons characterize the keep side as an "emotional" matter. Clearly emotional arguments are beside the point, its a journalistic argument to keep. -ApexUnderground (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Air Force Amy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Air Force Amy. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI on RFC tactics

I was summoned by bot to the Virginia Beach shooting RFC. Going into the RFC, my initial leaning was towards including the names -- sure, why not? But after reading thru the RFC, I changed my mind, primarily because of your arguments for inclusion. The arguments' weakness, especially of the "everyone else does it" type, made me wonder if there was any good argument in favor of inclusion. Seeing the same arguments repeated and pushed with strong insistence yet weak evidence undermined any remaining support I had for inclusion. Thus, your arguments had the opposite of your intended effect (unless you are actually against inclusion and are very devious, but I AGF).

As I stated in the RFC, I don't want the debate tactics, or lack thereof, to be the deciding factor in any RFC. To that end, I felt obliged to inform you of your tactics effect on me in this RFC.

If you don't find this helpful, I understand. I just had to satisfy what seemed to me my duty to WP to inform you of this. I've been guilty of the same tactics myself, and have made it a point to change -- still a work in progress. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A D Monroe III—at Talk:Virginia Beach shooting#RfC: Should the page include the victims' names? I'm asking why an on-topic and reliably-sourced area of information should be omitted. Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Also FYI, Jim Michael hasn't read a single story you presented him during your long and arduous conversation. Nor anything about the victims. His assertions of fact are entirely based on hunches. I suggested he come clean to you himself, but he seemed remorseless, if not proud. Everyone else's fault for assuming he studied the subject he seemed so convinced about, or something. I wouldn't waste any more time getting bullshitted, I were you. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, June 27, 2019 (UTC)

As long as you're here, I wanted to mention to you that I found an article on the subject you've referenced—the Five Ws. It is that old standby, the who-what-where-when-why thingy. Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Spirit of Eagle included that link in his vote, and I already knew I wasn't making it up. But thanks, anyway. It's a good thingy to brush up on. You ever look in here? Or there? What about now? I haven't...yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:52, June 27, 2019 (UTC)

"It's a good thingy to brush up on." The question is—what sort of Brush. Bus stop (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that technically a statement? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:05, June 27, 2019 (UTC)

I gave considerable thought to whether to question mark the end of the sentence or period the end of the sentence. I finally felt there was a greater degree of appropriateness in the non-question mark formulation. Bus stop (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

There is perhaps no greater feeling on Earth (given the circumstances, I mean). Well played! Certainly trumps the sadness I felt upon visiting my Wikilinks. Just ambiguity all the way down...not recommended. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:57, June 27, 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Australia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Australia. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Casualty lists essay

I've started an essay at Wikipedia:Casualty lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that I would like your input on if possible, or at the least, for you to watchlist it and help me maintain it. I believe we can provide a good rationale there for including names in the victim section of appropriate articles, and perhaps this can be a jumping off point for starting a project-wide conversation on the issue. If you can make any improvements, or have suggestions, don't hesitate to reach out. Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 04:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I have certainly watch-listed it, Locke Cole, and believe it or not I have scratched out a couple of sentences under contemplation for inclusion in such an essay. The thing is the issue is so basic, by which I mean that basic information belongs in an article. It's hard to write an article on brick houses while omitting the word "brick". I mean, you can do it. The articles exist without the names of the victims. But they are conspicuously absent. I think any reader would say "why are the names missing?" I obviously don't buy the argument that they don't "enhance the reader's understanding of the event". There is no one "understanding" of the event. An "understanding" emerges from the compilation of the basic facts. And one can easily look to articles containing victim names and see that feature as entirely constructive to the quality of the article. It looks like I'm writing an essay here. Anyway, thanks for contacting me and obviously I'll keep in mind the document you've initiated. Bus stop (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

My hatting

Please respect my hatting of your comment. I'm sorry that you feel like your argument isn't being treated fairly, but consensus is very clearly against it, something established quite strongly now: this means it is beyond time to drop the WP:STICK. This is not the first time you've been asked to do this (#Disruption continues at Aurora, Illinois shooting), and the same thing applies here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I will take this to AN/I if you again revert my hatting of your comment, which is beginning to stray into disruptive territory since it is now interfering with constructive discussion about "warehouse" (hence the hat instead of just a reply). Why can't you just make some comments about that issue instead of futilely arguing against consensus?--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Jasper Deng—no one needs you imposing their will on them...I certainly don't. You are not assisting me by repeatedly collapsing my input to a discussion. Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Since you abused rollback, I've opened Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bus_stop_at_Talk:Oakland_Ghost_Ship_fire.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Rfc on at Talk:Stanley Kubrick

Hi, I noticed your past participation in a 2017 Rfc regarding adding an infobox to Stanley Kubrick's article. I just wanted to notify you that there is an Rfc currently underway there. I thought you may be interested. This is likely to be the multi-year moratorium on the topic once this survey ends. Thanks! HAL333 01:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit on Talk:2019 Dayton shooting

Surprised you rolledback your edits as a minor edit. That's not a minor edit from my understanding of them. Accident? Gwenhope (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - The "minor" flag just prevents edits from cluttering watchlists with things of little importance. I don't think editors need to be made aware of a simple retraction-before-reply. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

If you say so, Mandy-kun. I guess I, as an editor, would prefer to be notified about a -830 reversion edit, but you do you. I was just basing off WP:ME - "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances." Gwenhope (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, just an accident. You make a valid point, Gwenhope. Bus stop (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss—page stalking is great, but butting in is not. Gwenhope was not speaking to you. You are of course welcome to post here courteously. Bus stop (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Bus stop. I think your best chances of not being sanctioned is for you not to post in that thread at all anymore (or as little as possible). Incessant posting will merely prove the point of the proposed sanction. My unsolicited 2 cents of advice. I won't be changing my oppose, but I do understand where the supports are coming from. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Sluzzelin, both for the "oppose" vote as well as this post of advice. Bus stop (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I've closed the thread with a 3-month ban from administrative noticeboards, with some specific exceptions. See [5] for details. 3 months is short in the long run, and I'm sure both you and the noticeboards will endure it just fine. As some of the people there implied, this isn't about the quality of the positions you take on noticeboards, it's about the WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:IDHT behavior. I haven't reviewed your interactions anywhere else on the 'pedia, but from what some were saying in the thread you might want to take this as a warning shot and take some time to examine the way you interact on article talk pages as well. ~Awilley (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, regarding this comment, and just to be clear, I think you can be a good contributor to Wikipedia, and I certainly don't want to impose even one block, much less subsequent escalating ones. I don't think anyone else does either; that's not at all the goal. I think people just want the WP:BLUDGEON behavior to stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

AN/I is off my watch-list. And I commit to no more bludgeoning. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)