User talk:Guerillero

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: March 2023

WikiProject Scouting | March 2023 Notes for March: The article on the The Scout Association was recently "delisted" from Good Article status. Help is requested. We are working to develop a featured portal, look here if you want to help. Looking for a new project? perhaps authoring an article on Aids to Scoutmastership Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications | watch

--evrik ^(talk) March 16, 2023

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up on T-Ban

Hi Guerillero,

I would like to report a sock of a LTA (with a dedicated WP page).

However, I am currently under a topic ban imposed by you, which may be related to the edits in question made by the LTA. I would like to request permission to make the SPI report, or if appropriate, any alternatives to making a report. Carter00000 (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Carter00000: you may email me the evidence -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Marriage License scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 14 May 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 14, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

IBAN violation

I just noticed this as I was checking evidence concerning the present ArbCom case [1]. Isn't that an IBAN violation? User:François Robere is referencing your block of them for an initial interaction ban violation back in July 2021, basically saying "I was right to revert the person I have an IBAN with" and they link two edits by User:GizzyCatBella explicitly. Volunteer Marek 00:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I am going to ping the case drafters since it should be on their radar and will take another look tonight. @Wugapodes, Primefac, and Barkeep49:. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 09:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. For me it falls in the "not great but not sanctionable" bucket. Importantly, however, "not great but not sanctionable" can actually become sanctionable if done enough while an active party to a case when we are expecting editors to be on their best behavior. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Show Boat

You wrote: "There is a clear consensus that unless reliable sources are presented stating that roles are principal/leading, nothing should be noted in the article." Even if he cited one or more sources, I do not agree that we should specify the "principal" roles in the character list, because it would not be accurate there: the sources all disagree on what a "principal" role is, and which ones are "principal". The way to show which roles are important is the way the article already does it: by describing them in the plot summary as important to the plot, and by listing, in the list of musical numbers, the songs that they appear in. So, if you don't mind, could you summarize the consensus more simply by just saying that the consensus is to not designate, in the list of characters, which ones are "principal" roles? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: That sounds reasonable.  Done -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

As you know, the issue is principal singing roles. These are, without question, Julie, Magnolia, Queenie, Ravenal and Joe. This should be shown to the reader, and not in the indirect way you describe above, because it is a basic fact about Show Boat. You call yourself a musical theatre person but you have used your thugs SchroCat and Guerillero to undo my good contribution and leave the article as unclear as it was before, and they have removed all evidence of the very discussion we had. You make me sick! B C R M (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

And with today's edits, you have been partial blocked -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Chrome version history (2nd nomination)

I found the close to be incorrect and counter to our policy of WP:CONSENSUS. The majority of participants do not agree with deletion which makes your close a WP:SUPERVOTE. Why do editors go through the exercise at AfD if you are going to go against consensus by picking the losing side? It is not like this was a BLP violation. So I request that you undo the closure. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Chrome version history (2nd nomination) Lightburst (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I concur, this close was not correct. Many editors did actually argue for keep based on policy. I would support a DRV if opened. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

At most this could have been closed as NC if closer truly believes that the policy grounds were so weak. Sure, AFD is not based on headcount, but when the !votes favoured keep so strongly there cannot be a tenable conclusion of a consensus to delete. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Lightburst/MaxnaCarta: Please read my entire close, not just the top line result. Headcount and the strength of feeling do not matter; what instead does is the strength of arguments based on policy. Also see ROUGHCONSENSUS. Nothing in my close is based on my own opinion of the article's status.

As I explained in my close and I will reexplain here, I used the "quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" as the meterstick. The highest-quality arguments that were rooted in policy came from deletes. All of them stemming from NOTCHANGELOG. Many keeps, on the other hand, were rooted in ITSUSEFUL, LIKEIT, what about foo / per other AfD, or INTERESTING. Because of that, they were given no weight in my close. I also explained why I did not find the expansive reading of NOTCHANGELOG, which effectively eats the policy, to be persuasive.

I stand by my close and I will not be reverting it. It is a reasonable close to the discussion. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 11:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Please give me credit Guerillero for reading the entire closure and all AfD ivote rationales. Your categorization of Keep ivotes as ITSUSEFUL, LIKEIT is not accurate. You have dismissed the best arguments for keeping and you have cherry picked the weakest ones to make a case for support of your deletion against consensus. Lightburst (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Making statements such as "The majority of participants do not agree with deletion" when the point was explicitly addressed in the first line of the close, raised the question. I did not do any cherry picking, but instead, worked off of the strength of the policy-based arguments. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

We will not get anywhere when you ABF. I will ask DRV to take a look. It is easy to assess the consensus on this AfD. You picked one policy argument over another policy argument - and against consensus and that is the definition of a supervote IMO. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)