User talk:Newimpartial

Welcome!

Thank you for putting some work into RPG articles, as this is an area that doesn't seem to get enough attention anymore. BOZ (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If you can add anything to any of the pages at User:BOZ/Draft pages, it would be much appreciated. :) BOZ (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether I'm supposed to put this here, but thanks, and I'll take a look at the Grabowski and Marsh pages soon. Some of the others already show much more knowledge than I have about those authors, so I can't really help -- indeed some look ready to publish!

Anything at all you can do to help would be great. :) BOZ (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It took me longer than projected, but I have edited the Grabowski and Marsh pages. I feel that the Grabowski page is pretty much ready for submission, and if you were content for the Marsh page to be more of a stub, it could be launched soon too by trimming some of the unruly content you included. :). I bow to your superior wiki-fu, but as far as content goes I am comfortable now with both articles.

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robin Laws, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hell on Earth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ethan Skemp

Hi there! I see that you created User:Newimpartial/Ethan Skemp as a sort of placeholder. I restored Draft:Ethan Skemp, which had been deleted, so you can work on it if you want to. :) BOZ (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a placeholder exactly. I didn't see the old draft. I have been going through the White Wolf authors tonight, and Ethan is an obviously notable one who was deleted in one of the purges you will remember. :) If there are any red links to him, or to Geoff Grabowski, Bruce Baugh, or Robert Hatch, those are the designers I am likely to put into article space soonest, at least in stub form.Newimpartial (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, I will see tomorrow if there is anything I can do for those others.  :) BOZ (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I gave a start to most of the placeholder drafts that you created, using Designers & Dragons as a source. I left Luke Crane for you, as the Evil Hat edition of the book gives quite a bit of info about him, and I just don't have the free time to go through that much at the moment.  :) BOZ (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I will go over some of them this week and see how many I can release from my userspace by the weekend. I'll take a look at my Evil Hat Designers & Dragons Vol. 4 and write something up for Crane - no worries.

By the way, I wanted to let you in on my thinking about something. As far as I can tell, by WP:CREATIVE criterion 3, any game designer who has created a "well-known" work with at least two WP:INDEPENDENT reviews automatically meets WP:NBIO. Which means in practice that no article on a game designer that has a link to Designers & Dragons (a RS that they existed) and a link to a Wikipedia article on a game that they created, which in turn has at least two reviews, should ever be subject to deletion, at least not for WP:N. My upcoming editing of these designer drafts and userspace placeholders will be based on this perspective, which dawned on me over the weekend. Newimpartial (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. You can use the same philosophy on anything I put in Draftspace, if you want to move those to article space. As for Robert Hatch, you had a draft under Rob Hatch so that is what I edited. BOZ (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

OK; maybe I created two drafts. Anyway, I'll figure it out. Thanks.

Paul Drye

Do you have anything you could use to improve Draft:Paul Drye? BOZ (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not offhand, and I am persona non grata at MfD at the moment (my own fault). But if you could find an independent source for his date of birth and place of residence, I could strengthen his notability language as an author. IDK why they go through non-stale drafts like that. :( Newimpartial (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, BOZ. You can get this one back if it's MfDed, can't you? I think the draftspace delete is completely out of line, but I also think this isn't a case worth fighting right now. The argument for potential notability would be based on GT:IW, which is a notable work, but the rest of his bibliography is so thin that I wouldn't want to be fighting that battle right now, in the absence of a personal mention in a RS. Does that make sense? Newimpartial (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Some people just like to clear out what they think is junk. One man's trash, you know. If you have any sources that address Interstellar Wars and mention his name, please feel free to add them directly to the draft. :) You don't have to edit the MfD page, just edit the draft. BOZ (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, BOZ Please take a look at the bottom of my talk page and at the top of ANI: I think even my editing the page would be toxic, and in any case doesn't suggest any net gain. If you do want to drag this one out of MfD, my advice is to make the article more like a well-referenced stub: get rid of the link to the subject's personal page, edit out biographical detail, and change the lede to something like "Paul Drye is a role-playing game writer and developer known primarily for his work on GURPS:TRAVELLER, particularly as author of GURPS TRAVELLER:INTERSTELLAR WARS and Sword Worlds." Thrown in a link to Appelcline on GTIW and a link to the actual GTIW for the author credit - I could find his author blurb for that if truly necessary. But the real argument at XfD, IMO, is that you are working on the draft so it is premature to delete it, which would be in line with last year's RFCs about draft space (which the MfD nominator studiously ignores). Newimpartial (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Your interfearance

I'm baffled why you are so intent on keeping pages with no possibility of being incorporated into articles. The pages are genarlly created by drive by or long inactive accounts. What possible point are you making except to waste other editor's time and effort to clean up useless material and unearth and promote useful material? Sorry but you can't procedurally close thread after thread because you read half a policy. Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac I read the entire WP:STALE policy, thank you very much, and more than once. I have also read the discussions it references. That is why I suggest blanking rather than deleting the userspace entries, which is what the policy calls for in the cases you are referencing.

I am not "wasting other editors' time" unless those editors are insisting on violating WP:CONSENSUS such as, for example, nominating for deletion userspace entries that have been up for less than 48 hours - or for a couple of years - that are not in violation of WP:WEBHOST or WP:NOT. Editors who think they are "cleaning up useless material" by nominating pages incorrectly for MfC deletion, rather than blanking them according to policy, should stop doing it and then they will not be wasting their time.

Also, I haven't procedurally closed anything. :) I am a bit curious why you see voting in a public process as "interference" - that is what public processes are for. Newimpartial (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Copyvio Speedy Deletion Tag

Please check the Copy Vio detector before removing these tags as you did at Draft:Isik Abla ~ 70% of the article is a copy vio which means it needs to be speedily deleted. Please review the CSD Policy and Copyright Violation policy before removing such tags in the future. Happy editing! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

See this for the results. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

But that isn't correctly a speedy deletion case. Per Copyright Violation "If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known." Which I encourage you to do, Cameron₁₁₅₉₈.

Indeed it is, there isn't really any salvageable content. when 72% of the content is a copy right violation. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Clearly 28% of it is salvageable lol. Also, the inexperienced writer is likely in the process of re-writing to paraphrase content, as the article was a recent AfC submission. Correct process is to flag it so the writer has an opportunity to re-do, not to Speedy Delete. Newimpartial (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought

You don't have to respond to every comment at an XFD; it gets to the point of falling afoul of WP:BLUDGEON. There was recently a case of this at the admin noticeboard, might be worth reading through (at least, the parts about replying to every person who comments on an XFD). Primefac (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Userspace deletions

Thanks for the note, but I'm not comfortable restoring them; in both cases, the pages were heavy with links affiliated with the subject in some way, and they both struck me as examples of WP:LINKSPAM. Being full of promotional language is a sufficient condition for speedy deletion as spam, but it's not a necessary condition. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Then, Nyttend, isn't the appropriate course to break the links, rather than to speedy delete? I didn't think admin were supposed to speedy delete userspace articles when the deletion was contested, without good reason. If you restore them, I promise to break the links while they can be properly discussed. Newimpartial (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No. The whole point of these pages is to promote their subjects, and breaking links doesn't prevent that. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I read both pages, Nyttend, and neither read as promotional to me. One was a stub, for example, but a rather WP:NPOV stub. Can't you reverse the deletes so that we can have a civilized discussion? Note that they were both nominated by Legacypac, who has a terrible record with Speedy Delete nominations. Newimpartial (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

For the final time, no. I'm beginning to wonder whether you understand the standards that you claim to be enforcing; if you keep it up, you will be ignored unless it gets to the point of outright disruption. Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Kindly see WP:ANI#Newimpartial, where I have requested a block for you. Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll put my record of clearing perhaps over 10,000 spam userspace pages against any nonsense accusations you want to level against me. Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of CSD template

I saw you removed a CSD tag from User:Qcpu/Quezon City Polytechnic University. Perhaps you didn't fully read WP:G11/UAA before doing so. We normally expect users to have significant experience before tagging or untagging pages for deletion. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave a note on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 17:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

advice

I had not seen Kudpung's or Roy's comment when I gave my advice about where to effectively work. But the agreement is not coincidental--after a while, people here tend to have a similar view of what happens here, even if they do not necessarily like it.

But I had not seen the ANI at all, and were it still open, I would have made a much more understanding comment than some of what was said there. It's normal to start in an area the way you did, by following the written rules, and then gradually learn what actually works. The advice I give about the way to learn it is to first watch carefully, and then try a single action or comment, and see how it is taken. You can then judge whether you want to proceed. When I joined, this is exactly what happened to be about several areas such as categories; I fortunately knew to start gently, but I found my way of thinking very different from the prevailing consensus, so I've pretty much avoided the area, and if I have to add or remove categories, I just do what seems to be expected. Don't be discouraged. If after a while you want to start on deletion process again, the safest way is to comment on an occasional afd, or place an occasional prod. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

ANi Notification

As required, I am notifying you of an ANi thread concerning your activity. [1] Legacypac (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

URLs

You can just put them inside single brackets [ ] like this [2]. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Hello NewImpartial. I see that you are a long Wikipedian, since 2008/2012, but you have has an explosion in Wikipedia editing in the last few weeks. Has something happened in real life? I see you are getting into some fights. What exactly is getting to you? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking SmokeyJoe. No, nothing IRL related; I think fundamentally it's just a misjudgement I made, thinking that I had lurked enough at MfD before starting to vote there, and then "escalating" too quickly to participate in CSD issues (which, to be fair, are not transparent), without listening adequately to the "mood of the room". A conviction that my reading of policy was "right" didn't help me in this matter (or others :) ). WP:CVUA was an excellent suggestion made to me more than once, and I will do that when I expect to have some time; meanwhile I am going back to working on articles. Even in this small drubbing, I have learned some important things about interpretations and motivations that are not evident in WP "policy", so I do have a better idea what arguments work better (or worse) in an XfD discussion. The "fight" to apply draftspace and userspace deletion criteria the way I thought was "right" has gone out of me, now, and I will pick my "battles" more carefully in future (there were a couple of AfD discussions, for example, which I think even upon reflection were tending to misread the relationship between GNGs for BLPs versus specific criteria such as CREATIVE, but again, I'm not going to be picking any fights in the rest of 2017, even ones I think are winnable lol). Newimpartial (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If I may add a comment, the goal is not to be winning fights. The goal is to be writing an encyclopedia. If you ever come away from an interaction feeling that you've won a battle, the odds are you probably didn't do anything to advance the bigger goal. This is a huge collaborative effort, and it's a certainty that you will interact with other editors who disagree with your point of view. Make an effort to understand where other people are coming from. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them. But, you don't need to be fighting with them either. There's plenty of room for honest differences of opinion. I've carved out a small area where I do most of my work; participating in deletion reviews, and (to a lesser extent these days), closing articles for deletion discussions. I often find myself disagreeing with some of the other people who have chosen to concentrate in those areas. For a humorous summary of why we disagree, see m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. The important thing is that we are all working toward a common goal, make an effort to listen to what other people are saying, and respect each other despite our differences of opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Roy. I totally agree that the important thing is the common goal, and that respect for all contributors is key. I do have a character weakness for feeling that I am right, based on insufficient evidence, but I recognize that this has played into my situation on the weekend and will therefore stay away from deletion discussions until I have a better reading of the room and can avoid fights. I have been caught off-guard by how much "unwritten rule" is at play here, but am being much more careful now that this has been brought to my attention. Newimpartial (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Tool for XfD analysis

Given your continued interest in deletion process, you may find this tool useful. https://tools.wmflabs.org/xfd-stats/ You can checking your views against those of editors generally. You can also check any other editor's stats, which is a good idea before saying they are outside consensus. Set the edit count really high like 5000 to get better results because it searches edits across Wikipedia space not just XfD. The % boxes shows roughly the amount of time an editors vote matches consensus. Be sure and look at the page by page results further down to understand better because a Keep and Withdraw or Speedy Delete and Delete are different votes/results in the report but same effective result. I hope this helps you. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Legacypac. Whenever I resume participating in XfD discussions (probably after I do CVUA training), I'm sure it really will come in handy as a reality check. Newimpartial (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Uhhh...

Why did you revert the auto archive on Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut, and can you revert it back. — JJBers 16:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:ARCHIVE, unresolved discussions are not to be archived, and there appeared to be unresolved issues in at least the first of the sections archived. Therefore I reverted the auto-archive; there isn't anything magical about 30 days. Newimpartial (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

While I have no particular feelings about the archival (or reversal) itself, I do ask that if you reverse an automated archival that you also reverse the addition of said content to the archive. This ensures that archived topics are not being duplicated. Primefac (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; for that reminder; having been reminded already by JJBers post on my talk page, I was doing so as you wrote your comment. :) Newimpartial (talk)

Awesome. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Advice

Hi,

I was looking to talk to someone knowledgeable. I am in bit of a bind here, my page first got nominated for deletion then I guess during the discussion I ruffled some feathers & then the S(Sockpuppet) bomb was dropped on me. So apparently I am a pariah right now. I'm so happy though now that they have launched an SPI, because I frankly had no idea how to refute those claims and I felt so helpless at one time because let's just say there were many "like-minded people in that discussion, so I was kinda outnumbered.

I am literally unable to comprehend that the discussion was about the merits of notability & reliable sources of that article. Now it's completely derailed and I am literally baited into unnecessary arguments which I am sure any objective administrator upon seeing will be able to tell. I want you to please kindly help me understand a few things...

1. The derailment of discussion on this page, Is it only my wishful thinking or the reviewing admin will take into consideration the blatant obstruction of an informed academic exchange re reliability and notability.

2. How long does it take for the SPI to complete?

3. what is the best course of action for me in light of the current situation? Because frankly the whole sock puppet accusation has riled me up emotionally & has been a cause of great stress, I am a qualified accomplished professional, I have been very fair & dignified in my dealings my entire life. I wanted to try something new by becoming a contributor at wiki & didn't realize it will end up in humiliation & slander.

Thank you very much in advance for your time, looking forward to hearing back from you.Thecapital15 (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thecapital15, this isn't really the best place to ask this question, since Newimpartial is not an administrator. My suggestion would be to let the SPI play out, and if you're not doing anything improper then there will be no repercussions. SPIs can take anywhere up to a couple of weeks, depending on how strong the evidence is and how quickly the admins look at the discussion. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Yeah; I have absolutely nothing to add here; I'll delete this exchange when it gets stale. Thanks, Primefac. Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

thank you i have read it and you can delete it right away. once again thank you for your time.Thecapital15 (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Warning

Your continued slandering of me and opining on my conduct regarding stale drafts, spam, page moves and all related issues on various talk pages and ANi is not appreciated. Your conduct is disruptive. You are obviously inexperienced enough and with enough misunderstanding of policy on this topic you should stop posting your opinions. You have been repeatedly told by various editors to stop. This is your final warning. I suggest you go remove the posts you made today at ANi and If you post anywhere any more comments about my activity I will put together a list of diffs that will ensure you never have the chance to opine again. Legacypac (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Your posts at AN/I today were not inappropriate or disruptive. They may have been damaging to Legacypac, but they were not false, hence they are not slander. You have as much right to participate in community discussions as any other user, and I hope you do not let others scare you away from doing so because they disagree with you. You seem to get at least the basic gist of important policies, and we all have room to learn, participating at an/i facilitates that. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Medieval jobs‎, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Restoring out of policy closes at MfD is not permitted. Godsy expressed an opinion on that topic by placing a CSD tag on the article. He has no business closing the discussion. Your ability to assess deletion policy has been shown to be deficient and you have been warned to stay out of MfD. I'm disappointed to see you reinserting yourself in this area. You are on the verge of edit warring over this. I suggest stopping now. Legacypac (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Did Godsy not quote the policy accurately at ANI? Because that policy seems completely clear that anyone, including someone who participated in the speedy deletion, can close an XfD discussion for an article that has already been speedily deleted. Newimpartial (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

you need to keep reading and not blindly accept a partial quote. One does not close discussions where one has voiced an opinion. That is a critical element of EVERY close by Admins or Non-Admins sitewide. Godsy applied the CSD tag that lead to the deletion, which is definately expessing an opinion. I quoted the policy at ANi as well. Close more than a couple discussions where you are involved and face a ban on closing discussions. I've seen it happen. Your close violated Point 1 and his close violated point 4 at WP:NACD. Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to read WP:NACD in its entirety. It is short and clear. Your assessment of the situation is correct, and the warning that was left here is inaccurate. WP:NACD "Closures may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning, or by consensus at deletion review.", none of the italic comment above (i.e. Restoring out of...) are quotes from policies or guidelines. Regardless of whether the closure was appropriate or not (it was appropriate), reverting the closure was unambiguously inappropriate. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:NACINV and WP:BADNAC. Legacypac (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

You can only claim my close was inappropriate (though it clearly was appropriate), because your reversion is indefensible per my comments above. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 17:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at WP:ANI shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Please slow down and take a look at the content before reverting lengthy IP-user screeds back into ANI — simply clicking on the IP what posted that nonsense would tell you that the IP has been blocked for evasion and is part of a long-term abuse case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Except that I did read it, and that IP is not subject to a block. What did I miss? Newimpartial (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

You missed the fact that there are a lot of regular banned/blocked editors (notably IB Wright and Vote(X) for Change) who regularly try to disrupt, especially by posting at ANI, and there are a lot of seasoned editors who can spot and revert them straight away. When editors like MrX or NBSB are doing it, it's probably time to think "OK, they know what they're doing". They are, however, not admins, so can't block. Another admin has since blocked the IP. Black Kite (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Click the IP in the signature of the post — Special:Contributions/85.255.232.148. As you can see, it's blocked. A *different* (surely evading) IP reposted it, but the original content is from a blocked user. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It is blocked now, but it was not blocked at the time I reverted the delete.

I also looked at the evidence the "screed" pointed to, so if it was an attempt at disruption, it is hella more sophisticated a one than "W I K I P E D I A S U C K S". Newimpartial (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

They often are. However, they're usually "commenting" (i.e. making nonsense up) about the same issues, users, or admins, so they're fairly easy to spot after a short while. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I posted the wrong IP, sorry. The signature for the post that you reverted back in is Special:Contributions/85.255.235.208. It's been blocked since 15 June by Bbb23. A good rule of thumb: Always check the contributions history of any IP post to ANI, especially if they're making wild accusations about an established user. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It fits the criteria for speedy deletion ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Id.

Do you mean A7? Because I don't think that applies. Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

While I'm trying to read your mind :), G4 doesn't apply either. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

AN/I

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom thing

You and I haven't always seen eye to eye about things, but I wanted to tell you that I was impressed by your post on the ArbCom case. It was measured, well-worded, and respectful of both parties, even when you disagreed with their actions. I really respect that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

Were you under a voluntary self-TBAN or something? I was monitoring ANI on-and-off during my own voluntary self-PBAN, and I recall you saying something to the effect As this ANI has proceeded, I have continued to stay away from XfD, as I offered to do, and have also left Legacypac completely alone on all pages except ANI. Your recent comments on the Chang AFD (not just your responses to me; your first comment as well) suggest that maybe your self-imposed exile ended slightly before you "had a clue" regarding our deletion policy: have you considered maybe reinstating it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was voluntary, and I have returned to AfD (but generally not MfD) discussions since. Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

for reference: H88

[3] [4]