User talk:Ixtal

Archives (Index)

2021/July 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July 2023/August 2023/September 2023/October 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Utada Hikaru on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kashmir on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Syed Ali Shah Geelani on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jean Walton on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sudharmono on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:GST distribution dispute on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Partial block from WP:ANI

You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of 3 months for disruptive editing. Specifically, multiple WP:CIR lapses at ANI. A. C. Santacruz, at this point in time, you're a net negative at ANI. You need to better acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policy and conventions in order to contribute there effectively, which I feel now needs to be imposed. Similar problems in other editorial processes (for example, the poor close of late), so please take note. Thanks and good luck. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 23:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

El C that's a fair block I don't plan on contesting. I'll use the time to reflect and learn. Cheers :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 23:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. El_C 23:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

El C, I'd have gone for two weeks rather than three months personally, but as ACS is not contesting, this is a moot point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I stand by the duration the basis of which stems from multiple disparate incidents at Incidents. Two weeks would be too brief. El_C 14:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a note, since ANI is commonly used for situations needing prompt enough admin attention, if you cannot post a report there, it's possible to contact an administrator (like EL C) directly. You also still have access to administrators via WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, WP:AN3, WP:AN, WP:AE, WP:UAA. Sorry for stating the obvious if you already knew about those venues. —PaleoNeonate – 23:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks PaleoNeonate, I didn't know about a few of those. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz, see Wikipedia:Noticeboards for all of em. Needless to say, please tread lightly whenever posting to any of those, especially wrt novel proposals and so on. El_C 14:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

El C I was wondering why/how the block prevents me from thanking users for their edits. Not that its a really big deal but just some curiosity from my part. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Weird. I've never heard of such a thing happening before, A. C. Santacruz, so no idea. El_C 14:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it's not intentional, I'll ask in village pump to see if anyone knows why El C. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I now vaguely recall something about it being designed to prevent 'thanks' spam... El_C 17:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Checks out, thanks for answering El C :) Hope you had a nice weekend. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 17:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, same to you. Regards, El_C 17:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

El C just wanted to thank you for the length of the ban, I feel that anything shorter would probs not be enough for me to gain competence and in the meanwhile it's allowing me a lot of time to reflect on how and why I spend time on this project. I assume admins don't usually get much appreciation by the targets of their actions so thought I should say something if it's more valuable than silence. Hope the work isn't too heavy on you, and have a good week :D A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 19:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Reports of my vandalism have been greatly exaggerated

@El C, PaleoNeonate, and Ritchie333: an IP has recently made threats to me in a discussion ("I have emailed your university about your Wikipedia vandalism.") and I wish to take that to ANI but cannot. What should I do in this case? Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It's part of a weird situation where I have been reverted 3 times, have detailed in-depth reasoning for my edits in the article talk page, and neither the editor Rp2006 nor the two IPs (same range) have discussed the reasoning. I was instructed to follow the steps at WP:DISCFAIL but that approach failed as well, sadly. See discussion Talk:Sharon_A._Hill under "IP revert" section, and edit history for article here. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I've already raised it elsewhere, as I suspect I know who is behind the IP. I was going to leave it for a bit to see if it is handled that way, but if not I'll take it to ANI. As if I am correct I'm involved, I need to pass it to someone independent to make the decisions. - Bilby (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I also wonder how the BLP discretionary sanctions affects this, as well. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they are needed. If this is block evasion, all of their edits as an IP need to be reverted. If it is not, it is still harassment, in which case this edit should be reverted and the IP blocked. - Bilby (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi A. C. Santacruz. Just a quick note about WP:ACDS/WP:GS. Admin action invoking a sanction regime wrt to individual editors is intended to address disruption which is somewhat nuanced. For cases where the disruption is blatant (be it relatively mild or an WP:EMERGENCY outright), those are handled through normal admin action. HTH. El_C 16:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, El C. What should I do, then? As I understand it asking for normal admin action for a situation like this would be done via ANI, right? Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably too blatant even for it. Try WP:AIV. El_C 21:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP who harassed you with that horrid comment about emailing your university. Cullen328 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Cullen328. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm quite curious as to what their email could possibly include, or who it was sent to. There's no body at the university to deal with off-uni student behaviour like this nor do I edit under my real name so if an email was actually sent (I doubt) it was probably sent straight to the trash. Still unacceptable harassment, but at least makes for a somewhat curious thought experiment. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@El C and Bilby: I'm sorry for pinging y'all so often related to this but the matter is quickly getting out of hand even through my best efforts to engage in constructive discussion with other editors in the talk page. Rp2006 seems to be canvassing (if my understanding of the term is correct) and has addressed me so negatively in the relevant talk page I'd consider it a personal attack. What steps can I even take here? I'd list the ip range on AIV, but am unsure what to do about Rp. They haven't engaged with the discussion deeply enough to go to WP:DRN I think. I'd appreciate any and all guidance in this topic, as I am completely paralyzed and don't know what to do next without opening myself up to harassment. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

talk page stalker here While notifying a relevant Wikiproject isn't usually canvassing, that particular one is very biased in its notification. My advice right now though is to step back for a short period (a few hours/overnight perhaps). Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Not only the wording, but selectively notifying some wp and not others (e.g. WikiProject Women Scientists) is also considered canvassing in some cases IIRC. I will step away for now while I await advice on how to proceed (and tackle some big deadlines this weekend). Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

ACS... I am one step away of bringing you up on libel charges (or the equivalent here at WP). You went to my Talk to harass me, making unsubstantiated claims regarding me posting to user talk pages about this. Apologize & withdraw the claim -- or provide proof. Rp2006 (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

You are highly encouraged to use the processes available to you if you feel I have harassed you, Rp2006. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your permission. And to be clear for my report, you are sticking with the libelous claim you about me made on my Talk page about me canvasing on user talk pages? Rp2006 (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I sent you the canvassing notice template, if that's what you mean. I didn't even notice until now it only mentions users and not wikiproject talk pages or noticeboards, which is a shame as it seems like that caused this confusion (perhaps an rfc at the template talk page is in order). However I do believe your biased wording in the notice could be seen as canvassing and stand by my decision to warn you of that in the appropriate way of doing so, Rp2006. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for being careless and slapping a template notice on my page that you admit is non-applicable regarding canvasing on user pages. So I guess that lets you off the hook regarding libel... stating you put it there but didn't read what it says? Nice. Rp2006 (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rp2006: I'd gently advise you to drop the stick and stop escalating. Furthermore legal threats are not allowed on Wikipedia, and saying I am one step away of bringing you up on libel charges is very much a legal threat. While it is regrettable that Santacruz used the wrong template, your notification to WikiProject Skepticism was not neutral, and was inappropriate due to its heavily biased wording per WP:CANVASS. Next time, use a template like Template:Please see for user pages, or Template:WikiProject please see for WikiProject pages. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Clearly it wasn't a "legal" threat as I do not know the identity of this editor, nor even what part of the world they reside in. The important part you left off was "or the equivalent here at WP." I meant to bring up their libel against me as an issue within Wikipedia -- after investigating how that would be done. Unlike those who seem to report people to admins at the drop of a hat, I have never (yet) done so. This editor's false claims via the template were pushing me close to doing it. And... they have now admitted elsewhere that they understand the template's contents are not fully applicable, yet have taken no action to withdraw it. In any case, thanks for linking those two other templates. I was unaware of their existence and will use them going forward.Rp2006 (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rp2006: if that was the case, why even mention libel charges? You could have said something with less legal implications, and still maintained the same meaning.

Re templates - no worries on that. The only other advice I'd give when it comes to notifying Wikiprojects, as this is something I myself got caught on recently, is making sure that you notify all of the relevant Wikiprojects for a talk page. Eg, in addition to Skepticism, Sharon A. Hill is also relevant to Wikiproject Biography and Women Scientists per the banner at the top of the talk page. Doing that, in conjunction with the template will generally avoid any accusations of impropriety in selective notifications or biased wording. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok. That makes sense! Rp2006 (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ixtal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to request a temporary unblock of two weeks. I believe that since the block I have gained much more understanding of how to participate in wiki discussions and why my disruptive actions in the past were unconstructive. I wish to bring some issues to ANI and participate in the subsequent discussion, after which I'd like to serve the rest of the block time, unless other editors believe that is unnecessary.

Decline reason:

If the block is going to be removed, it will be for good, not temporarily. If you specifically explain your new understanding of how to participate in disucssions and how you were disruptive, that might work to remove the partial block. In the interim, if you have an urgent issue to bring to ANI that cannot wait, you may post it at WT:ANI and request that it be transferred to ANI. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks for the explanation, 331dot, much appreciated. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lyceum Theatre (Broadway) on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Caroline Reboux on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or 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.

——Serial 15:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 I don't get what this means regarding me. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 17:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz:, was this ever explained to you adequately? If not, ping me, and I'll explain. Mathglot (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot from my understanding it's kind of a "this room is full of fine china" type of warning where admin actions and the like can be done quicker and with less procedure, but I don't have too good of an idea I think. Thanks for the offer! Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

That's basically it. It's also, as the notice says, not in any way a flag that you did anything wrong; in theory, these notices could (maybe even should?) be handed out to everybody who edits certain controversial topic areas and hasn't received one for that topic in the last 12 months. You're also free to archive or simply delete the notice at your discretion, which will be taken as proof that you read and understood it. If you want to see the complete list of topics considered controversial and subject to Discretionary sanctions, it is here. It's possible to stave off such warnings by means of Template:Ds/aware—you can see one in use in the header box at the top of my Talk page—but I probably wouldn't do that if I were you at this stage in your career, as you probably *want* the reminder, in case you wander into some controversial topic unawares. But if you're confident you won't forget, and don't need/don't want to receive them, you can use the 'aware' template, and you won't get the notices anymore. The flip side is, you could suddenly get blocked if you forget and inadvertently cross a line somewhere; so, it's up to you. Mathglot (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:New York Marriott Marquis and Talk:Marquis Theatre on "Art and architecture" Good Article nominations. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Revolt of the Fourteen on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cort Theatre on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Alpha Phi Beta

On 22 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alpha Phi Beta, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Filipino fraternity Alpha Phi Beta has been involved in instances of violence, including getting mauled by rival fraternities, such as Sigma Rho? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alpha Phi Beta. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Alpha Phi Beta), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Winsome Sears on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE

Are you aware of WP:BEFORE's item D:

The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects

 ?

I want to understand whether Taner Edis had been nominated for deletion with awareness of what this minimum search shows. Alexbrn (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn A quick search resulted in blogs, CV-like descriptions, or COI sources. Google scholar shows his work is not cited widely. google news results in a single link to a source of doubtable notability. Hope this clarification helps :) Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 07:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. Did you run these searches beforehand or not? Alexbrn (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes I did, Alexbrn. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 07:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a note in relation to notifications: WP:DELSORT and the notification of relevant noticeboards or WikiProjects is common practice, plus the article creator. However, user talk page notifications of specific editors who have minimally or not contributed to the article could be considered WP:CANVASSing. I didn't check if it was your first nomination, but if so, I admit that I now consider my first AfD notifications to almost be "spam" (or at least overzealous, out of a concern for detail with my flawed understanding of the process at the time)... —PaleoNeonate – 10:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Julian Assange on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jack Posobiec on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:J. K. Rowling on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of minority governors and lieutenant governors in the United States on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Closing an Rfc

A. C. Santacruz, you are still a new user, so you can't be expected to know all the rules around here (of which there are many), but I see you've learned some of the rules about RFCs, in particular, how to create one, as you did here at Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on lead sentence; so bravo for that. On the other hand, you haven't yet learned about proper Rfc closure procedure. This closure by you was an invalid closure, even if the result would have turned out the same eventually. Normally, an Rfc runs for 30 days, although they can be closed earlier by agreement, or by the original poster *withdrawing* the Rfc. However, nobody can close an Rfc 26 hours after it started, and the original poster can never close an Rfc and also assess the result, no matter what the "score" is at that point, and no matter how many days have elapsed since it started. Also somewhat concerning, is the fact that within 7 hours of starting the Rfc, you were talking about its closure, and follow-up with a second based on a presupposed consensus, saying: "once consensus is reached (the RfC started yesterday so it'll wait for a bit) I will start a second RfC presenting various options for wording based on the result of this RfC". That statement was premature, and did not help the Rfc that was underway.

I say all this as someone who voted with you on that Rfc, but I believe the Rfc guideline takes precedence over my opinion, and the formalities of the Rfc process have to be respected, irrespective of anyone's personal point of view. Unfortunately, the damage to process by the invalid closure has been compounded, because you then opened another one, using as a premise of the second Rfc, the fact that the first one had been closed and properly assessed. In my opinion, this now makes the second Rfc tainted by the invalid closure of the first. I'm really not sure what to do about all this, and will leave it to an uninvolved closer to unscramble.

In any case, the reason I'm explaining all this, is just to say that if you decide to open another Rfc some day (on any topic), please ensure that you do not attempt to evaluate it or close it at any point; it's also a better look if someone else other than the OP calls for snow close, or requests closure and assessment after it expires. I hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Following here from Talk:J. K. Rowling: FWIW, A. C. Santacruz got the opposite advice at WP:ANRFC. Firefangledfeathers 05:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting; I'm surprised. Well, just goes to show you, if the experienced editors don't agree about such things, we certainly can't blame newer editors from getting confused. To A. C. Santacruz's credit, they went to the right place, got some advice there, and applied it; I certainly can't fault them for that; just the opposite. The fact that I don't happen to agree with that advice, is neither here nor there. Mathglot (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, Firefangledfeathers. Could you perhaps provide the exact link showing that advice? -The Gnome (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The Gnome diff Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I would also have likely cautioned against closing your own RfC in all but the most exceptional cases. I think one ingredient here is the contentiousness of the topic area. Even with clear early support for one option, who knows what opinions might pop out of the woodwork? Conversely, who knows who might later question the solidity of the consensus without allowing enough time? Worth thinking/talking about, I think. Firefangledfeathers 06:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Firefangledfeathers and Mathglot: for coming to my talk page to give advice, I really appreciate it ^u^. To be perfectly honest I wasn't too keen on closing it (still believe it should've run at least the weekend) but the wording of the advice on WP:CR felt a bit authoritative. I wonder if its a good idea for me to reopen the discussion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't reply at length now, but at this point, I would not reopen. Mathglot (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

"So if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days; if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious" (WP:CR)

"When further responses are likely to result in little more than wasting everyone's time by repeating the same widely held view, then it should be closed sooner rather than later" (WP:WHENCLOSE)

"An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be.", "There is no required minimum or maximum duration" (WP:RFCCLOSE)

"If there is unanimous support for something uncontroversial, then a discussion can generally not be seen as contentious or heated, and WP:SNOW can be applied".

These were the basis for my reasoning. And if I might add, WP:CR stipulating "any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion" and WP:RFCCLOSE establishing that "any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion" is slightly confusing.

Regardless, I take full responsibility for this and apologize for my misguided counsel. Also, I intended in no way to convey my advice in an authoritative manner. I understand that the legitimacy of the close and thus the subsequent RfC are now in doubt as a result; so if needed, other RfC participants may be asked for their opinion on this or WP:AN may be consulted. I hope this helps, and again, I’m sorry. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Colonestarrice:, your comments here at A.C.S.'s talk page are very gracious, and I don't think you have anything to apologize for. Your reading of the guidelines is most certainly a defensible one, and you gave your advice, as I and others did, in good faith, and that's all anyone can ask for. Beyond that, anyone who is willing to reexamine their own behavior in a given situation epitomizes, in my opinion, the very highest standards of Wikipedia; you are exactly the kind of editor that Wikipedia needs more of. So, bravo, thanks for your comments, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

A.C. Santacruz, it seems you were in a similar situation before at Talk:Éric Zemmour, in which your recommendation to another editor to close an Rfc they started was rebuffed by JBchrch (here) and The Gnome (here). I can see you're getting some conflicting advice about this whole closure business, and if anything similar happens again regarding this, or any guideline or policy, that's probably a good sign that as a still relatively new user, you should probably take the most conservative approach and leave any iffy move to a more experienced editor, and let them take the heat if they try something that isn't clearly compliant. Sorry you've been mixed up with all this, to some extent it's collateral damage from having edited in controversial areas (Rowling: gender-related issues; Zemmour: right-wing politics) and if you want some peace and quiet for a while, just try and avoid such topics for a bit. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

(since I was pinged): Two oft-forgotten components of WP:BOLD are 1. WP:CAREFUL and 2. the notion that Although editors are encouraged to be bold in updating articles, more caution is sometimes required when editing pages in non-article namespaces. A. C. Santacruz, be less bold and more careful in non-mainspace pages and you'll be fine. JBchrch talk 02:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Opening an RfC

On a related note - was opening either of the RfCs on Rowling the wisest course of action? There are fairly frequent changes to the article and heated discussion on the talk page, but over the last yeart or so, rough consensus has emerged, following previous discussions and RfCs. It seems from some of your comments that you haven't read those or indeed, the article itself, in full, before jumping in with both feet to start the two RfCs. While I understand WP:BOLD and absolutely assume you started these RfCs with good faith, what we are seeing know was eminently predictable - in the majority of cases, people are !voting based on their personal opinion of the topic of transgender rights/activism/criticism, rather than on WP policy. E.g., claims of "too recent" or WP:DUE for the lead, ignoring what the MOS:LEAD already states. In particular, I have concerns about 'splitting the vote' in offering two different options about "if we keep this in the lead, what should we say". Actually, even more fundamentally, after snow-closing the previous RfC, it should have been made clear that only a tiny minority of those commenting in that RfC favoured removing from the lead. Now, suddenly, that's up for debate, even though it's been stable in the lead for months. I've been here quite a while, and I can tell you if I were to start an RfC on something so controversial, I'd likely be seeking advice on wording, options, format, or even appropriateness of doing so, before starting. Sorry, just my 2c. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} I am beginning to wonder if there's a yen for WP:DRAMA apparent from such actions, kind of like what caused problems at ANI a couple of weeks ago. Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Note that removing it from the lead as an option is not my fault, I merely gave an option for other rewordings of the lead. I didn't even consider there would be actual support for removal from the lead aside from one or two editors with transphobic opinions (who I recognized from other discussions). In any case, RfCs are not decided by votes, and if the closer sees there is widespread support for inclusion but disagreement on how exactly to word it (either A, B, or C) they will mention that in the close. A subsequent RfC can then be made between those option with clear mention that removal is against consensus. I sought the advice of Newimpartial in this discussion on their talk page. I strongly believe that the lead will be contentious for the following years, and having a consensus on the exact wording of the lead will help keep it stable. As you can see from the discussion there is a non-trivial number of editors that find it problematic in its current state (too much or too little mention of the trans views) and I continue to believe that RfCs guided by specific options helps make that debate more structured. Just looking at the discussion above my first RfC and how disorganized and battlegrounded that was, I don't think that me deciding to create those RfCs was wrong. In any case, Bastun I genuinely appreciate you coming to my talk page and letting me know of your concerns ^u^. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It won't keep it stable - and nor should it! - because new things will happen and editors old and new will come along and change the wording, for better or worse. This is as it should be. Wordings should never be set in stone by an RfC, and in fact they can't be. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

There has been at least one case where an RfC did decide wording under the aegis of arbitration: WP:GMORFC. But otherwise there is a general growing problem on Wikipedia of editors (especially new ones) seeing RfCs as quasi-legal ways of "settling cases" - as decision-making-mechanisms rather than requests for comment. Editors are launching RfCs before doing proper WP:RFCBEFORE and a lot of community time is being wasted. There are plenty of hornets' nests on Wikipedia, and it's not a great use of time to go around kicking them. Alexbrn (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not mean stable as in unchangeable or set in stone, rather as a steady point of reference. Recent consensus is useful at guiding edits in contentious articles. Other editors had suggested changing the wording in the first RfC I made, and so I created a second one to discuss that. Alexbrn please use less idioms when talking with or about me, as I find them hard to understand in this context — just say what you mean. The idea I am seeking controversial articles to create more controversy and drama is an unreasonable accusation lacking both in diffs and proper process (there are noticeboards for that), especially when I have repeatedly mentioned I created the RfCs in order to bring some structure to the mess of a discussion previously held in the talk page. I'd appreciate you stop lurking my talk page if you don't wish to change your tone when addressing me as I find it insulting and patronizing (WP:NOBAN), but you are still welcome to message me here when necessary for the Wikipedia process. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: If you follow {{Talk header}}, it instructs users to "seek dispute resolution if needed", and links to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests, where launching a RfC looks like the most reasonable and straightforward option. Actually, I would argue that learning how to avoid RfCs is something that that is generally reserved to experienced editors who know their way around the project and its customs. JBchrch talk 16:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

A new RFC (as you're aware of) is up & steamrolling ahead. So, your closure of the earlier-related RFC, shall have to remain. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion threading with colons and asterisks in replies

In this discussion, your reply began with :* to a previous comment that began with an asterisk, but that was wrong; if you wanted to indent only, you should have used *:, and if you wanted an indented bullet, then **. I know this can be confusing, but the rule of thumb is, just copy whatever the comment you are replying to used, add one more metacharacter, depending what look you're going for, and don't skip any blank lines. (That said, the software compensates for some errors and sometimes does what you want, anyway, as I think it did in this case.) This is all explained in detail at WP:THREAD. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was any difference between :* and *:, thanks for telling me Mathglot :D. The main issue I find with doing multiple asterisks like *** is when the comment above (in a deeper thread) does not use an asterisk for some reason it displays like a double asterisk where the first one is at no indentation and the second one is at the intended indentation (yikes what a mouthful of a tongue twister). Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that double-asterisk thing is one of the downsides of the somewhat complex syntax of discussion threading; when people in good faith get the prefix metacharacters wrong, there can be weird, unintended results. The WMF (WikiMedia Foundation, the folks that create/maintain the software) have been looking at redoing the entire system of talk page replies, and have them installed at some mediawiki properties already, I think. Mathglot (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure the stress of the JKR rfc is distracting, but when that settles down, please have another look at WP:THREAD. Several of your responses at that rfc have nonstandard bulleting or formatting, due to misfires in that regard. This is definitely not a big deal, but looking at your punctilious attention to and awareness of policies, guidelines and other help/info pages, sometimes pretty minor ones, this is kind of an outlier at this point in escaping your attention. When in doubt, follow the rule of thumb. Reemphasizing: nbd; but just thought you'd want to know. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes what happens to me is I see the editors above me used the wrong formatting (e.g. changed from bullet to indent when replying to a bulleted comment) and I get completely paralyzed as I don't know if I can fix their formatting, follow their mistake, or go ahead and use what they should have. Is it considered disruptive or an offensive move to fix others' formatting, Mathglot? If it isn't I'll just fix their formatting from now on. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It's considered bad form to alter another editor's post, even to fix typos and so on; see WP:TPO. However, I do do it on rare occasions anyway, when all of the following are true:

• I feel that my change is a clear improvement in some way
• the change has *zero effect* on the other user's intended meaning (regardless whether I agree with it or not)
• there is very little chance the editor would object.

In those cases, I use the edit summary to state clearly what I'm doing, linking WP:TPO, and stating that I'm violating it, and sometimes inviting a revert of my edit. Some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

That said, if the editor in question and I were on opposite (or differing) sides of some substantive issue at a TP discussion or if I feel there's any chance that their feathers might be ruffled by my messing with any part of their comment, even as little as a colon or asterisk, then I steer clear of it, and just let it be. This procedure is my own, and is not codified in any guideline, or even essay, afaik; use at your own discretion. Mathglot (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I might be a bit more willing to edit the indentation style than Mathglot. It is listed as an appropriate move at WP:TPO. I share their thoughts on avoiding any meaning changing edits. Firefangledfeathers 22:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been more active in fixing indents in the past, or trying to keep some sort of stability. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if it's because of editor personal preference, or perhaps the way some editors make their contributions (desktop vs mobile vs visual editor, etc.) I've seen some comments get really broken, so unless it's something particularly egregious like linebreaks futzing * lists I tend to leave it alone now. There's just too many ways it can go wrong to actually stay on top of it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

As an example, this is the sort of indenting I would fix.

• First level bullet
  • Second level bullet

• • • What should be third level bullet but isn't because of a blank line immediately above.

That sort of thing can impact readability. That said, I really dislike using * for indenting. Colon indenting is a lot more forgiving, and allows for line break gaps without breaking the indent level, which makes navigating the source a lot easier at least for me when editing on desktop. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

*Are good for when one posts a Support or Oppose, etc in any RFC, AFD, RM etc etc. Responding posts after that should not use them & merely use regular indenting. -- GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Not to be yet another person piling into an overlong discussion, but if you want indenting your posts and all that jazz taken care of for you, go to Preferences → Beta features and enable "Discussion tools", then click "Save"; comments will now have a "Reply" button after them. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Piling appreciated and encouraged! Thanks for the recommendation Enterprisey :D Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Your message

You've made your point. As someone with as much experience here as you have, please be more civil.

Spare me. As someone with as little experience here as you have -- and who's been blocked from WP:ANI due to a lack of clue -- you don't get to give me -- or anyone else, really -- advice.

You've made your point is particularly rich coming from someone badgering other editors in order to own a page. You need to better acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policy and conventions -- including how consensus works -- in order to contribute here effectively instead.

Oh, and another thing you should learn: WP:DNTR. --Calton | Talk 11:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Please don't be this aggressive towards me, Calton. I had good intentions writing those messages and I'm sorry that you felt insulted by them. If you don't mind, I don't understand what WP:DNTR has to do in this instance. Is it me sending the kitten? In any case, the WP:ANI block was due to me not understanding non-admin closures and collapsing discussions so I don't see what that has to do with my competence here (you can just say I don't have much experience). I'm doing a good honest effort at improving how I contribute in this community. I'd rather you give me guidance than just tell me I suck. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Calton, that template was entirely in order; your heated language at Talk:J. K. Rowling was not. Please stop throwing stones. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd also point out @Calton: that WP:DNTR isn't policy, it's an essay. And explicitly states A very small number of templates, such as the Arbitration Committee's Alert template, are mandatory and must be "placed unmodified" for an alert to be valid. As a result, these templates are not covered by this essay. so Santacruz was entirely in the right here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd also point out to @Calton: that the message "A kitten for you" placed on your talk page was not a template—and there is no possible way you could have misconstrued it as one given its content—so your raising the WP:DNTR issue is both laughably mistargeted, as well as completely gratuitous. As someone who's throwing around DNTR at newer editors and claiming "regular" status based on your 17 years experience here, you ought to reread DNTR and understand that it is *strictly* about templates, not about text custom-crafted for the occasion. If you're feeling piled-on here, I'm sorry about that, but I felt it necessary to show my support here for A.C.S., as well as to let you know how wildly off-base your comments were. In reality, you ought to feel grateful that this is on A.C.S.'s talk page and not on yours. Best, Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Your request for protection, talk J.K.Rowling

Hi....just to repeat what others said. Please be so kind to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's many nooks and crannies, called policies etc.... Sometimes doing less is getting more results...patience is helpful. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Lectonar Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cannabis in Japan on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shirley Chisholm on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ed Sullivan Theater on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination, and at Talk:Empathy gap (social psychology) on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

Just letting you know about the stricter rules for gender and sexuality related topics on Wikipedia. Don't worry, it's just a standard notice that has to be given and you've not done anything wrong. It's just like the one Serial left above but for gender. P.S there's a handy ds/aware you can add to the top of your talk or user page to collate them all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the notice Sideswipe9th :D Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Sig syntax

Have you been playing round with your custom sig lately? In my previous edit on this page, I had to fix your sig because it was screwing up syntax highlighting for everything following. As this is your page, that doesn't really matter, but since you post on article Talk pages, it could affect those pages adversely. (Again: not a huge deal, because the only adverse effect is on those who rely on syntax highlighting in the wikicode, like, ahem, yours truly; but still...) The offending sig was:

• <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz]]</span>

which has a missing </span> before the ]]. It looks like you've fixed that already.

The latest sig of yours I see at 19:49 looks completely different from that one, so I assume you're continuing to experiment. You seem familiar enough with Html that you don't need advice on that score, but I'd just ask that you pass any complex changes through an Html validator before going live with it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I changed it up a few times a week ago IIRC. At first because people were just referring to me as Santacruz anyways and then I was super annoyed that editors would reply to me without pinging me meaning I'd have to check my contributions to see if my edit was still the current version of the page etc. Thanks for the heads up Mathglot, I'll be more careful when editing my signature in the future. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Came back to this because of a thread at meta; it looks like your bad sig on this page was not left by you, but copied by another editor at 20:34, 1 December 2021, presumably copying your sig from elsewhere, and dropping the date (and maybe more?). Anyway, unless that really was an accurate copy (as far as it went), this issue is moot. Just thought you'd want to know. Mathglot (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Special ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. Please note, due to a technical error you may not have been able to previously vote, or you may have received this message twice or after opting out. This is a one-time notification. If you are having any issues voting now, please contact the election coordinators for assistance. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Michelle Mone, Baroness Mone on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:William Brattle on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Hi again, A. C. Santacruz. In answer to your question (above): you may use {{admin help}} if you require assistance from an admin that for whatever reason you can't request elsewhere. HTH. El_C 04:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Music Box Theatre on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jean-Michel Basquiat on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

User attempting to evade a ban

I'm pretty sure what the user who recently edited my page (diff) is trying to do would amount to or could be understood as either WP:OUTING of Sgerbic or something along those lines, and is an attempt to evade a ban. In any case, this probably needs some admin attention. That conduct is disgusting and completely unnecessary. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It's already at ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ScottishFinnishRadish for the quick response. God, receiving that message was so disturbing. I hope I never receive something like that in my talk page about anyone again. I'm shaking right now what the absolute fuck. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Poof! I've been summoned. Can someone please tell me what is going on? In the diff I see the user name Rome Viharo - is our little friend back after all these years? Or is someone playing a sockpuppet account knowing that seeing his name is going to still heightened alert. If someone besides the current drama is attacking me, I would appreciate knowing. Sgerbic (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed it is the person you are referring to, Sgerbic. He told me he was "the first to expose Sgerbic and GSoW" and that type of bullshit-rambling, asked me to go to his twitter and offered secret information on GSoW editors. Completely unacceptable and disgusting someone like him felt he could come to my user page and act like that. He's been now quickly blocked and all edits he made on my page have been completely hidden so no one can read his disturbing edits again, thankfully. I apologize for pinging you, I probably should have used the no ping template so as to not worry you for something admins can resolve quickly. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I need to know these things. Rome was the king of sockpuppet trolls for many years and very disruptive (on and off Wikipedia), interesting to know that he is still reading Wikipedia ANI and talk pages. So why did he think you would be respective to knowing more about Susan Gerbic and GSoW? You might like to know ACS that GSoW and Susan Gerbic is not popular in a certain world that does not want it to continue, does not want it to keep repairing/writing/maintaining Wikipedia pages (in all languages) concerning magical thinking. I've had years of threats to me, one pseudoscience clinic alerted the FBI on me. They all think that they are under attack. Every single thing that happens to them, they assume that Gerbic is behind it, when I/we are completely unaware and clueless. It's endless and one very good reason why GSoW is never going to become a public WikiProject. People like Rome will find the team members who do not want to be public and harass them. Do you not understand that your efforts to out my team were playing right into the hands of trolls like Rome? It's one thing to be attacked by the world of pseudoscience, it's completely different to be dealing with attacks by those Wikipedia editors like yourself and others who profess to be skeptics also. BTW - a few weeks ago a long-time Wikipedia editor whom I have very little interaction with wrote to me to raise the concern that YOU were a sockpuppet of Rome (or one of his associates which he has been known to do). I assured that editor that you were not part of the Rome universe, Rome was long gone. But now I learn differently, and that Rome sees you as having the same goals. What is that phrase - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. You keep telling us that you are new here - remember that a lot of us have long histories here and when a newbie barges into the room without understanding the dynamics of the group, they are going to cause old-wounds to open and more drama. I will give you the same advice I give my new team members, stay away from all the admin pages, make your talk page edit ratio a quarter of your actual editing ratio. READ READ READ talk pages - learn from others. Avoid conflicts with other editors - there is no edit on Wikipedia that is the hill to die on. MoveOn.org there is always another page that needs work. Reporting people gets old real quick and people will tire of drama even quicker. Sgerbic (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish where is this discussion of Rome happening? I've looked all over ANI and I can't find it, please put me out of my misery and link to the thread pretty please. Sgerbic (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tumbleman sock. It's pretty much wrapped up with a block and some revdels. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I will make sure to let you know from now on, like I have in this instance, when other editors make these kinds of attacks on you, Sgerbic. I still believe that on-wiki communities are much more beneficial to the project as a whole than off-wiki ones, but I will make it clear here as I will do always: the idea that I have personally any intention to cause harm (psychological, legal, whatever the fuck else Rome has caused in the past) on any GSoW editors is immensely wrong. I also have no interest on the individual members of GSoW or any other off-wiki group. Professional, impersonal disagreements on the policies and guidelines of an internet volunteer knowledge hub should NEVER extend to real-life issues. Any editors that approach me just because I have disagreed with GSoW editors, however strongly, in the way Rome has will be quickly reported, blocked, and ignored. I am not interested in the witch-hunts organized by fanatical followers of pseudoscience or religious zealots. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lunt-Fontanne Theatre on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:John Diefenbaker on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Edit war notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sharon A. Hill. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Points to note: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Repeatedly removing huge chunks of sourced material can lead to your being blocked for edit warring even if you do not break 3RR. Perhaps you should read WP:BRD and try to justify your Bold removal of sourced material on the Talk page, (That's the D in BRD and it stands for "Discuss"), instead of repeatedly removing it. The best thing for you to do at the moment is to revert yourself so that the long established version of the article is restored. Thanks. Roxy the dog. wooF 10:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the dog I justified my edit in the talk page -- you didn't. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It's almost funny how strong the irony is of you sending me a message that encourages me to go to the talk page and reach consensus when you are the one that hasn't. Roxy, dear, if you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Dont call me dear. The Talk page has two recent sections, The IP Revert section is full of your TL;DR ramblings which I haven't read, the second Notice of edit is you complaining about a fellow editor not responding to you, even though they have responded, in that very same thread. Which of them is the one that justifies your edit warring removal of huge chunks of well sourced material? -Roxy the dog. wooF 10:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP revert section. In great detail. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If you didn't read my damned justification which I mention in edit summaries then how on earth do you feel justified to revert my edits. I think the situation has gone from almost funny to fully comedic at this point. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

From the link you supplied of WP:BRR, Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive. If you didn't even both to read my reasons for my edit, that may be seen as disruptive. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Here we go

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Rp2006 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion relevant to me over at ANI, but I cannot reply as I am temporary banned from ANI Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but I would be willing to copy over responses. Firefangledfeathers 21:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Firefangledfeathers, but an admin closed the relevant ANI thread as no action needed. I'll ping you if that changes :) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I saw that. It won't affect my willingness to be the go-between, but I'll say I do think reverting your comment was a wise choice. If you haven't thoroughly read WP:OUTING, I highly recommend it. Firefangledfeathers 21:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean OUTING doesn't provide much clarification for this situation imo, {Firefangledfeathers. A link is cited on-wiki for 3 years+ which associates editor X with personal information on him. Editor X edits that page throughout those 3 years and does not remove the link. Editor X then asks editor Y to read that (and another) link as part of a talk page discussion. Editor Y replies with information included in the link editor X told her to read. I am terribly confused as to how that is outing, but have since removed the link from the article just in case. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers closure has been reverted. I'd appreciate if you could copy my comment above without the ping to you. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. I made an editorial judgment on how to remove the ping part. Let me know if you'd like anything adjusted. Firefangledfeathers 22:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you reply in the ANI thread that Rp2006 has just readded the link that outs him to the relevant article? I'm really confused now... the editor wants the citation on the article but the information there-in is outing? Huh? Newbie editor here needs some nuanced clarification. Firefangledfeathers. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If Editor X hasn't intentionally declared on-wiki that they are associated with that link, then declaring such an association is an outing attempt. I think the policy makes that clear when it discusses editors who use their real names, where it's trivially easy to make such an association. Unless they do so first, drawing even obvious connections is outing. Firefangledfeathers 22:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll be more careful with the difference between wiki -> off-wiki and wiki <- off-wiki information. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Appreciated. For that reason, I think it would unwise of me to copy over your most recent comment. Firefangledfeathers 22:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just out of curiosity, have you read the link? Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I have. I have also reviewed the history of the article in question. Firefangledfeathers 22:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers I think any contributions from me in the ani thread from now on probably won't be very helpful. I'll leave it to more experienced editors to discuss the nuances of the situation. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Good call! Firefangledfeathers 22:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sticking here cause it's semi related. I know you're frustrated/exasperated with both Sgerbic and Rp2006 right now. The best thing you can do for the moment is to leave the pair of them alone. They are both clearly angry and hyper-defensive, and getting into a "You did! No you did!" back and forth serves neither of you. My advice is to just step away from your keyboard and clear your head. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Will do. I'm stunned they keep bringing up that troll though. How is it my fault they didn't take proper precautions before deciding to base the overwhelming majority of their edits in articles related to religious zealots and unreasonable fanatics I will never know. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I hear you. I really do, and I empathise completely. But right now there's nothing positive that can be gained by the two/three of you interacting directly. Passions/anger is too strong right now. Disengage and de-escalate the situation. Then come back with a clearer head. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Walled gardens

Maybe you should find a new set of walled gardens to try and trim. Perhaps one with fewer attentive gardeners already attending the grounds, making sure each rose is just so, and discussing among themselves how best to manicure the hedges. Optimus Prime and the related articles could use a pair of shears, for instance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a rewrite of Carbon bubble at User:A. C. Santacruz/Carbon_bubble_rewrite. I stopped editing skeptic articles except for the one where I was being disruptively reverted (see Roxy's admission above of not even reading my justification for the edit). Once the discussion in that article on my proposed changes is finished I'll stay away from skeptic articles for a while. It's a complete shitshow with editors not disclosing their COIs related to sources and organizations, etc. etc. A shame, really. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Or you could just drop it now, remove it from your watchlist, and relax. I'll use fringey psychic powers to look into the future and tell you there will be consensus against your changes. So you can either bash your head against a wall for a while, then step away, or step away now and save yourself a headache. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm just like, 30% of that article is quotes. Surely there would be consensus to trim that a bit? I am but a fringey psychic apprentice in the dark wiki arts but it seems like me and mrollie were interacting quite positively, its only roxy (who admitted not to reading my justification at all) and rp2006 (we dont get along it seems, and for someone with possible autism interacting with him is a boss fight) that dont wish to interact with my proposed changes to any length. I'm alright with no improvements being done in the article if the community is truly against it, but I'm hoping the very flagrant opportunities for improvement (30% quotes, 2 paragraphs dedicated to a master's thesis with no significant academic influence) would be tackled. Alas, not everything goes how one wishes, I guess. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You said "Surely there would be consensus to trim that a bit" when you already know that there isn't. -Roxy the dog. wooF 09:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)