User talk:Adamant1/Archive 1

Comments

If anyone wants to discuss something with me then please leave a message on the talk page of the article that it relates to. Otherwise, I will revert you and move the comment there. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Pearl Page for Deletion

Hi, please reconsider the page that I added and please do guide me on what to improve. Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdelima101 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Which page are you referring to? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Never mind. I see which page it is now. All I can say is to find better references for it if you can. Maybe read through the notability guidelines if you haven't yet. Especially the ones having to do with companies. You can also request the article be drafted as an alternative to deletion in the AfD if your unable to find references at this point and then send it through Articles for Creation later when its in better shape. Personally that's what I'd do. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for guiding me but may I know how I can send it to the Article Article for Creation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdelima101 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not super up on it but I think Wikipedia:Articles for creation has instructions. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much but the article is still there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Health just that it has a notification that it is for deletion. I visit the Wikipedia:Articles for creation but that was the thing I did when I added the article. Should I re-create it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdelima101 (talk • contribs)

You can request that it be drafted in the AfD as an alternative to deletion and then send it through articles for creation again once you've worked on it more. I don't know what your options are outside of that since I don't create articles. Maybe someone on the Articles for Creation talk page can help you. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! You deserve the barnstar badge. Hope to have one too someday! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdelima101 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For defending me in my enforced absence at ANI. Really appreciate it. Dronebogus (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never gotten a barnstar before :) --Adamant1 (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Holiday greetings (2021)

Adamant1,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Thanks. I hope your holiday season goes well also. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Bellerose Composite High School

I undid your PROD nomination on Bellerose Composite High School because it is not uncontroversial. Many high schools fit the criteria for an article on Wikipedia, and I believe this is one of them. Much of this article was wiped (deservedly so) because it was written poorly, but I believe there are sources and material out there that can bring it up to par.

I will try flesh this article out when I have time in the next little while.  DiscantX 19:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I also undid your PROD at Bert Church High School. I'm less familiar with this one, but it is not a PROD. Take it to AFD if need be and please be more careful with your deletion requests. I see at least one of your other edits was a speedy deletion at Airdrie Koinonia Christian School that was undone by an administrator, so I'm not the only one. There are likely more of your deletion requests that were improperly placed.  DiscantX 20:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@DiscantX: That's fine if you want to improve the articles you removed the PRODs from. I'll give a couple of days to do so and then send them to AfD if they aren't improved to the point of being notable. That said, articles for schools are deleted all the time without controversy. Including high schools. Both through PRODing and the AFD. Just because "many" are notable doesn't mean that all are. The same goes for every topic on Wikipedia and perfectly fine to PROD them. Schools are in not in any way special. In the meantime it's a miss characterizing to say my deletion requests where improperly placed just because you have different standards then the majority of users and think schools get a special pass from PRODs. Next time I'd appreciate it if you just removed the PRODs, left an actual edit summary when doing so, and not leave me messages on my talk page questioning what I do or making things personal in the meantime.

Like I said, I'm fine with you de-PRODing articles you think you can improve. As long as you can do so. If you can't do so then I am fine sending them to AfD and eventually writing an ANI complaint for abusing the de-PROD system if you chronically de-PROD things without a valid reason or improving the articles. Especially if you are unwilling to AGF and try to make it into a personal issue. Which I have zero tolerance for. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I have de-PRODed, to my recollection, two articles in my time editing Wikipedia. It is hardly chronic. As far as edit summaries go, I tried leaving them but it saved the default reversion edit summary instead. I assume it is an issue with some userscript I have installed.

I am not making this into a personal issue, I am trying to engage in a discussion with you to explain my actions in a lengthier manner than a edit summary can do, and because I saw that my edit summaries did not work. You ask me to AGF, I ask you to do the same. Thanks,  DiscantX 07:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

That's good. I wasn't saying it was chronic. As far as the edit summaries goes, I've had similar issues before. So no harm no foul there if that was the reason you didn't leave them. Of course I had no way of knowing that was the reason and people not leaving them intentionally is far more common then them just not being able to because of saving errors. I didn't use to leave them that much myself until someone asked me to. I don't think it's a requirement anyway when de-PRODing articles, but at least a courtesy. I appreciate you explaining your actions on my talk page in absence of the edit summaries though. My main issue was your comment That are likely more of my deletion requests that were improperly placed. Which made the whole thing seem like more a bad faithed fishing expedition. Instead of you just leaving a reason why you removed the PRODs on my talk page. Otherwise, I don't know why you would bring up or question other edits that you weren't involved in. I'm not looking through your edits to find PRODs you might have inappropriately removed in the past to make a broader point about why your de-PRODs in this case were wrong because I could really care less. Like I've said, improve the articles if you think they can be. I'm perfectly fine with that. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Venkat TL

By the way, since we were talking on there, I warned him about his personal attacks on his talk page and needless to say, he doesn't care. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, at least you tried. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

John Kennedy College

Thankyou for nominating this article for deletion. secondary schools are one place where we for too long had too low an expectation for sources. I have to admit I created a few low sourced articles in this field. It will be a long time before we get to a point where we have mainly quality articles in this area, but any progress is appreciated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Your welcome. Unfortunately there's a lot of really poor articles for secondary schools out there. At least it seems like enough people are getting behind the RfC on secondary schools now though that it's not a bunch of bickering and teeth pulling in every AfD related to them at this point like there was just a few years ago. Since it should make the cleanup go quicker. There's still some disagreement about when to apply which guideline, but I'm sure that will also resolve itself eventually and I rather take that then a bunch of people just block voting along the lines of "keep because the nominator is an ignorant racist and every school in inherently notable per the consensus that only exists in my head" or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Darul Huda Islamic University

Can you please tell me why did you remove, Islam in India template from the article?? The islam in India teplate includes DHIU in its University section and it should be added in the article. Please let me know if i am wrong. Tinkvu (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone else had gotten rid of it and then you returned it to the page without discussing the revert first. So I put it back to how they had changed it. As far as to why it was originally removed, you'd have to take that up with whomever it was that originally made the edit. I can't remember who it was off the top of my head though. BTW, I'd appreciate if you stopped adding back the obvious promotional content. Just because your adding it back in an edit instead of reverting me doesn't make it any less edit waring. If think their affiliations and membership should be mentioned in the article then request it on the talk page like you've been asked to. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm Sorry, it's my mistake! Tinkvu (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice

{{subst:ANI-notice}} Starship SN20 (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents section 47 Starship SN20 (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like it was closed. Probably a good call on RickinBaltimore's part. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

List of high schools in Paraguay

Good afternoon Adam. None of the articles shown at List of high schools in Paraguay seem to have references, so you can feel free to nominate List of high schools in Paraguay and ALL of the articles listed if you do see fit. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: I de-PRODDED them, since it may be controversial. I'm sure that no English language sources exist, but what about Spanish? Feel free to bulk AfD them. I'll likely vote delete anyway, as I'm kinda playing devil's advocate so to speak, not trying to be disruptive. I hope you understand? Mako001 (C)  (T)  00:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I had planned to go through List of high schools in Paraguay and nominate the ones that are left for deletion at some point when I have the time. I had thought about PRODing them instead, but the PROD system is kind of worthless right now, as shown by Mako001 ;). It's better to just AfD things anyway. Since maybe there will be one list that is notable, who knows, but at least it's harder to re-create articles that have deleted through AfD. Honestly, I would have preferred a lower bar to re-creation in the future, but a lot of people don't consider that when removing PRODs. Anyway, I'll nominate them for deletion at some point if no one else does. In the meantime, I'm not sure if doing a bulk nomination is the way to go. As it attracts low effort "keep because nominating equals bad" or similar votes. Which I don't really feel like dealing with. That said, if Jax0677 wants to bulk nominate the articles before I get to them that's fine. My guess is that they will be deleted eventually either way. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Opinion on AFD

Hi Adamant, I noticed your opinion provided on the AfD for Westford School of Management, Sharjah, would you be kind enough to provide an opinion on the AfD of this article as well, thank you.

Hello. I had a quick glance at it and I would probably vote delete, but I'm going to stay out of it for now so my vote doesn't come off like me being canvassed. Since I clearly favor voting delete in most AfDs that I participate in. That said, I watch the various AfD lists related to articles about education, had already seen it, and was planning on participating in the AfD at some point even if you had not of contact me. So I might vote on it eventually anyway depending on how I feel about it. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your honest opinion I appreciate it, wish you the best. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 12:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

A pi for you

Happy π day. And have some pie! Eating pie is no sin, because of course sin π is zero.

Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to say thank you for your response to the Ian Holliday AfD. That editor harassed me over multiple AfD discussions for their interpretation of guidelines and while they may be more experienced, they definitely did not do a good job of explaining themselves/the rules in an appropriate manner. I may be learning but I do truly appreciate your message as well. Thirty4 (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

ANI request about behavior at Combermere School AFD

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 91.193.178.64 (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

C'mon, Adamant1. I am pulling for you at AN/I, and I understand you feel aggrieved, but lashing out at others is not just unhelpful, it is counterproductive. Just a thought. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that your pulling for me. The comment was a statement of fact and I backed up everything I said with evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi- I don't want to put this at the ANI discussion, which already has too many side-discussions going on, but I do genuinely want to say to you that I support wht Dumuzid is saying to you, and I am not out to 'get you'. We need people to review articles, our deletion processes are important - seriously, look at my own AD record, I've !voted in hundreds of discussions and I think I'm at >90% delete. What you're doing is important, it's necessary, but you need to do it in a collegiate manner, and you need to be able to step back and say 'ah shit guys, I got this one wrong'. We all make bad nominations at AfD sometimes - if you want a prime example, look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Capak. I fucked up; it was a ridiculously promotional article when I reviewed it, but the subject was notable. When I got pushback, I engaged with the people telling me I was wrong, and I learned from my mistake. That's what we're looking for from you - we don't need people to be perfect, but we need them to recognise when they've messed up, and to be willing to admit it and move on. If you like, you can revert this and ban me from your talk page - I'd respect your wishes if that's what you want to do. I'd much rather work together with you on this though, so we can come out as a stronger team at the end of it. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that and respect your opinion. I will take it into consideration. A large part of the reason I'm commenting in the ANI complaint is because I want feedback on what I can do better. It's unfortunate that people are focused on my past issues instead of telling me how I do better next time. On that, I said I acted hostile and that I was glad the book turned out to have in-depth coverage. I was planning to retracted the AfD to, but it was closed before I had a chance to. So I'm not really sure what I else I can do at this point. If you have any other ideas I'm more then willing to consider them. BTW, I also told Cullen328 I'll try to keep personal issues separate from AfD discussions going forward. I'm not really sure what I can do past that. It's not like I'm unwilling to listen to feedback or change my behavior if need be. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd strongly advise you to own your mistakes, rather than trying to justify them. Did you look at that Peter Capak AfD I linked? I fucked up. I realised that after the first couple of 'keep' votes, so I admitted it, and asked people what I should do better next time. This is a seriously important lesson: we all screw up. What matters is how you deal with it. We're all on a never-ending learning curve, and none of us are perfect. I'm no different: I got the checkuser permission late last year, and I promise you that I have made mistakes in how I have handled SPI cases since I got it. Luckily for me, stuff like that is handled in private, because of the nature of the stuff I fucked up - but the good news is that people aren't expected to be perfect.

When someone tells me that I screwed up, I have a think about it, I consider their point of view, I also consider their level of experience, and then I respond. Oftentimes, it will be to apologise - because I'm fallible. Occasionally, I'll stand by my position - because even I am right, from time to time. Whichever route I choose, it will be polite and collegiate - even if I think they're a complete fuckwit.

If you want my advice, I'd urge you to read through all those discussion, and try your best to imagine that you weren't a part of them - look at how hostile you are. It really doesn't need to be like that - we can be friendly to each other, even when we disagree. Then, once you've had a bit of a think, and maybe a sleep to provide some distance, post a brief comment at the ANI discussion. But seriously, I think a break from deletion discussions of this kind might do you some good - find some other stuff to work on, let others take the strain in this area for a bit. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 23:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I took six months from AfDs a while back and it definitely helped put things in perspective. I'll probably do that again if I get blocked or not. Although if AfD continues to be a cesspool where people can repeatedly abuse nominators without repercussions I'll probably just say to hell with it and do other things. I'm not really here to constantly get verbally abused and gaslit. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I've done plenty of AfD nominations, most of them before my RfA - I've occasionally got a bit of stick, but mostly it's been fine. This isn't about the general culture at AfD though, it's about you. SeoR certainly did no abuse you: they were polite and collegiate, and you responded with hostility. That's what you need to think about. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure. I don't disagree. Just because there's systemic hostility all around doesn't mean I don't contribute it or didn't in this situation. It was a general statement about what my plan will probably be after the ANI complaint is resolved and had nothing to do with the incident since you brought up taking some time off from AfDs to reflect on things. As far as I'm aware pretty much everyone agrees that the AfD process has issues and there is a lot of verbal abuse going around on both sides. If I'm actually being honest about this it's not worth dealing with no matter what side I'm on or if this whole thing with Jacona never happened. That doesn't mean I haven't been hostile myself though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It's no secret that I think there are systemic problems with AfD, and I have used the word cesspool myself to describe it in the past. I promise you this though: if you treat everyone else with respect and kindness, you will avoid roughly 90%(ish) of the inherent hostility. That's a made-up number, but I think it's in the right ballpark. I'm very serious about this - in my experience, if you assume good faith, and demonstrate good faith, things tend to go in the direction they should, with no need for rhetoric.

If I can add one more thing - and I'm not looking for a wordy mea culpa here - but I haven't seen any indication from you yet that you understand that your behaviour was poor. Sure, you've accepted that AfD is full of systemic hostility, and that you may have contributed to that - all that is true, but I think you owe SeoR a bit more than that. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Point taken. I wrote him an apology on his talk page. I read over the discussion and agree with you that I was overly defensive about him having an opinion on the book before he read it. I still think it was the wrong thing for him to do, but two wrongs don't make a right. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I asked El_C just to close the ANI complaint and topic ban me. Since it's obvious there's no amount of supplication or bootlicking that will lead to another outcome and I don't really care that much about it anyway. I wanted to thank to both of you for the feedback and support. It gives me some faith that this platform isn't just a cesspool full of opportunistic sociopaths. I'll be interested to know at some point who the IP address that reported me is a sockpuppet of. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I'm just catching up today... so sorry to learn of the ANI. If you are interested in collaborating on creating articles, I'd be glad to work with you. I think you might be good at contributing on the article creation side, and subjects who are American Physical Society Fellows automatically meet WP:NPROF. What do you say? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the message. Things happen. Collaborating sounds like fun. I've been meaning to get into AfC at some point. I'm kind busy with other things right now as I'm sure you can tell, but I get back to you about it when I have free time :) --Adamant1 (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep plugging away. Here's more information on the lists:

List of American Physical Society Fellows

It's also possible to sort on the APS Fellows site, so for example, I've started on Fellows from Oregon.

BTW, the IP address geolocates to Moscow, Russia. Putin?

− Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Cool. I'll check it out when I'm unblocked. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Some advice for you

From a quick reading of the relevant thread, seems like you've gotten yourself into a mess. And when you end up on the wrong side of WP:One against many, that's not usually a good sign. I'd suggest you take a deep breath, some cool air, and also remember the first law of holes. Making what looks (to an uninvolved person) like a revenge post at ANI is not going to help your case. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't a revenge post because Jacona had nothing to do with ANI complaint that's open about me. In the meantime as far as I'm aware there's no rule that I says I can't report someone while having an active ANI complaint. Problematic behavior is problematic behavior. I have as much right to report it as anyone else does. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

If you so wish, I'm just saying to you that your impression of this appears to be wrong, and that you should seriously consider taking this opportunity for thinking over it before doing anything further. Patience (and enough contrition to admit one's mistakes) are necessities, not just on Wikipedia. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

OK. I don't really see how me reporting a problematic user is at all connected to admitting my mistakes or not. Obviously the world goes on once I'm topic banned, I still have to deal with Jacona in other areas, and he still acted shitty to other people. His behavior toward Thirty4 in particular was wrong and I haven't seen him apologize or anything for it. Just because Girth Summit rightly had me topic banned for the hostility doesn't mean that Jacona doesn't then get a pass on behavior he did that had nothing to do with me. Honestly I was going to report him for the thing with Thirty4 before all this. It was just next on my todo list before the other stuff came up and I'm trying to get on with things. It's not even something I super care about either. Which is I didn't suggest any actions to take. If I cared at all about getting revenge on him then that would be a really weird way to do it. Plus, sure we got in a disagreement, but it was pretty run of the mill. I deal with people like him on a daily basis in AfDs. There's zero reason I would single him out of all the other people I've gotten into it with. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

"out of all the other people I've gotten into it with". There it is, right there. That's the attitude you need to deal with to come back productively. "Getting into it" with people is not what we're here for, yet it seems to dominate your approach. Begoon 12:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Begoon. Thanks for the message. I was referring to heated discussions that often occur in AfDs, which is not what got me here. Nor does it dominate my approach. Everyone gets in heated discussions in AfDs sometimes and I'm not special in that regard. Thanks for the opinion though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh Adamant, I had hoped you would read what everyone was saying to you so we could avoid this situation. I don't know why you posted a new thread at AN/I about Jacona and I will take your word that it wasn't revenge but it doesn't really matter, the community saw it that way because even though Jacona didn't file the complaint they were an integral part of the AfD and discussion at AN/I and elsewhere. The perception was bad and so was the timing. I honestly believe you believe they are problematic but a filing should have occurred at another time, not while you were facing scrutiny and not involving someone you were engaged with in the discussion that led to the filing about you in the first place. Please listen to the advice of others here and on the AN/I discussion. I'm not supporting a site ban or even a topic ban because I believe most everything you do is in good faith and not intending to be a disruption but to improve the encyclopedia from your perspective. But you, like everyone has had to, need to evaluate and make adjustments accordingly. I can't pretend to tell you what those are, only you can, but I hope you find a way to make them and stay with us here. Good luck! --ARoseWolf 13:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks ARoseWolf. I really didn't know the ANI complaint about Jacona would was going to be an issue. I looked through the guidelines beforehand and didn't see anything that said people couldn't open ANI complaints on other users if they currently had one open on them. So I thought it was fine. It's an unfortunate misstep out of several I've made in this though. I'll defiantly take the advice you and others have given me here and in the ANI complaint to heart and try not to make the same mistakes again. Anyway, I appreciate the message. It's nice to know people care and want me around despite my shortcomings. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop by to say Happy Friday, and I hope you have a lovely weekend. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Dumuzid. Happy Friday to you and I hope you have a lovely weekend also. Cheers. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for disruptive editing after warning (diff). I was willing to overlook the gaslighting and boot licking (diff), because I thought that maybe you'd actually stop with the WP:BATTLEGROUND badgering and bludgeoning. Unfortunately, you've chosen to double down instead. I no longer feel that a p-block will be enough (even from the entire project space). My sense is that you'd just shift to another venue (like user talk pages, etc.) if that were to happen, so to prevent this disruption from spilling over elsewhere, I'm opting to go with a sidewide block. 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 08:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@El C: OK. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@El C: BTW if you think the gaslighting/bootlicking comment on your talk page was wrong or inappropriate I encourage you to look over the statements being made about me in the ANI complaint once it's closed and count how many of them are backed up with evidence, facts, and have to do with my actual behavior. I can guarantee you it won't be that many outside of Girth Summit's original proposal and Dumuzid's comments. I really commend both of them for being the few reasonable, honest, and good faithed people in that discussion. I'm pretty disappointed in everyone else's behavior, including mine. I think your 1 month block was totally justified all things considered. There was zero point in me trying to reason with those people and trying to clearly didn't add anything to the discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

for your amusement

This.

...and Happy April Fools' Day, too!

− Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting article. If there was an Anti-PowerPoint Party in America I'd totally support it. The back door dealings that Microsoft does with our public institutions has always been one of my major bugaboos. I actually tried to use LibreOffice in college a few times and the professors made me rewrite the papers in Word. Now everything is integrated with Google Docs, which isn't much better. Same goes for ArcGIS versus the open source alternatives. It's essentially impossible to get any local governments around here to even consider using OpenStreetMaps. Although in that case I put it on how OpenStreetMap does things and there lack of coverage in the United States outside of the major cities/Silicon Valley as much as I do the government's unwillingness to embrace open source software. Anyway, thanks for sharing. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Some advice

I'm going to offer advice. You didn't ask for it but I am giving it because I hate to see an editor that I believe initially acts in good faith but becomes derailed from that purpose the moment they are faced with adversity to have their editing privileges removed without at least attempting to give them the opportunity to listen and change their trajectory.

I have never liked country music from the US. Didn't grow up listening to it. My family were more traditionalist in the sense of music style. We mostly listened to traditional Italian but mixed in some Hebrew and classical music. That being said, when I was in Oklahoma a few years ago I got introduced to country music and, as is my usual custom, I became fascinated with it, primarily the older style. I said all of that to say this. You dig yourself into a hole in these conversations all the time. You hold to your stubborn belief that you are right and you force others to provide evidence to contradict your view point. This isn't necessarily the wrong approach, initially. However I have noticed you carry it too far in most cases. Healthy debate is okay, turning a debate into a battleground is not. I think you know this but you need to learn how to get off the horse once you put yourself up there. You need to learn when to hold fast to your position and when to fold your hand. That is going to crucial for you going forward no matter what sanctions are passed.

I and others want to see you here because we see the positive things you do and we take that into account. But I don't necessarily fault others who hold a different position after interacting with you in these discussions. You were so hostile towards other editors in some of these situations when all you needed to do was listen. You became more hostile the more evidence they brought forward that contradicted your position. Being less adamant does not mean you have to compromise your core principles (why you bring forward AfD's) but it does afford you the opportunity to listen and alter your views on particular subjects based on the evidence presented. You could have avoided the majority of the situations you have been in by simply listening and acknowledging the comments of others and the information they bring forward, regardless of whether you believe it is right or not. Know when to hold and know when to fold. I hope you get the opportunity to redeem yourself to some degree. It starts with acknowledgement and acceptance and then moves into corrective action taken. --ARoseWolf 13:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban

As a result of the discussion at ANI (permalink), you have been indefinitely topic banned from all deletion discussions, broadly construed. Please see WP:TBAN to understand that that means. In brief, you must not contribute at WP:AFD discussions and must not comment about deletion discussions at any page. This result has been logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Adamant1. You may appeal this decision per WP:UNBAN. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I have questions about the validity of the ban discussion, it's closure, and I'd like to fill a case request to have it reduced to topic ban per the original proposal. But I can't because I am currently blocked. Is there another way I can go about requesting it be reduced besides going through Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case or another page I can't edit due to the block? Or should I just file a regular unban request? I ask because reading over WP:UNBAN it sounds like posting a regular unblock request wouldn't be the appropriate thing to do in this kind of situation. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a difficult situation with no clear resolution for what you might want. I have not investigated the circumstances of the current month-long block but in my mind that should be handled first. That is, either wait for it to expire or appeal that block. After that is resolved, it might be the time to handle questions regarding the topic ban. You might make a case for reducing the scope of the topic ban, but that is unlikely to get much support while there is a current block. However, that is up to you and if wanted, comments here can be copied to other pages. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

OK. I agree that it is a difficult situation. I'll just wait for the block to be over if you think that's the best thing to do. It's probably better to take some time to cool off about it before I do the appeal anyway. Thanks for the advice. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: If you don't mind me asking how much support does something usually need for it to be implemented? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are no rules for closing discussions (apart from WP:CLOSE). As always at Wikipedia, people do things and what is accepted determines the outcome. Sometimes a discussion is closed and then overruled at an appeal. That's rare, and I would recommend taking 48 hours off before re-reading the ANI section and forming your own opinion about how you would have closed it if you had been an uninvolved observer. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: OK. I'm not claiming the discussion should have been closed any other way at the time since it was obviously complicated and I don't blame you for how you closed it, but at the same time it seems like you didn't verify that the people who wanted me completely banned were basing their votes on the facts either. Otherwise I don't really see how there was a consensus to fully topic ban me. WP:CLOSE is clear that "irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" should be disregarded. If that was followed then most of the votes to have me fully topic banned should been discounted since they were clearly made up, contradicted established policy, or were based on personal opinion. Which would have left like 3 people for the full topic ban and 17 who supported Girth Summit's proposal. I can't think of a situation where like 3 people out of 20 supporting something would be enough of a consensus to implement it. I'm sure you'd at least agree that it's not super great for the project in general if people are blocked or topic banned based on irrelevant, false argument that contradict policy. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The points you make are fair, however I believe more latitude for personal opinion is common at ANI. That's because there is no objective test for whether particular behavior should be prevented—someone could be making comments that are fully compliant with policy yet which are disruptive due to their frequency. (That example is merely to demonstrate a principle and is not intended as a comment on what was discussed at ANI.) Also, experience shows that starting with a narrow topic ban is often unhelpful and that it is cleaner and kinder to all involved for a clear break to occur. It might be argued that that opinion is a supervote as the thought probably influenced my close. However, I do not see a reason to vary the close and the fact that there has been no further commentary in the 27 hours since the close suggests that the participants are not significantly unhappy with the result. It's hard to know how an appeal would go but of course you are free to pursue that. It might be helpful to first speak with one or two of those who did not support a full topic ban and see what they think about an appeal. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Sure, I don't disagree that "some" latitude for personal opinion is common at ANI. Obviously there should be some latitude for the closing admin to asses the situation and do what they think is best. But at the same time someone getting banned or not shouldn't essentially hinge on which random admin comes along to close the complaint and how they happen to feel at the time. I also don't disagree that in "some" cases it's probably better to do a full ban to give everyone a full break. The thing is though, I said I was in the wrong for how I acted, apologized to SeoR, and made it clear that I supported Girth Summits proposal. I've also taken self imposed long breaks from participating in AfDs in the past and planned to do it again whatever the outcome of this was. So there was zero reason to force me into having a clear break by giving me a full ban. Especially since I'm already banned so I can't participate in AfDs even if I wanted to. Outside of that, your whole thing that the topic ban is probably fine because no one has said anything about it is just circular. It's not on other people to appeal my topic ban for me. Honesty, at this point I could really care less about participating in AfDs. Mostly I want to appeal the full ban so that I can participate in AfD discussions for articles I create. If your willing to add an exception for articles I've created to the topic ban then I have zero urge to appeal it any time soon. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean that if someone takes an article you created to AfD, you would like to be free to comment at that AfD? Is something like that going on now? Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. That's what I mean. It's not currently happening, but I'm planning on creating some articles when I'm unblocked and I'd like to be able to discuss them if/when they are sent to AfD. Obviously in the AfD discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'm not sure about the protocol for varying a close but this seems pretty standard. See diff. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Thank you. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: If you don't mind a question, if I'm reading over the ANI complaint correctly everyone that voted for me to be fully topic banned specifically said I should be topic banned from AfD. So is it correct to assume I can still do things like participate in discussions at WP:RfD or add PRODs to articles since they have nothing to do with AfDs? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The close included "all deletion discussions, broadly construed". It's true that some participants spoke about AfD but others (and the close) said all. I do not think it would be desirable to think about whether the close should have said AfD only because all deletion discussions are similar in nature although there are obviously important differences such as notability being a primary concern at AfD but not at TfD. That is, it's hard to determine whether the AfD supporters literally meant articles only or all. I would want an AN/ANI discussion before varying the close and I suggest that such a discussion would not regard a request of that nature favorably. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Unless I'm remembering wrong there were no "participants" that said I should be tbanned from all deletion processes. Begoon did, but that was it. Jayron32 mentioned a complete XfD in passing, but there was zero indication from their commented that they supported one over the other options. Other then that Mako001 said that they supported a topic ban from education related discussions at a minimum, but they never used the word "all" or said I should receive a complete XfD ban. Are you seriously going to argue that I should be banned from all deletion processes because of one voter? As a side to that, Begoon was one of the people that made things up to justify having me banned. It would be rather ridiculous if their opinion, made up or not, held more weight then the other 23 participants who didn't explicitly or otherwise support a tban from all deletion processes.

Other then that Andrew Davidson was recently topic banned. His Editing restriction says he's banned from all "deletion-related activities (including, but not limited to AfDs, DRVs, removing prods etc.)" because in the ANI complaint people specifically said he should be restricted from those activities, including removing PRODs. Otherwise I assume he could still be able to participate in those areas. I don't see why anyone would have had to specifically say he should be banned from PRODs in the ANI complaint if it was just a given either. Are you seriously going to tell me voters didn't know AfD specifically meant AfD when other options were being floated in the discussion and in Andrew's case people specifically said he should be banned from other areas? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I varied the close once (to make an exception for participation in an AfD for an article you created) and believe that I should not vary it again without an AN discussion. As mentioned above, I interpret the lack of post-close comment to indicate agreement with the close and it would not be reasonable for me to declare a significantly different outcome without general discussion. While you may be correct, please bear in mind how people at AN might view an appeal to change the topic ban from "all deletion discussions, broadly construed" to "AfD discussions". Of course that is your decision and I have no problem if you want to ask for a variation at WP:AN. Johnuniq (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Not that I've said anywhere in this discussion that I want to appeal the ban, but why would there be any post close comments about it when WP:UNBAN makes it clear that the banned user is the one who appeals the outcome if there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure? it's not the responsibility other users to ask what is covered by the ban or to appeal it if outcome wasn't valid. All the lack of comments shows it that people are following the guideline and not doing something that isn't their responsibility. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't see any examples at the moment, but I believe I've seen several cases where post-close discussions have argued about the merits of a close. Saying "did the closer think about x" or "statement y looks like a supervote" is a challenge to the close which is different from an appeal. At any rate, there's no point in my giving further thoughts on the matter because, as explained above, I believe a discussion at AN would be needed for me to change the close now. Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq can I redirect articles or is that also covered by the topic ban? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

If you mean can you create a redirect to an article, yes—that would not appear to be connected with AfD. If you mean, can you replace an existing article with a redirect to somewhere else, effectively deleting the original article ... that's a bit tricky as it could be interpreted as working around a restriction preventing you from nominating articles for deletion. On the other hand, a wikilawyer would point out that the topic ban wording does not cover redirecting articles. I can't do better than provide what an oracle would say, namely that redirecting articles is not covered by the wording of the topic ban, but if that avenue were pursued there might be a subsequent ANI discussion where people concluded that what happened was disruptive and since a topic ban wasn't sufficient, an indefinite block might be required. If a more definite answer were wanted, I would recommend posting at WP:AN with a concrete proposal, namely a link to a particular article and an outline of what you proposed to do, finishing by asking if that would be a problem regarding the tban. Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq Alright. That seems reasonable. The reason I asked is because I deleted some un-referenced content from an article and the edit was reverted with the comment that it could be redirect instead. Leaving the article completely un-referenced seems kind of stupid, but I don't really feel like dealing with a bad faithed ANI complaint if I redirect it. So I guess that's how it will be for now. How much time should pass before I can reasonably appeal the topic ban? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The standard time is six months but appeals after three months have been successful. Any appeal would need to focus on what would be different. People don't want a repeat. Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

OK. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq Can I write a comment in the open ArbCom case having to do with AfD discussions or would that violate the topic ban? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but "all deletion discussions, broadly construed" includes discussions about AfD or the people associated with it. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I thought it might be OK since it's an administrative setting and my comment would have related to the ban. WP:BANEX says it's fine to discuss things having to do with a topic ban if it's "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum." So I don't see why it would be an issue, it's not a "deletion discussion" either, but that's why I asked. That said, if ArbCom isn't "an appropriate forum" to discuss things related to the topic ban I don't know what is. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:BANEX is to allow participation in discussions about the topic ban on a specific person. If someone has raised your name or alluded to your case, it might be ok to comment on that specific point. However, BANEX is not supposed to be interpreted more generally. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Can I put notability templates on articles? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The ANI discussion that I closed was over three months ago and I do not recall the details. However, if you're asking a general question about whether it would be a good idea for someone topic banned from all deletion discussions to tag articles for notability (that is, to almost propose that the article be deleted), the answer is no. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was looking for a good tag that would encourage people to add more well sourced content to articles and to me the notability template is mostly about citation improvement, but I can see why it wouldn't be a good option considering the topic ban. So I'll look for something else to use instead. Thanks for the response. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Happy May Day

Welcome back!

Let me know when you are ready to create some academic bios of scientists. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Advice

Hopefully you can see this as advice in good faith: be mindful [1]. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: I'm not sure what your referring to. The diff you linked to is from my oppose vote, it seems perfectly fine to me, and no one said anything about it. So can you explain exactly what I'm suppose to be mindful of or at least say what you think was wrong with the comment? I can't really take your advice when you didn't give me any and my vote comment seems rather benign. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I assume your referring to the last bit. If so, thanks for the reminder. I'll definitely be more mindful about it in the future. That would be a really dumb thing to run into issues over. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Goldsztajn (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Happy summer/winter

		Sunshine!
		Hello Adamant1! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy first day of summer (or winter) wherever you live. Interstellarity (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion?

Hello Adamant1, I see you are a newer member to the Wiki Project: Christianity. I posted an assessment request there; I'm not really sure if it's appropriate, but I figured if not, someone will surely tell me. But it doesn't look like a super-active group, so I figured I'd ping someone and just ask. I created Glorify based on research I did after discovering this app. I was hoping someone interested in the Christianity group would be willing to give it a quick glance (it's short) and improve it if desired, or vote on it (it's been nominated for deletion, but the reason doesn't jive with me since there are 14 very credible, reliable sources I pulled information from and editors (who I had issues with on another page) and admins alike are voting to delete it saying the sources are bad, which I disagree with. The context of creating this article was that it's interesting the bridging of technology and Christianity, especially the quick adoption in Latin America of using online tools to connect with God. And endorsed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. But if it truly reads as an advertisement, as some state, open to hearing it it from any eyeballs willing to give it a glance, and an honest, unbiased vote of course. Many thanks in advance if you have the time to bother with it. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 19:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@TheRealSerenaJoy: Hi. Thanks for the message. Purely having to do with "article improvement", there's a lot of articles from legitimate sources about the founder, Ed Beccle. For instance from the Daily Mail and Christianity Today. You could either add them to the article or create an article for him that could serve as a place to mention the app. There's also some articles about the app that don't seem to already be in the article from some good outlets. For instance, Wall Street Journal has article about the app that doesn't seem to be in the article yet. Although unfortunately it's about funding, but anything would help. Just don't synthesis it in a boastful way. There's also this one from the StarTribune and a Bloomberg Linea article about the founders. If you look for "Ed Beccle" in Google News and go to the third page there's a lot of sources about both the app and founders from Latin American news outlets. I'm sure some of those are in-depth. Unfortunately that's all the help I can provide right now because I'm busy with other projects. Good luck though! --Adamant1 (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Dead links in Dix article

The links you flagged in this article are not dead links, because they go to valid web pages. The fact that those web pages don't give information related to Dix doesn't make them dead links. Because of that, I undid your change. If you click on the links that I previous flagged as dead, you will see the actual 404 errors, meaning that the page linked doesn't exist; that's what a dead link means. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Auntof6: That's fine. I just didn't feel like deleting the references outright but didn't know what to use instead. Is there an alternative to the dead link template for references that don't give information related to the article? Like what do you do in cases where a link is taken down and ends up being forwarded to the main landing page of the site or something? Just delete it? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleting it is the only thing I know to do, unless you want to look for a different place to link to. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Adamant1, you could try {{Failed verification}}. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

Stop answering opposers. All the best—S Marshall T/C 09:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't planned to anymore. I appreciate the reminder and your willingness to give me another chance in the appeal though. Regards. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)