User talk:Dronebogus/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Dronebogus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating a previous edit summary

You can't actually update a previous edit summary, as you discovered. But instead of "deleting random stuff" as you did in this edit, instead, please use a dummy edit. You can then use the edit summary field to add your new, or modified, edit summary that you wanted to use on the earlier edit. When I use a dummy edit, I usually start it out with the word Comment, and wikilink it to the DUMMY page. Here's an example you could copy next time:

[[WP:DUMMY|Comment:]] Amending previous edit summary, to add "Proposed for deletion."

or whatever it is you want to say or change. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Dronebogus (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Returning users

Are you a returning user, by any chance? At your Rfd nominations, you sound experienced, but your first contribution under this userid is from only a week ago. It's no problem if you edited before, but in order to avoid attracting the attention of admins looking for sockpuppets, you should probably disclose the fact. I'm not an admin, and not an expert on this topic, but I'm pretty sure you don't have to name your previous id (i.e., don't out yourself), just state that you had one, and that you're no longer using it, and won't anymore. I think that's enough. If you've lost the password to it, you can inform an admin, and they can shut it down. If you want me to, I can look further into it, and find a link to the guideline that explains exactly what to do. Thanks, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC) This looks like the place to start: WP:ALTACCN. Mathglot (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My old account was IP user [redacted], which I disclosed on my userpage. Should I just add a userbox and a link as well, or do I need to tell an admin or something? I’m not good at technical stuff like account management. Dronebogus (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, as a former IP user I don't think you have to do anything. In fact, I'd remove the IP itself from your message above, and from the user page if I were you. It's not prohibited to have it, and you can leave it in if you want, but I wouldn't. It's enough if you say you edited anonymously (means the same thing as "as an IP user"), but you don't have to, and probably shouldn't give the IP itself. Mathglot (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Dronebogus! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Deletion proposal, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Dronebogus! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Nominating articles for deletion that were previously nominated, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burke county map

Hi, I saw you reverted my addition of a Burke county map as an external link to Burke County, North Dakota. I checked, and the link works. Is there a reason you reverted it?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t remember ever seeing or editing that article before. Do you have me confused with someone else? Dronebogus (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I found it and see what you mean but I still don’t remember doing it. Weird. Dronebogus (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it. Maybe a good time to change your password?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravana

Hello Dronebogus, Greetings! Happy to see your message in my Talk page regarding the article Ravana.

In Hindu mythology, Ravana was born to great sage Vishrava and demon princess Kaikeshi. He had inherited with scholar qualities of Brahmin and strength of demon But, Ravan and his brother Kumbhakarna continued to mature into a strong rakshasha under guidance of his grandfather (mother's side) 'Sumali' who was king of the Demons at that time.

That's why, I mentioned that Demon tendency was filled with Ravana. I hope this answers your question. . if you are not satisfied with the answers, I will be very happy to continue our discussion.Divyam Seth (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing AfD nominations

Usually, such as in this case, it's best to also speedy close them (if the meet the criteria outlined at WP:CSK) yourself. You may use WP:XFDCloser to make everything easier. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion notices

Hi, noticed you are nominating prods and AFDs very fast. Please remember to conduct a WP:BEFORE on each article if the nomination is for notability and please slow down your nominations, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bill Myers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Thomas. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reason for deletion is not known

hi i am anish and new to wikipedia editor community i found you have proposed to delete my edit of [for deletion/List of D.I.C.E. episodes&oldid=prev&diff=968557078&diffmode=source] D.I.C.E.^[1] reason for it is not known to me can you expalin it further(because as i said i am new to this)

References

^ "D.I.C.E.", Wikipedia, 2020-08-28, retrieved 2020-10-14

I‘m afraid I don’t know what you’re referring to, I have not edited that article since late July 2020 and all I did was remove a tag. Dronebogus (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of miscellaneous English Bible translations

Hi, I've restored the article until it is properly merged as per the AFD as you only merged very little of the content whereas the AFD called for more preservation of the content, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tortured Souls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Grammy nomination is enough to demonstrate notability

A Grammy nomination is enough to demonstrate notability. The same applies for other notable awards. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MV Sun Sea incident, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thai.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest-living United States senators

this is just a bad idea all around, and that's why I've reverted it:

1) It's not that terrible of a personal attack. I mean, seriously? It's obviously someone lashing out, but have you seen a bad personal attack?

2) It's in a closed discussion. Sandstein, who's a seasoned admin, decided to leave it there.

3) You're a participant in the discussion, who took the opposite view. And...

4) It's up for DRV right now.

The cynic in me might suspect that there was an effort on your part to make "the other side" look bad, since folks at DRV are going to be drawn to review that !vote based on Sandstein's closing statement. But we're AGF'ing here, so we're not going to suggest that, but rather suggest that in the future you be very circumspect to avoid things that could appear to cynics like me like you might possibly be trying to bias a DRV review. Better all around, I'm sure of it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since we tend to agree, opinion please

Hey Dronebogus, wondering how you would justify having List of breweries in the United States (and especially for each state like List of breweries in Montana, which the whole article is a huge joke... apparently we need to list every brewery [notable or not] and list every beer they sell in list format) on WP... I don't even know how these exist on WP to be honest. These just seem absurdly trivial, are flat out not notable and unecyclopedic. Though, I'm sure there's someone out there that reeeeally wants to know this stuff!^[sarcasm] Like, List of wineries, breweries, and distilleries in New Jersey or List of water parks in the Americas (this should be a category)... why not just make List of grocery stores in Alaska or List of hotels in Hawaii. Just seems like such a slippery slope. Let's just list everything! What a joke tbh. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @PerpetuityGrat I can’t think of anything personally but stuff like this can have weird inclusion criteria. Just list all that stuff if you don’t think it’s notable and let the community decide. Dronebogus (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @PerpetuityGrat UPDATE On closer inspection I think the booze lists are fine because they cover more information than just “here’s a bunch of breweries” and aren’t random “x + y” categories since they’re simply divided up geographically to avoid overwhelming the main article. A rename to simply “Brewing [etc.] in [location]” wouldn’t hurt, though. I’ve nominated the water parks thing however since it looks very bad indeed. Dronebogus (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dronebogus, here is another one I just found... seems like a literal trivia page to me: List of Easter eggs in Tesla products. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Easter eggs in Tesla products. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Why did you restore your obvious ad-hominem-attack at the AfD discussion? I did not perceive it as "mild". Renewal6 (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Renewal6 I was pointing out that you were accusing me of the very thing you yourself did. It’s not Ad Hominem if you’re the one going off-topic to criticize someone’s behavior. Dronebogus (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Your 22 comments at the AfD discussion are a fact. It concerns the very subject of the discussion, it has nothing to do with going off-topic. Renewal6 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Renewal6 Yes, it concerns the discussion itself, but it’s not the topic of the discussion. The topic is the article and whether or not it should be deleted. Dronebogus (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree with you. Every comment concerns or should concern the topic of the discussion. I suggest I remove my sentence " Your behaviour "may be considered a form of disruptive editing" as per WP:BLUDGEON." and your sentence "Accusing me of disruptive editing is also certainly interesting as you managed to get yourself blocked for a brief period just a few days after joining Wikipedia for doing just that." without inserting "Personal attack removed". Would that be acceptable to you? Renewal6 (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Renewal6 Okay. Dronebogus (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem like a personal attack Renewal6, but rather focus on content, not the contributor. I think you should learn the difference there. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited I Spit on Your Grave (2010 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mental disability.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARS

You may be amused by this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333 Aye, but there’s something to be said about the fact that this is just a spoof page whereas the ARS is 95% serious (Dad’s Army references notwithstanding). Dronebogus (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let yourself get baited into an angry outburst. Reyk _YO! 21:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to echo User:Reyk. Your point is largely made. You've helped the community move forward a bit. Now I'd let others have their say. BusterD (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. Dronebogus (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Purple Barnstar
		For grace under fire at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armament of the Iowa-class battleship. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The way to Eden

Howdy. If you're interested in shutting down ARS? An RFC at Village Pump is the place to do it. Arbcom doesn't bother with 'content disputes'. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.TomStar81 (Talk) 22:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-redact

At ANI, you've added a second nasty personal comment in response to a different comment of LBs. If you feel it is necessary to argue with those two comments (I can't imagine why you would, they are not going to have any impact on the eventual outcome of the discussion), please do it in a more appropriate way, without the personal remarks. --JBL (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:JayBeeEll Could you please direct me to the comment in question? And when you do could you please explain why Lightburst gets to call me an arsonist but some variation on “stop rambling” gets this? Dronebogus (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Please stop your hostile commentary at User talk: Andrew Davidson. It is unseemly to keep poking at a long term editor who has just received a significant sanction. You are making yourself look bad and that is not a good thing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 I get that WP:GRAVEDANCING is considered very poor behavior, but I’m not trying to “rub it in” that Andrew got topic ban. I’m being blunt with him that arguing about his clear-cut sanction is pointless and his talk page is ridiculously long and needs archiving, things a “long-term editor” should know by this point. Long-term disruptive editors with attitude issues and ego-inflating personality cults shouldn’t be handled with kid gloves over a topic ban from their singular area of long-term disruption. Dronebogus (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I’ve also redacted the more snarky part I wrote in the second section and apologized for it. Sorry if I’ve been getting short-tempered lately, I’ve just been badgered by a bunch of disruptive, uncivil inclusionist hardliners lately (including the ARS) for little reason and I’m rather exasperated by it. Dronebogus (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Generally, you shouldn't change talk page posts in that way after they have been replied to. Instead, you should strike anything you don't want to stand by, and add clarify your position with a new statement. Having said that, in this instance I don't suggest you change what you did, because I don't imagine Andrew needs any more notifications spam from his talk page right now. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I appreciate User:Dronebogus's self recognition of stress and willingness to offer softer wording. It's a good thing when one admits their own part in any situation. BusterD (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following what my superiors both Cullen328 and Girth Summit have told you, look I totally get it, Grave dancing is totally human nature and it takes putting your mind to subjection and extreme discipline to avoid or rise above it. It takes a while to master but it is definitely achievable and worth it. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, I am not your superior. I am your colleague. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not one for grave dancing myself, but it seems that neither of the main 3 editors involved in the ANI dispute has taken anything useful away from it. So whatever issues they have had since then (or will continue to have) are totally on them. If you want a perfect example check out 7&6=thirteen's vote in the Arabeyes AfD where he said references posted by Dream Focus that don't even discuss the topic of the article are "excellent" and "easily make it pass GNG." While at the same time he's acting like this whole thing is just an anti-ARS witch hunt and calling other users thin-skinned. That kind of nonsense is exactly why both of them were reported to ANI. Like Dronebogus said, handling them with kid gloves hasn't done jack and reporting them doesn't appear to have helped at all. So should we really care about grave dancing or whatever at this point? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let somebody else worry about any possible t-bans breaches, from the two editors-in-question. Ya don't need the stress, which comes with 'making sure' they adhere to it. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mender's mess

To save you time, perhaps a 'prod' for all of Mender's pages, would suffice. The lad's been away for six years. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @GoodDay I use Twinkle which doesn’t seem to offer PRODs by default for MfD stuff. Dronebogus (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Hello, I'm JPxG. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Jimbo Wales that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please avoid making comments such as this one (i.e. "Why are so self-important as to think that your personal disputes warrant the Immortal God Emperor of Wikipedia’s direct attention?") jp×g 13:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: since when can supposedly "un-civil" comments made on talk pages be removed? I'm pretty sure there was an ANI complaint recently about someone doing that where people said talk page comments, even un-civil ones, should either be left alone, scrubbed by an admin if need be, at least removed by whoever's talk page it is if they think it doesn't belong there. I take it your not an admin or Jimbo Wales. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: I'm not aware of any talk page comments that I removed (certainly not this one, which is still there). As for the wording of {{uw-npa1}}, I believe this refers to WP:RPA, a policy which says "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor" (although, as you said, there is quite a bit of contention about when and where it's appropriate to do so). jp×g 08:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm why would you leave a comment saying "it may have been removed" if no one removed it? That sorta seems like an odd thing to do. I guess your right about WP:RPA, but like you say it's not really clear when that can be done without it being massively contentious or inappropriate. Personally, I'm for it in cases of clearly racist, homophobic, sexist or other bigoted comments, but outside of that it's probably better to leave comments alone. Anyway, no harm no foul in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my view it’s also okay when it’s obviously vulgar, profane, or purely insulting terminology (think of the bottom of the argument hierarchy— “you are an idiot”/“you are an asshat”) even if it’s not bigoted per se. Dronebogus (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. If someone called me an asshat and I'd probably just laugh and leave it at that, but I can see where it could be insulting. Someone called me "Adamass" one time and I didn't like it that much. I never removed the comment though. Stuff like that just reflects badly on the other person, but its probably not going to turn people off of contributing to the project or make it look bad. So there's no reason to remove it. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Battle for Dream Island: The Power of Two

Hi, just an FYI that this is on the title blacklist which is why your MfD nominations failed. If you'd still like to MfD it, I'd be happy to create the nomination for you, just let me know your rationale and I'll nominate it. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Elli My rationale is: “salt evasion page”. Dronebogus (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Done: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island: The Power of Two Elli (talk | contribs) 02:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) for a period of 24 hours for persistent bludgeoning of the debate. 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 ~~~~}}. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Richie333, I have not been bludgeoning the debate. I’ve made like three comments today and they were civil and directly related to me. I get that I was technically “warned” but it felt more like you were having a rhetorical “angry wiki-dad” moment rather than a formal warning. Dronebogus (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the block if (and only if) you promise me to stop posting on ANI, and with the agreement that you can be reblocked by any administrator if you do. You have said everything you need to have said, and now you just need to let consensus play out and do something else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that. I think editors have a right to discuss issues that involve them. I got being accused of “bludgeoning” for posting the same type of message over and over during discussions, but being accused of doing so by occasionally contributing to a discussion that directly involves me doesn’t make sense. Your “offer” is a distinction without a difference. I feel like you’re just frustrated with recent events involving me at ANI and don’t actually care about what’s going on and why. Dronebogus (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a collaborative project which means there must be compromises, when Ritchie333 says I’d unblock you if you agree not to post at ANI again, I presume (per the temporal block) they mean for a period of 24 hours which isn’t too much to ask. Celestina007 (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, sit out the 24 hrs. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: FWIW, when your block from ANI expires? Don't re-insert yourself into said-discussion. Keep the focus off of you. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with GoodDay. You should stay out of the ANI complaint at this point and let it play out on it's own. The closer will consider the value of the arguments made. Same goes for the ARS Public School AfD. Your not doing either any favors by commenting on everything you disagree with. Neither are about you. Seriously, take the multiple hints and leave them alone. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Adamant1 Can I ask at what point posting a lot in one place suddenly turns into “bludgeoning”, considering you’re posting just as much on those pages? Dronebogus (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair question that unfortunately I don't have a good answer to. I've been accused of bludgeoning in the past, more then once by people who had posted more then me in the exact some discussions. So I think it's more something that is used as a way to cast aspersions and discredit the other person then it is a legitimate complaint. The only reason I brought it up to you is because I knew people would use how much you've posted as a way to undermined your argument. Which is what ended up happening. So that's kind of where my line is. "Has this person commented enough in this discussion that it can be used against them?" I did cross that line myself, but it didn't have the same weight as it did for you. Since I didn't start the ANI complaint. Plus, most of the time I was responding to comments that were made directly at me. Generally, I'll respond to someone who says something about me that's clearly wrong even if it's "bludgeoning," because it's kind of a lose lose at that point. I massively dislike troll baiting style dishonesty. I could probably do better about that though.

BTW, someone is already trying to have the ARS_Public_School AfD overturned to keep because someone in the AfD insulted the students or something. I bring it up because it's a perfect example of why I think your proposal in the ANI complaint shouldn't be accepted. They will strawman you all day about not accepting outcomes Etc. Etc. and use it to justify not sanctioning 13, but then their ultimately the ones actually trying to have a clear consensus overturned. I'm sure one from ARS is going to complain about it either. So while I think your proposal was noble, there's zero point in giving them an olive branch if they aren't going to reciprocate it or will just take advantage it by continuing things in your absence. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overlink

Please read Wp:OVERLINK. You seem to be adding far too many links for common English words and phrases. For instance this edit has far too many links for normal English words and phrases. Race car, airshow, Russia, Cyprus, sniper, mortar, Jewish, Israeli, birth aberrations, moose and more. We do not link common terms and words, we're not a dictionary and we also don't generally link common countries. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 03:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Canterbury Tail, what is a “common country”? Sounds like it’d biased towards whatever someone in a developed English-speaking nation is familiar with. Dronebogus (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The link defines it as major countries, and this is the English language Wikipedia. Basically we don't link to words, terms, countries that the average English language speaker would be familiar with. Canterbury Tail talk 03:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catch the ball once and leave

You may be interested in the essay WP:COAL. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 21:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note re wiki shepherd

Thanks for your great edits and additions to the page for WikiShepherd! Glad to have you in the flock! Just don't let anyone pull the wool over your eyes! Lol! I got a million of 'em! Lol!!! 😆😆😆👍👍🙂

Anyway, one small question, I tried to add a user box to the page, but the code doesn't seem to work the usual way. Could you please take a look? Thanks!! ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 14:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sm8900: just a coding error. It’s fixed now so you can check it out to see what the correct code looks like for future reference. Cheers! Dronebogus (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Daranios is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

As someone who also knows about the effects of dihydrogen monoxide I wanted to let you know I like your page. Please be aware that whatever I may have written in disagreement, it's all arguments in pursuit of the good cause, never meant to attack anyone as a person. Have a good holiday time and all the best for the future! Daranios (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: Thank you and merry Christmas! Dronebogus (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)n[reply]

File:Wikipadoru.png

Padoru padoru!

Portal:Current events has an RFC

Portal:Current events has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARS

If you are posting at the Rescue list, you need to familiarize yourself with the formatting and etiquette. Among other things, you were supposed to put a notice on the AFD discussion. Welcome and happy new year.

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up with the Wikipe-tan works ;)

	Keep up with the Wikipe-tan works ;)
	I saw your user page around Wikipe-tan and had great fun reading it. Appreciate all the humor! And best wishes to you for the holiday season. 痛 (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Brazil-related articles

You weighed in at Index of Brazil-related articles with an interesting option "to keep nominating individual articles until there’s an unquestionable consensus to delete the format". I had no idea that woefully incomplete index existed and certainly that there were many more like it. I am usually against blanket AFD's but a clear consensus would change things. However, some discussion^[where?] would seem to make the suggestion more practical. I would ping the other editors if there is a place for discussion.

Would you have a suggestion to point to these problematic indexes and where discussions might take place. Thank you for any suggestions, -- Otr500 (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Otr500: WP:RFC, perhaps? Dronebogus (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dronebogus/True facts about Wikipe-tan

Please remove IIBWiki-tan, This character is forbidden for spoofing, and will damage the reputation of IIBWiki. --Thyj (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thyj: Done. Dronebogus (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help improvements. Thanks you. Pidke (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @Pidke: Um… with all respect I’ve never seen this article and know next to nothing about the subject. Unless you need purely technical edits I can’t help you. Dronebogus (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok (purely technical edits). Pidke (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify what the problem is? Dronebogus (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fix dead ref. Pidke (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you can’t do this yourself? Dronebogus (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pidke is a sock: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haiyenslna. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: Unsurprising. Even if they weren’t they’d violate Wikipedia:Competence is required if they can’t even ask how to fix a broken citation properly. Dronebogus (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thanks for speeding up the block. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Dronebogus/Userboxes/CBT

User:Dronebogus/Userboxes/CBT, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dronebogus/Userboxes/CBT and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Dronebogus/Userboxes/CBT during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Spicy (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipe-tan

Can you please refrain from making edits that involve the images while we are having a discussion about the images? In my personal opinion, blowing up images to crazy sizes is going to detract from other things on the page. Hold off for now is all i'm saying... thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lefts

Template:Lefts has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a clarification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Baxter_329_WP:GREATWRONGS_WP:NOTFORUM

Baxter329 (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COVID project userboxes

Hi, many people have designed their own fun COVID-related userboxes, but if they're not a COVID project userbox, please don't break our own templates to randomly add userboxes to project pages (even then, don't break templates and don't add userboxes to project pages...). I don't know if you were genuinely trying to suggest the COVID project adds a tongue-in-cheek "only idiots drink horse dewormer" userbox, or if you were vandalising the project page, but please don't. If you have reasonable COVID project userbox ideas, you're welcome to discuss them at the project talk page. Kingsif (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @Kingsif: I wasn’t trying to vandalize the page. I just assumed you could put any covid-related boxes there. Thanks for explaining! Dronebogus (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odd edit

You may have wondered about my odd edit and summary here. I was on my cellphone and didn't notice the heading levels of the following sections, so didn't realize that was an introductory "lead" for a whole section. On my phone it looked just like a weird and out-of-place comment that duplicated other information but without any source. Since I was going to bed, I figured I'd deal with it today. Now that I'm on my PC, I can see my error, so thanks for correcting it. -- Valjean (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your listing at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 31

Hi Dronebogus,

I noticed your nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 31. Did you intentionally put the tag and such on the talk page rather than on White genocide theory? Unless you specifically want the talk page deleted (which I think is unlikely) then it should be the "article" which gets tagged and listed at RFD. A7V2 (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @A7V2: No it did that automatically. Dronebogus (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I changed it on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 31 and tagged the page. I think it's good to leave the tag on the talk page now, they should be kept, deleted, etc together anyway. A7V2 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Hi - I appreciate the sentiment, but NPA really does apply to everyone. There isn't a threshold of unpleasantness beyond which personal attacks are permitted - they're just not permitted, hence my revert. Sorry if you think I'm being officious, but it's a slippery slope once things like that are permitted some of the time. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @Girth Summit: No that’s fine. I totally get it. Thank you though. Dronebogus (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle usage

Hi, I've noticed that you used the Twinkle tool to revert 3 changes I made to the Decentraland article. Since no description was added I would like to know what was the reasoning behind the revert. The 3 changes reverted were: removing part of a description of a CSI episode (keeping only the relevant information: the episode includes a virtual world); turning the enumeration of 4 different platforms into the generalization "platforms", althoug the source name those platforms is not clear why to name them, specially if no further information is added on the differences between each platform and Decentraland; and adding a template linking to a discussin. Eibriel (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- user:Eibriel The episode is hypocritical, it doesn’t exist. The comparison is relevant because “other platforms” is annoyingly vague towards readers. The last one is fair Dronebogus (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh! Didn't realized the episode was made up, that makes more sense. Eibriel (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made a mistake

We can disagree about whether it's encyclopedic to refer to Charles M. Blow as a "black" columnist, but that is no reason to delete the entire block quote. I presume that was a mistake? Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @Generalrelative: yeah, it was a mistake, sorry. Dronebogus (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  No worries. Generalrelative (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Would you prefer to self-revert? Also, please see the discussion thread I've opened at Talk:White supremacy#Is it encyclopedic to refer to Charles M. Blow as a "black"_columnist?. Generalrelative (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Generalrelative: done. Dronebogus (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

8-ball jacket picture

Hey, I know you're trying to protect WP from copyright issues, but there's no need to leave edit summaries like this and all-caps deletion reasons on Commons. If they were edit-warring to get the image back in, or trying to promote their own line of jackets or something, I might be more inclined to see things from your point of view, but they made a single edit in apparent good faith. The editor in question is obviously new and clearly doesn't know how we do things. Let's welcome and teach new contributors, not them away with unnecessary hostility. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. 2603:7000:2143:8500:15D7:75A5:98D7:1584 (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipe-tan

Hello, thank you for including my wikipe-tan visual novel screenshot within the prestigious list of True facts about Wikipe-tan, it's an honor to see it present in the Cursed wikipe-tan images section. --31NOVA (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user is opposed to Userboxes that explicitly endorse or condemn particular parties, ideologies, or politicians.

I find most of your user page entertaining, especially your userboxes. Perhaps it's a clusterfuck, but who am I to judge? Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with the userbox quoted above. I would also add religion. Perhaps whether or not the user likes pineapple on pizza (joke). I would like to some day start a Village Pump discussion on removing political and religious userboxes from Wikipedia entirely. Side note, this was an issue in the early 2000s and Jimbo said that he would rather the community change voluntarily in a decentralized way to reject political and religious userboxes rather than acting in a centralized way by changing policy. I am not sure which option I prefer. Any thoughts? MarshallKe (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @MarshallKe: I’d support a village pump discussion on changing userbox policy. Like I’ve said, political userboxes are blatantly in violation of WP:SOAPBOX, and while there’s certainly numerous better things to work on noy having a blatant policy violation in plain sight is a pretty low bar to get over. Dronebogus (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One popular retort that we will encounter is that we want editors to reveal their biases so that we can better spot POV editing from them. For example, if someone says they oppose or support dictators, we should watch for them editing articles about dictators and making POV edits in opposition or support of dictators. Making them hide their biases will make it easier for them to damage Wikipedia and go unnoticed. Note that this isn't my argument, but this is an argument that will come up. MarshallKe (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarshallKe: Yes it’s one I’m familiar with. It’s a fair argument, but I think it’s trumped by the cold hard policy of WP:USERPAGE and WP:SOAPBOX Dronebogus (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that since there is now increasing precedent for removing userboxes that represent some of the most potentially NPOV problematic ideologies, and for allowing only the most mainstream of ideologies, this argument has not been valid for some time. We already make extremist people hide their biases. MarshallKe (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarshallKe: I’d add that I’m fine with religion boxes if they’re self-labeling and not opinions on religion. Telling people they can’t express their faith is a bit of an overreach to me. I also think that human rights and opposition to extremism should be considered as separate from politics. Dronebogus (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Are you sure about that? Your argument for deleting a Maoist userbox was "endorsing the political philosophies of ruthless authoritarians who slaughtered thousands if not millions in the name of said philosophy is incompatible with the spirit of WP:NONAZIS and Wikimedia in general." Was Catholicism not the philosophy that drove the actions of ruthless authoritarians who slaughtered thousands of not millions in the name of said philosophy during the Crusades? Or perhaps are there good elements of political and religious philosophies that allow us to understand they were used for evil, but have good intentions at their core? I've talked to Marxist-Leninist-Maoists online and almost none of them are simping for the authoritarian regimes of the past. MarshallKe (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarshallKe: That’s of course the difficult part. Where do you draw the line? Where would you draw the line? Dronebogus (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an even "better" example would be Military career of Muhammad, since he is the actual founder of the religion and not merely someone who used it for bad purposes. Yes, it's difficult, which is why I choose to bypass the issue entirely and disallow all political and religious userboxes. As you no doubt have argued before, this isn't a place for free expression. This is a place for editing an encyclopedia. I might go even farther and say that if a userbox has nothing to do with the user's activity on Wikipedia, it doesn't belong here. That, of course, would force you to remove most of your funny userboxes. I am consistent with this philosophy in my user page, which contains only Wikipedia-related content and no expression of any of my personal beliefs outside the scope of Wikipedia. MarshallKe (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @MarshallKe: I think drawing the line at “no religion no politics” is strongly preferable to a mega-purge against frivolous, but harmless, content; however I still feel like for many if not most people religion is something deeper than just another ideology and requires more sensitivity, which is why I’m hesitant to remove it. And what about “this user supports LGBT rights” or “this user hates Al Qaeda”? One is explicitly supported by the WP:UCOC and the other is pretty uncontroversial, but they could be considered political and purged. That’s why I very carefully worded my userbox to be against overly specific political commentary and not broad statements, and why I’ve repeatedly emphasized carveouts for certain uncontroversial issues when discussing this. Dronebogus (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- An alternative idea would be the minimalist approach of “no politicians or parties or nationalism or activist organizations”, which I think would be broadly uncontroversial. I mean, it’s obvious that “this user supports Reg Flarbhammer for Utopistan’s President” is inappropriate per WP:SOAPBOX, but who really wants to argue about whether saying you’re a gay Catholic vegan is promoting an ideology? Dronebogus (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understand

The phrasing militant atheist is purely figurative. Proletarian Banner (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate

You had stated that my name is a violation of the Soapbox thing, how is this so? Proletarian Banner merely refers to a banner that is of a proletarian, a worker, this is not necessarily advocating or promoting any socio-economic system or ideology. Proletarians exist under nearly any socio-economic system or ideology. Proletarians are merely workers. Maybe we need to start praising them huh, praising the average people, some people call me a "proletariat praiser" which is absurd to say, OF COURSE I praise the proletariat, the average people within society such as the workers. Proletarian Banner (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFACTOR

Please do not remove others comments or your own when someone has responded to them. If you think something needs removal, ask for an admin to look at it. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: okay, got it. My patience with certain users is just being tested by their incessant badgering even after I explained myself and willingly tried to de-escalate the situation by removing the inflammatory knee-jerk initial response. Dronebogus (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary

You had a userbox which made a joke about being a CIA agent which said that anything that goes against far-left narratives is labelled far-right and shutdown, that is the opposite of what the CIA actually do, the CIA in real life take anything that goes against far-right narratives and label it far-left and shut it down. Proletarian Banner (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @Proletarian Banner: um… yes. That is why it’s funny. See WP:NOTFORUM. Dronebogus (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anti-computer tactics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deep Blue.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of text and Yahoo ref

Please don't delete Yahoo refs, and text supported thereby. From the above, it seems its not the first time you've seen one thing you've objected to, and thought it fine to then just delete a whole paragraph, including RS refs, and the text it supports. That's not helpful to the project. --2603:7000:2143:8500:15D7:75A5:98D7:1584 (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The “deprecated source” was an just automatic tag: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censorship_of_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=1077154679

Dronebogus (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing talk page threads

Per WP:TPO, "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." A lot of the removals you have done go beyond what is acceptable; I suggest you revert them. (t · c) buidhe 23:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me, but I don’t know why you can’t revert them. You seem to be a better judge than I am. Dronebogus (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

I have questions about your reverts Dawn Lim (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And they are…? Dronebogus (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the one at Transmission of COVID-19 ,can you tell me what are "layman links" ,i can't find the meaning elsewhere and what broken english i have. For the ones at The_Orbital_Children ,can you please give a summary as the revert doesn't. I am not demanding you to undo the reverts but requesting to if you consider. Also you don't need to explain but please do. Dawn Lim (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK Dronebogus (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The COVID changes are 1:1 alterations with poorer grammar and word choice so I removed them. Dronebogus (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, your sentences are frequently Run-on sentences. Dronebogus (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or are otherwise awkward and wordy. Dronebogus (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Orbital Children was a mixture of similar 1:1 dis-improvements and unnecessary detail Dronebogus (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it might be okay, but keep it as succinct as possible (like just say “asteroid” and not “unknown asteroid”) Dronebogus (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ,i will try to check my grammar the next time i edit, and for the two articles i'll try to reedit them properly later. I am currently still learning more advanced english in school so some of my edits might not be perfect. Dawn Lim (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MFD trainwreck

You seem to have a lot of deletion discussions with the same rationale; couldn't you have grouped the revisionist ones together, at least? Is there some reason you didn't?

I get that you might be trying to avoid a disaster like the one at WP:CLUSTERFUCK, but I feel like you completely flooded MFD with this one. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 14:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize how many there were until it was too late. Dronebogus (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Man is not a Camel

My mistake. Sorry. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WaltCip-(talk) 18:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tankie userboxes

Hello, Dronebogus. Seeing that you recently nominated for deletion quite a few userboxes created by Поль Крол Злой Диктатор, I would like to hear your opinion about several more that are currently not nominated:

Do you think that any (or all) of these should be nominated, and if so, would you be willing to nominate them?

—Sundostund (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundostund: The Trotsky one is inexcusable. “Totalitarian US” is a pretty common sentiment in some countries and segments of the political sphere so I don’t support its deletion. Warsaw Pact just seems like typical post-Soviet waxing nostalgic so I think that one’s find as well. The other ones relating to Russian history, I can’t speak for due to ignorance. Dronebogus (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the same about the Trotsky one. “Totalitarian US” should remain, given what you said. As for Warsaw Pact and the ones relating to Russian history, they can easily be counted among Tankie/Russian propaganda. —Sundostund (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then nominate them Dronebogus (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'd rather let that to someone far more experienced in such things. So far, I've never nominated anything for deletion, neither userbox nor article. —Sundostund (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The privatization one seems to condemn an unpopular economic policy that resulted in the rise of Russia’s notorious oligarchs so I’d say it’s fine. Dronebogus (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI on webhost pages

Instead of MFD, you should have tagged each of Mariofan3's pages for speedy deletion. Schazjmd (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Syria / Libya / Uzbekistan userboxes

Hello! I'd like to hear your opinion about these userboxes, and whether or not they may warrant MfD discussions:

Just to say — as you may see in their history, at least in the case of two of them, I've made some edits on them myself (by adding some links, etc). It doesn't mean that I agree with their content at all. In my opinion, its not unusual that editors do some work on political userboxes which doesn't reflect their personal beliefs; I also periodically create such userboxes, and none of them is within my namespace. To me, its somewhat similar to NPOV in the work on articles, however (il)logical that may sound.

—Sundostund (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Assad boxes you could probably nominate. The Libya box might be controversial because of Gaddafi’s divisive status in Libyan political history. Dronebogus (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't sure myself if any of them is inflammatory and divisive enough to be nominated. But the Assad boxes seemed like a particular red flag to me. —Sundostund (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first two I’ve nominated. Based on use and history they seem like disruption magnets. Dronebogus (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. Also, I just have to share the impressions about this one with you; I recently saw it for the first time – User:Lihaas/IMU-Islam. IMHO, it looks not just like a masterpiece disruption magnet, but a real piece of... work? Lets stay polite. —Sundostund (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I definitely think that needs to go. I mean, just glancing at their article reveals IMU is a former ally of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and ended up merging with the Islamic State. Dronebogus (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly speaking, if the creator of this userbox isn't indef blocked already, the creation of something like this could easily warrant a block, or at least some kind of warning. —Sundostund (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just noticed this really nonsensical, tankie-like userbox – Template:User comecon. As you may see, literally nobody use it, which doesn't surprise me in the least. It really seems like a pure waste of space to me, but I'm not sure about it being worthy of a MfD discussion. —Sundostund (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn’t MfD worthy, it’s just another extreme case of Soviet nostalgia. Dronebogus (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and another example of misuse of the project's server for their nostalgia. What could pop up next, "This user supports the reestablishment of the Comintern/Cominform"? —Sundostund (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adf hate symbols moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Adf hate symbols, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Lopifalko (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Adf hate symbols" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Adf hate symbols and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#Adf hate symbols until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actions at WP:MFD

You were formally warned at ANI against bringing a combative attitude to WP:MFD. You are doing so again in revert-warring to remove Leroy Patterson IV's !vote from the page. Please stop.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, WaltCip, how is “You lost the fight on the ground, why do you want to come to Wikipedia? Should we entertain you? Should Wikipedia silence any views that you as an individual don't like? Are you the sole arbiter of truth and justice?” from L. Patterson not basically trolling and personal attacks? I don’t even give a shit about any of the 500,000 distinct morally questionable factions fighting over Syria. but this user is seemingly assuming I’m pro- rebel faction 26.8 and trying to mock me as such. Dronebogus (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Should Wikipedia silence any views that you as an individual don't like? Are you the sole arbiter of truth and justice?" are valid questions. SK2242 (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the context is not that of a “valid question”, it’s one of goading. Dronebogus (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume that it's goading (which is a bad faith assumption, but I'll roll with it): If you are being goaded, then by golly you take the bait every damn time. The principle behind WP:DENY is not simply just ignoring something that might agitate you, but also preventing further disruption to the page. When an admin comes to close WP:MFD, they will recognize any !votes that have weak or irrelevant rationales and will make their closure accordingly. You are neither required (nor wanted) to combat someone's opinion on the Internet just because you feel that they are wrong. Furthermore, bludgeoning the process can actually be disruptive in itself.

But the real crux of the matter here is that you are deciding, unilaterally, to remove and revert someone's !vote and threatening them with being blocked. Frankly, your past actions have shown that you are not dispassionate about political matters here, and adding this to self-arbitrating a deletion discussion makes for a very poor combination. It really would be for your own good if you stopped letting people try to draw you into arguments. If you truly are unable to do that because of a deep, ingrained sense of needing to be right on something, then we really have problems. WaltCip-(talk) 12:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user is a blocked sockpuppet of a banned user. Besides that, I think reverting their uncivil commentary was reasonable and in-line with WP:DENY. I also tried to explain their behavior was wrong but they didn’t listen. Dronebogus (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give two hoots about whether or not they're a sock or an LTA or Gerald Ford's grand-nephew; two wrongs do not make a right. The point is to dial back from bludgeoning and edit-warring, and disengage from political arguments. It really is that simple. WaltCip-(talk) 15:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their behavior was disruptive from the beginning! I even explained this to the user, which they responded to by lashing out in the revert summary. Why is it okay for them to repeatedly behave badly but not for me to try to remove disruptive content or get frustrated with them? Dronebogus (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea, etc

Hello, Dronebogus. This template might have some things in common with the one that you nominated here. Also, regarding the now-banned User:Leroy Patterson IV, I find it interesting that he used this userbox (with a certain flag as part of it) on his user page, instead of this one... —Sundostund (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting facts for your "wall of dubious fame"

Regarding the formerly longest page on the English Wikipedia -- there was previously a longer one, in the same user's userspace, which I found with a SQL query on the enwiki database. I asked him about it and got an explanation of how he exceeded the 4MB page size limit a few months ago. jp×g 22:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you are interested in weird recursive deletion nominations, check out this search on Special:PrefixIndex (for MfDs brought to MfD) and this one (for AfDs brought to MfD). Many of them are April Fools', but a few of them are interestingly convoluted bureaucratic drama. jp×g 22:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring/removing other people's talk page comments, etc

In general, removing/hatting stuff on talk pages is only done as a last measure when all other attempts to get a conversation under control have failed. I notice that you have been doing this a lot lately, in ways that don't really make sense to me. This edit, for example, is a May 2022 WP:NOTFORUM removal of a comment from July 2004 -- a comment old enough to drive in many states. This hat is being put on a discussion that you've just commented in to disagree with the OP, which is an oxymoron (if the conversation is so inappropriate for a talk page that it needs to be hatted, there is no need to comment in it to get the last word before doing so). This one, specifically, I reverted, as it contains a borderline PA against one of the participants ("suspicious-sounding inactive editor trying to push POV and getting mad when people reject it completely reasonably"). I think it may be a good idea to, in general, refactor others' talk page comments less. jp×g 04:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dronebogus, I have seen only the first example mentioned above by JPxG, so I can't comment on the others, but as far as that one is concerned I strongly disagree with JPxG. No matter how old an inappropriate talk page post may be, its presence is likely to give inexperienced editors a misleading impression as to what kind of thing is acceptable, so removing it is likely to be helpful. JBW (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with JBW, although I do share JPxG's concerns regarding the hatting or removing of comments when one is directly involved in an argument. WaltCip-(talk) 19:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Userpage Barnstar
		I couldn't look away from your userpage but was so wonderful. The zoom, the userboxes, the jokes...once I saw the stamp I knew you must have this barnstar. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

blake

my recent edit on "shooting of Jacob Blake". the previous version of that line leaves people to think that this is the only truth, although Wikipedia is reporting Blake's word. Reported lines should not be written as facts. The word "admitted" appears to tell that Blake was telling the truth. The following line about intent to use the knife has the same problem. Zeon26 (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:NOTAFORM" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:NOTAFORM and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 31#Wikipedia:NOTAFORM until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is National Socialist Movement (United States)‎ social conservatism

And how do the sources back that? Doug Weller talk 15:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s kind of a WP:BLUE thing with the negative views on immigration, multiculturalism and homosexuality. In any case https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Socialist_Movement_(United_States)&diff=1092472334&oldid=1092389145 isn’t an appropriate way to respond Dronebogus (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was partially a joke but on the other hand it did suggest that social conservatism was white supremacist. And I disagree about WP:BLUE and doubt that the LA Times said social conservatism, and that's used as a source. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PleaForFairness

Might it not be better to just stop? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They were blocked, there’s nothing else to do. Dronebogus (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Invitation to the WPTO

Template:Invitation to the WPTO has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy summer/winter

		Sunshine!
		Hello Dronebogus! 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) 22:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy first day of summer (or winter) wherever you live. Interstellarity (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Knowles

I added the full dialogue between Knowles and Hahn because I felt that Knowles's statements and opinions were misrepresented by the choice and order of dialogue written into the article. In the video, he maintains that he's "attacking the left", and only lists her "illnesses" once Hahn told him to take it back. When I read the article, compared to when I then watched the actual debate, I got different impressions regarding the stances of both sides.

I should've explained why I was adding it. I wasn't aware of the controversy regarding the wording of the article, I went back and saw all the previous changes regarding it. I saw why, for example, "relax, skinny boy" was left in, but I don't think personal attacks are necessary to be included in the article, even if they are used in headlines.

Maybe it would be better to shorten the entire paragraph to something like:

"Knowles called teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg "a mentally ill Swedish child, who is being exploited by her parents and by the international left" on the Fox News program The Story. Fellow segment guest and Democratic Party activist Christopher Hahn replied, "You're a grown man and you're attacking a child. Shame on you." Knowles responded, "I'm not. I'm attacking the Left for exploiting a mentally ill child." The network apologized..."

Succinctly showing both sides of the debate, then moving on.

100.33.65.252 (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using your UserTemplateBox

Hey, may you kindly allow me using your brilliant userbox on my user page? thanks in advance Niles Anderssøn (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@אנדרסן: of course! Dronebogus (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! slava ukraini! :) Niles Anderssøn 🟡 (talk) 🔵 Слава Україні 11:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of templates

When categorizing templates, please make sure that categorization should be placed inside <noinclude>...</noinclude>. You can read more about it at WP:CAT#T. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newsmax

When I saw this, I just had to laugh! 😃 The irony of having to revert a real improvement because it was likely unsourced, as "ultra" doesn't even begin to describe the extreme purpose it was created to serve, as they figured Fox News wasn't conservative enough. Keep up the good work, even when it hurts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beaneater's userboxes

Hello. I would like to hear your opinion about some of the userboxes listed here, and whether or not they may warrant MfD discussions. I particularly find this one to be problematic. All of them are created by banned user Beaneater00 (talk · contribs). —Sundostund (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundostund: The breast cancer one is pretty inflammatorily stupid (who the hell is “team cancer”?! I want names) the others are either completely inoffensive (i.e. headpatsexual) or just too obscure for me to comment on— I’d say they’re fine, but maybe the ethnic ones are offensive if you’re directly involved in the situation. Dronebogus (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty much of the same opinion. As for the breast cancer userbox, I can't believe that someone can create something like that, even as a bad joke. As for other userboxes (especially the Balkans-related ones), they can be seen as offensive or inflammatory, to the people who are connected to the region and its politics. —Sundostund (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care that he said it first. You cannot say something like this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: I knew that was probably a stupid edit, but a 24 hour block from the entire wiki with no warning seems gratuitous and trigger-happy. Could I request it be reduced to just a page block or reduced in length? Dronebogus (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point of a warning is to make sure that someone is aware of a policy. Were you unaware of the policy against personal attacks? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: No, of course not, I just wasn’t 100% sure it counted as a personal attack since he, you know, said it first, verbatim. Also, have you seen what other editors are saying about Bedford at ANI? (Ex: User:Boing! said Zebedee called him “utterly repulsive” and another user outright mocked his appearance before being politely asked to self-redact, a courtesy which I wasn’t even given) Why weren’t those personal attacks insta-blocked? I’m genuinely curious? Dronebogus (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only person to go to his talkpage to call him an ableist insult. (Yes, an ableist insult he used against his critics collectively. Still an ableist insult.) Looking through AN/I, the worst terms I see used are substantive criticisms, made in good faith, that are relevant to the matter at hand: "racist", "misogynist", and "homophobe"; it's not clear he'd even disagree with the latter two. "repulsive" is maybe a bit much, but still well short of "mentally ill child". Mocking someone's appearance is bad, yeah. Whether to warn or block in that situation has a lot to do with intent and a lot to do with whether you expect a warning will suffice to deter similar conduct in the future. You clearly knew what you were doing here, and went out of your way to do it on his usertalk as a gesture of pure spite, not part of the ban discussion itself. And my past interactions with you led me to feel that a mere warning would not make this less likely to happen in the future. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: I did not call him that, I was implying it was from the “mentally ill [child]”. Which is trivial admittedly but at least clarifies that it wasn’t directed at him. And which “past interactions” are you referring to? Dronebogus (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) A barnstar's name normally describes the person it is given to. I hope you can see why whatever term you put in that field would be taken as referring to the recipient? 2) I can dredge up the archive link if you want, but there was an AN/I thread where you did not feel that there was consensus you had acted inappropriately, and said you would not be convinced without a formal close to that effect, which did then occur. (An interaction in a purely administrative capacity, no underlying dispute over content, to be clear.) Based on that, it seemed unlikely that me simply saying "Don't do that again" would have the desired effect. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: Thank you for your patient explanations. I still question the length of the block but that’s unlikely to change at this point. Dronebogus (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, I was going to loop back to that, just wanted to finish answering your questions. I fully believe that you participate in the utmost good faith. So if you're saying you didn't mean it as an insult against Bedford, I believe you. This was still gravedancing, and pretty egregiously so, but that is not something I'd block for without warning on the first offense. So consider this a warning (of the "next time I'll block you and won't change my mind" variety) for gravedancing, and also a reminder to consider how your words may come across in all situations. Unblocked.
P.S. You have a real typo in your joke typo on your userpage. I assume that should be ararchno? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Peaceray (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I would like to assure you that talking to me is not a waste of time. If you have an issue with me or my userpage, the correct first course of action should have been to bring it to my attention, not go straight to a wholesale deletion process. I have removed the old rant section, which was the product of a frankly bullheaded young 20 something. I'm not that person anymore. As for my activity, I'm a working man without a lot of free time on my hands, but still copyedit when time allows and have made several contributions to Wikisource over the past year and change, but even that is not excuse to take someone's userpage to AfD. If you have any further concerns I'd be happy to discuss them. Rogue 9 (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rogue 9: Thank you for your reply, however as there have already been 3rd party edits to the MfDs this is largely out of my hands at this point and you should respond there. Dronebogus (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Hello, Dronebogus. I'd want to hear your opinion on whether these could warrant MfD nominations:

User:Bedford/Intro (having in mind the recent CBAN of Bedford, I highly doubt that we need to keep this nonsense)
User:Katangais/Userboxes/Ian Smith (I am really puzzled that it survived two MfD nominations so far, as it have a clear pro-Rhodesian / white racist message)

Sundostund (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundostund: nominating the first one immediately as a masturbatory vanity shrine by and to a banned user; neutral on the second, I’d vote delete if nominated but I’m not nominating it due to endless re-noms over a relatively short period (i.e. a few months) being frowned upon. Dronebogus (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transmedicalism

Thanks for removing the truscum post. And, I noticed u said "they just edit like this". Bear in mind that that user uses she pronouns - as evidenced by its use in one of her userpage infoboxes. Although if you said 'they' because you saw her say she has those pronouns too, then I didn't know that. But if the only pronouns we know she uses are she, then just keep that in mind if u have to interact with her in the future :) Stephanie921 (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted?

Hey there,

why did you revert my comment on the Incel talk page? I see no WP rule violation.

Thanks Chaptagai (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaptagai: probably because it sounded like WP:OR/WP:NOTFORUM; I probably should’ve reverted without explanation but if you don’t have a good secondary source and just say “guy said thing” it’s not very helpful. Dronebogus (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I like your user page! It’s interesting and funny. Because of it, I found out about some weird things on Wikipedia, such as the redirects for discussion you mentioned on there. Your username is nice, too! SunilNevlaFan ✨ 18:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another Confederate

There is yet another CSA-related userbox (User:JohnnyReb1977/Proud Confederate), with quite a clear message IHMO. —Sundostund (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t need to ask for a second opinion there; that’s impossible to misinterpret. Dronebogus (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin userbox, etc

I would say that this userbox could be closely related to already MfD–nominated User:ChristTrekker/2A. It size isn't really appropriate for a userbox, its hardly concise, sounds like a speech, and it contains another "wise" quotation opposing gun control (this time by Lenin). Also, this one seems quite mind-boggling to me as well. —Sundostund (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundostund: I don’t personally think either of those are bad enough to warrant deletion. The first is just one quote and the second is just typical Soviet nostalgia/memeing. Dronebogus (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I do not think that means what you think it means" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect I do not think that means what you think it means and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 4#I do not think that means what you think it means until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 06:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Incel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nathan Larson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for engaging in the social and ethical discussion at Kiwi Farms. Community participation is an act of governance and keeps power with the people. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Keep up the great work, my good man Discord96 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odesa monument

I just got an idea about creating an userbox supporting the petition to replace the Monument to the founders of Odesa (basically a monument to Catherine the Great) with a monument to Billy Herrington. But still, I'm not sure about creating it. Such an userbox could look like out of taste to some. Sundostund (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundostund: No, that’s funny. Dronebogus (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is it – Template:User Odesa Monument. Sundostund (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Users deleting material on their talk pages

Contrary to your edit comment to HistoryGuy94, users have the right to delete nearly everything from their talk pages, regardless of the fact that it makes the history hard to track. See WP:OWNTALK. Largoplazo (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Queue

Hello Dronebogus, I observe you closed this AfD for The Queue, however it is not appropriate for you to do so as you !voted in this, and indeed !voted keep which is what you closed the discussion as. I do not disagree that it was heading, or indeed at a WP:SNOW close situation, but you cannot take this decision if you're already involved. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note (and this as the person who cast the first !vote other than the nom), that your close would have been interpreted as a "super-close". "A substantial number of votes suggest merging but that’s unrealistic given the current length" is a position that should be given in a !vote, not a close. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks against blocked users

I would be less concerned about Special:Diff/1112637521 if I hadn't already blocked you for similar behavior against another user, and unblocked you with a warning for gravedancing. Were it not for the pecularities of this case (viz. a long-term disruptive IP who would have been indeffed long ago were they a registered user, and had already insulted you), this would be another block. So consider this a second and final warning: Do not gravedance again again, even if the other party's been a jerk to you. I would strongly encourage you in the future to just steer clear of blocked users' talk pages. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: sorry, I won’t do it again. Dronebogus (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another Confederate

I think you may find some of the stuff displayed here as quite "interesting", despite the "proud owner" of the userpage not being active since 2007. I can't remember when I last saw such pro-CSA collection, really. Sundostund (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord. Nominating for deletion immediately. Dronebogus (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another one, just look here... The user is blocked for disruptive editing since 2019. Being from Serbia, I actually feel quite uncomfortable (and ashamed), since the user is apparently Serbian American. —Sundostund (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And another one (why I'm not surprised?) – here. I think it would be easy to guess which one of those userboxes prompted me to message you about this one, beside quite suggestive account name. —Sundostund (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And one more – here. Just look at the "Southern pride" userbox, and the one supporting the views of Jefferson Davis. —Sundostund (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unceremoniously, manual coding by long dead account. Dronebogus (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, unsurprisingly, some more – here, here, here and here (with some short glances, I'm sure you'll get it why I mention these). And, this stuff may be particularly interesting – User:Grayghost01 and User:Grayghost01/WBTS Revisionism. —Sundostund (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First four were dead accounts whose only offense was displaying a hate symbol possibly in good faith (i.e. just to represent “heritage” but not endorse slavery even though that was the point behind the flag), blanked. Dronebogus (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These two seems quite interesting as well – User:Grayghost01/Sandbox3 (qualifying Union newspapers as "Yankee Rags") and User:Grayghost01/image gallery. —Sundostund (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox is excusable— one minor, probably supposed to be humorous dig isn’t deletion material and it’s otherwise a good, possibly still useful list. The gallery I’ve sent to MfD due to being an extension of the user’s revisionist agenda. Dronebogus (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this is really "cute" too. I wonder how that "peaceful restoration" would look like in real life. —Sundostund (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in this, there are some "interesting" details. And what to say about this nonsense... —Sundostund (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The essay

Thanks to Robert McClenon, now we have the essay regarding the issue of Confederacy/Neo-Confederates – WP:No Confederates. Feel free to contribute/add/expand there, in the way you feel appropriate. Its a start, but a very good one, with a lot of potential for expansion. I truly hope that, eventually, it will be enforced on the same level as WP:No Nazis and WP:No racists, and with the same strictness. —Sundostund (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional weirdness

I am sure that you will just "love" some stuff from this userspace; my personal "favorites" are these:

Sundostund (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dronebogus (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are disgusting, but the tourist and regionalist ones are too dumb to bother with in my opinion. Dronebogus (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Userpage space

So, first off, I didn't even know that there was such a thing as an acceptable userpage policy. This has never been an issue before and I don't even display them on my page anymore. So you had to go out of your way to find these and piss in my cornflakes. Also, you and I probably know people in common and this is really rather silly. Let's just leave this as it is, since I have no intention to display these anyway and I personally find my own userboxes rather amusing, as I'm sure you do yours. Jerome501 (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not from cherrystadt or wherever, I kept it because I thought it was odd but funny. I think the policy is WP:userpage or something. Dronebogus (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking here, there's nothing that mentions anything related to mentioning racism. It gives "pro-pedophilia" as an example of exceptionally heinous content, and I don't have anything that heinous. So again I say, where is the policy? I'm not even American, and American politics don't make any sense and are just funny to me. "Racism" means the same thing to me as Yugoslavism means to you. Jerome501 (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but I don’t make jokes about Yugoslavism either (admittedly because I’d never heard of it before now, thanks for the history lesson I guess? Dronebogus (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you need history lesson. You're telling me you've never looked at the politics of another country and thought "this is funniest thing I've ever heard?" I have no personal investment in American illegal immigrants or racism or whatever. Most of the ones here are bound for Hungary and it's not even very relevant.Jerome501 (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I don’t… make fun of other ethnic groups. Dronebogus (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More odd User space pages

Hello, Dronebogus,

I just noticed that the MFDs about User:Tablecloth1389 were closed and saw they had some other rather strange userboxes, not about the Confederacy but about the superiority of Serbians. Just in case you were looking for other User pages to rid Wikipedia of. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Just to mention that, as a Serbian, I don't think anything positive about the userboxes you mentioned. They should be removed. —Sundostund (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TBAN discussion

Honestly speaking, when I look at this discussion and the fact that user in question equalized transgender care with Josef Mengele's experiments, I wonder whether a TBAN would be enough as a consequence. —Sundostund (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grayghost01/WBTS Revisionism

Your edit here here is worrisome as it can be seen as going against a "keep" consensus which is disruptive editing. If you feel the page should be blanked then I would take it to WP:DRV for a proper discussion on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JMT97/sandbox

I don't think that this was a valid snow close. Your closing statement looks more like a Keep !vote. There hadn't yet been enough participation to be sure that the snowball clause was applicable. In particular, someone might argue that Wikipedia is not for alternate history applies. It does, except that the page in question is a sandbox. So I don't think that it is a valid non-administrative snowball keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then revert it. Dronebogus (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Crisis pregnancy center. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checking over, userpages

Howdy. Let the administrators handle checking over other editors' userpages. It's not your responsibility (nor should it be) to take on such a task. Tried to contact you at the board, but 7 edit-conflicts was enough :) GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: They don’t, and they don’t have to, and they almost never will until the community tells them to. In fact the first response was an admin trying to force me out of doing so. Dronebogus (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're better off leaving it in their hands, IMHO. But anyways, that's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion?

Seeing Pedant's userpage go up for deletion also reminded me of this one that I had nominated a long time ago back when I was more hawkish on userspace content: JRSpriggs. I was nearly universally repudiated for nominating it back then, and it was basically speedy kept after I withdrew. That nomination had a large part to play in my current attitude towards leaving userspace content alone, but I wonder what your thoughts would be on it. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WaltCip: I’ve voted on it as weak procedural keep because it’s inappropriate, but not offensive that I can see, and the user hasn’t been contacted about it beforehand so it’s out of process. Dronebogus (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Affused with holy water/Userbox/Evol vs Creation

Just FYI, per WP:WDAFD the opinions stated were not all "Keep". I know this applies to AfD and am not so sure about MfD, but you should look into it before closing your own deletion discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t think it was productive to the community so it was an WP:IAR withdrawal; you can reopen it if you really think it’s necessary. Dronebogus (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to reopen it. In my opinion it would have been interesting to hear an uninvolved perspective is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tomboy

Hi, Have a look at WP:SK#NOT. I'm certain that "keep" was the clear consensus, but this was not a WP:Speedy keep, and the abuse was not justified. Apology would be appreciated, but better still, check the policy and justify if you do wish to WP:IAR. Best wishes, Springnuts (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it’s classed as a vital article means you need an extremely good reason to delete it. You and the other deletion voter’s reasons were rather frivolous and massively refuted within a very short time. While I wouldn’t speedy close it now, I also think that this is very close to “linked from main page” and “policy/guideline” speedy closing. Dronebogus (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But don't forget wikilove - it's not compulsory, but it makes the place more pleasant for everyone. Happy editing :) Springnuts (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LGB Alliance Talk page

I am concerned that you deleted a comment from a discussion on the Talk page of LGB Alliance.[1] You did not provide any explanation for your action, which disrupted the discussion. Please don’t do that again. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Looked like a POV pusher Dronebogus (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting versus closing

Hi Dronebogus,

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I'd suggest that the close-with-summary template is the appropriate one to use in situations like this, rather than hatting. Like so: Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Writing a summary. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saya no Uta: The Song of Saya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horror.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PrisonedMuffin

Hello. I'm not understanding why you closed that discussion as "speedy keep", given that there are no arguments for closing the discussion as speedy keep. This appears to be a WP:SUPERVOTE, and I would ask that you self-revert your close and comment in the discussion rather than supervoting. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the user deleted the offensive content, there is no legitimate rationale to delete anymore and it would be both unnecessary per WP:NOTBURO and stigmatizing to the user in question to keep it open. Dronebogus (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not agree with the above feel free to revert. Dronebogus (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dronebogus, your replies to User:Red-tailed hawk are non-responsive and their point is important. It is not for them to undo your errors. I see you are getting some experience with non-admin MfD closures and as a frequent MfD participant you are encouraged to do so, expected to make mistakes along the way, and ought to anticipate comments and objection from those who disagree with your choices, as does the OP, the nominator in the process. As a closer, a non-admin should only make closes which are obvious, per WP:NACPIT. Closing as speedy keep when no contributors to discussions have made such an assertion is, by definition, you closing as you desire (a super!vote). Closing processes in which you have already asserted or commented is another major mistake (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), and you should stop doing that (one can withdraw nom, but one can't normally close a populated process just because one has withdrawn nom). Look, you don't have to listen to this critique, but I wouldn't bother to say all this if I didn't think there was a competent, caring wikipedian on the other keyboard of this discussion. Please avoid making mistakes which have been pointed out to you already, please accept criticism as it is intended, to correct good faith errors, and please correct your own mistakes before all this history becomes yet another ANI discussion. BusterD (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy, is what I'm saying. I wouldn't expect this from an admin closer and I have zero reasons to expect this from an editor in which the community has not yet invested trust. BusterD (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve reopened the PrisonedMuffin deletion request. I’m not reopening the others because they’re old business. I might’ve reopened the palace one if there was an objection but I’ve actually been thanked for that one so I feel it was a legitimate WP:IAR close. Dronebogus (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, reading Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Some Wandom Noob, I don't see anything near the level of consensus required for an involved editor to IAR keep the page, and the arguments in favor of deletion were not solely focused on the existence of so many images on that page; one editor even explicitly indicated that they would not accept blanking the page as an alternative to deletion. You closed that one two days ago, so I'm not sure how your closure is old business. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undo, accidental inclusion. Dronebogus (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion back on. Dronebogus (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Nobody wants adversaries here; they are valueless. Clueful people who are a bit over-bold, we need more of those. BusterD (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the thing, you've earned some bonus points from me (and likely R-th) just doing the right thing. The first time I noticed your work I think you were taking a wrecking ball to WP:ARS, and Lord knows many have tried before. I thought you rubbed it in a bit, but the deletion process was being tainted (for many years) by a subtle form of WP:INVOLVED and you helped spoil that !votestacking process. Some of my best wikifriends are ARSers (wow, that reads worse than I imagined) and if I ever need sources pulled out from the ARS (that works better), I know I can count on some of those people. We're all incredibly different (and our community's enormous heterogeneity corresponds to the value added to the project, where en.wiki is more fortunate than other much smaller, single-culture pedias). You like swinging a wrecking ball. That's an awesome superpower to have. I don't see Wikipedia the same way you do and that's a win-win for both of us. I've got tp on my shoe, you keep me honest. Plus I'm old and tired and you do not often seem so. Let's stay in touch and if I can be helpful, you've earned more of my respect today. BusterD (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop making non-admin closures?

Your three closures tonight demonstrate you've missed my point above. Closures should (almost) NEVER be performed by an involved editor. (I have violated that myself in the last two weeks, I'll confess.) Would you stop? I'm asking. BusterD (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to disagree with me. You are welcome to argue with me. But the three involved closures tonight are sufficient evidence for some kind of warning/sanction against you, a sanction I do not request and have worked to prevent. Sloppy closures won't gain you anything. If I saw an admin make the same three closures under the same circumstances, I'd be on their talkpage too. BusterD (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won’t make any further involved closes. Dronebogus (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However I think the ProjectVillages and PrisonedMuffin closes were reasonable readings of consensus (or lack thereof). Dronebogus (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. When in formal procedures, my belief is that a person should choose asserting an outcome or weighing the discussion, but never both. In the very rare cases where I cross the line, I always make a self-confession in edit summary so that any reviewer can follow my thinking. I am sorry for taxing you. I am trying my utmost to be helpful to you. BusterD (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dronebogus,

I'm concerned about your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's largest palace. As a non-admin closer, it's really not your place to stop an AFD discussion because you don't think it's going anywhere. NAC closures should only be for obvious, non-controversial closes, you shouldn't be making your own opinion the reason for a closure. I think you are too comfortable doing closes and not taking the guidelines seriously any more. Please act by the letter of the guideine and do not be so casual about taking on a close just because you think an AFD discussion should end. You're getting some criticism here and it would be in your best interest to take it seriously. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will. However that was long enough ago that I think a renomination would be appropriate if you think the original close was poor. Reverting would be impractical. Dronebogus (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE

"You can’t use Wikipedia as some sort of playground for dumb and annoying edits, unless you are trying to get blocked", followed by nominating their userpage for deletion, followed by nominating a second userpage for deletion after that one was kept... is this really necessary? jp×g 05:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second one wasn’t made by them, and was nominated because it’s nothing but dead links now. I’ve tried to close the first deletion attempt but multiple people complained. Other users were annoyed by the user’s initial behavior, but she got the point. This is a dead issue. I usually welcome new users in a friendly manner with a welcome template, and I think I was reasonable (if a little harsh) here. Dronebogus (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

First of all I wanted to thank you for your input on infoboxes. I wanted to caution you though on being careful not to WP:BLUDGEON the process. Every person we disagree with doesn't need to be challenged. The RfC is a place for editors to comment. There can be debate, but the closing editor will weigh the good arguments against the bad. There are respected and faithful admins who don't like infoboxes, that's okay. We'll go with where the consensus takes us. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civil discussion

Hi, I just want to suggest that you're more likely to influence a discussion by taking a more friendly approach, recognising that other people have different opinions to you, and that having a different opinion to you does not mean another person is biased (or that you yourself are not biased). Attacking others' motivations and "biases" really doesn't work, and experienced admins who review and close discussions like this are not going to give any weight to it. I also note some related wise words of advice from Nemov in the section immediately above (and that's from someone on your side of the current disagreement, so maybe worth listening to even if you think I'm not?) Anyway, I mean this as friendly advice, and it's up to you to decide how best to present yourself in civil discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee Given that editor's long history of problematic behavior and your comment opposing any sanction, this comment will fall on deaf ears. Plus, you went as far as to welcoming him back. It's perfectly reasonable for others to believe you're not looking at this from an objective perspective. Well intentioned or not, this kind of advice is useless. How can you can advise others not to make accusations when you oppose any sanction on an editor who does it routinely? I hope this helps you understand why some editors strongly disagree with your opinion. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with other editors strongly disagreeing with my opinion. I respect it, and I don't respond by making accusations against them during discussion. I've generally found that to be a reasonably successful approach. And if reaching out here in a friendly manner is not welcomed, well, that's fine too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Killing of Amir Locke

Hi Dronebogus, I am sorry we are having a disagreement about whether my comments on the Talk page, that were made in good faith in response to what I assume are good faith concerns about the content of the article, should continue to remain visible after they have been posted since May 2022. I do not feel that your continued reversions after my objection are appropriate. The Talk page is a resource, and my response includes a collection of past discussions that can be reviewed by others who may have similar concerns. I have been watching and participating on this article and its Talk page for awhile, so I believe maintaining an explanatory post has value. I therefore request that you please restore my good faith addition to the Talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can restore it, I won’t revert it. I don’t see why I have to do something so simple. Thank you for the considerate talk page discussion though. Dronebogus (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dronebogus - this has been a challenging article to develop, but the Talk page discussions have been thorough, although sometimes a bit repetitive. I'll go ahead and restore it with a mention of our discussion in the edit summary. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce

Regarding your edits at James Joyce, please consider the content at WP:BLUDGEON and allow time and space for others to weigh in. You have made your views clear and were allowed to do so in spite of having no history with the article before your first edit to talk on December 1; allow the same courtesy to others, please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

were allowed to do so in spite of having no history with the article - That attitude is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia at all. I would encourage you to consider the content at WP:5P3.

Xx78900 (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Xx78900, it goes against the spirit of RfC and goes into WP:OWN territory. There was a recent disruption and it wasn't Dronebogus. Nemov (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newsmax

Regarding your most recent edit, I don't understand the reversion of "The website has been described by The New York Times as a "potent force in conservative politics.""

to "...a "potent force" in U.S. politics.""

The prior version was the actual statement as it was printed in the NYTimes. I don't see the argument for a paraphrase here. The paraphrase is also not quite faithful to the meaning of the original. "U.S. politics" does not equal "conservative politics."

But I do appreciate that you noted my edits as "good faith." Thank you. Moran Wright (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate gay pride flag

For some time, I am thinking whether this flag should be included in WP:NOCONFED (possibly in a positive context), but I'm really not sure about it. What do you think about that flag in general, and its possible inclusion in the essay? — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I view it as out of scope regardless of its hate status. Dronebogus (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that this was a recreation of a real flag, so in scope. Dronebogus (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Russian Invasion of Ukraine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian Invasion of Ukraine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 27 § Russian Invasion of Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. A7V2 (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "D.I.C.E.", Wikipedia, 2020-08-28, retrieved 2020-10-14

[1]