User talk:Kringle Claus

Welcome!

Hello, Kringle Claus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Calgary did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• The Teahouse, our help forum for new users

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, visit the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Magnolia677 (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Your draft

Hello, I took a look at your draft and made some changes. I think I have addressed any concerns about the article being used for promotion. Excessive detail about the site, whether intended or not, does come off as promotional. It is best to speak generally about the features of the site and its purpose. Since I am a contributor, I am not going to publish the article, as I feel this should be done by someone uninvolved, through the AfC process. Remember, you need to establish that your website passes WP:GNG - by being covered in-depth in multiple reliable sources. My one concern is that some of your sources deal with emails to Santa in general - for example, the Rosie O'Donnell song - unless I am missing something, the song is about emailing Santa, not about your specific website. If you have any questions, please let me know. I wish you luck. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 20:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Your edits on Christmas- and Santa-related articles

Hi KC, it's Félix. I have noticed that you are editing various Christmas- and Santa- related articles, and I noticed your remarks of me, thinking that I am trying to undermine your website, emailSanta.com. That is not true. I am just making sure that Wikipedia clarifies that Santa Claus does not exist, as the website is not censored to protect the feelings of children. I have no problems with you running a website outside of Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is meant to present objective truth and facts to readers based on reliable sources. There is no doubt that Santa Claus does not exist as a living person today and is merely a legendary character, and when kids come to Wikipedia to learn more about Santa Claus, this is what they should learn immediately. I do not have anything against Christmas or Christianity (in fact, I myself am Christian, and I am writing an essay on the origins of Santa Claus from St. Nicholas, the Roman Catholic church, etc. in my grade 12 philosophy class), however, I strongly disagree that an encyclopedia should try to use vague language to attempt to hide the fact that Santa does not exist from kids. Félix An (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I would also recommend you to read WP:SANTA. (I did not write that.) Thanks! Félix An (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: EmailSanta.com

The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Félix An (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! I hope you remember me. I wanted to re-live a part of my childhood today, so I "sent a letter to Santa Claus" using your website. :) I even made a little Python library so I could programmatically send emails, have a look: https://github.com/fffelix-jan/emailsanta-py Have a happy holiday season! Félix An (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2024

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to emailSanta.com. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Please also keep in mind WP:COI. Félix An (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at EmailSanta.com. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. TiggerJay (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

TiggerJay, I'm surprised by your comment (no problem here with edits as long as constructive, truthful and beneficial to Wikipedia) but there is some context you require.

Felix An has made it his personal goal to "educate" the world that Santa does not exist. If you review the Talk listing for Santa Claus in Wikipedia you will, unfortunately, see a long discussion from a few years ago. He also told me that on at least one Christmas Eve in Toronto he went around and put up posters in public places that "Santa was not real". He has also fixated on my websites and on me personally. For instance, he has phoned me at home on my home line. He has hacked at least one of my websites to make it swear. He has spent days going thru and editing every minor detail of the emailSanta.com entry to make it look as negative as possible and has now deleted simple factual information to that end.

As bizarre, unreal and as sad as all of this may sound, I am afraid these statements are all true. Felix has tried to turn Admins against me in the past. Fortunately, the Admins quickly realized what he was doing. Due to his persistent fixation and actions, I have simply avoided Wikipedia for several years now.

I hope this background information helps. Kringle Claus (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

While I can see that there is a lack of consensus on certain aspects of the emailsanta.com entry on Wikipedia, and perhaps other Santa related pages, and that there is certainly contentious behavior between both of you, it is important for you to understand that while you have intimate knowledge of emailSanta.com, it is not your article to write or defend its image - as my warning to you stated, you do not "own" this page, and just because it is true does not mean it should be added or removed. Additionally I would recommend you read the easy about why you don't want an article about yourself. The reality is that the page belongs to the community, and is edits under the guidelines and policies that Felix is more versed in than you are. If you believe admins are swayed by their actions, it is likely because they are making policy based arguments that bring this article into better alignment with the over aching goals of Wikipedia. As far as the article itself, as it standards right now the article could use some unbiased cleanup of the article to make it better confirm to the manual of style that reflects Wikipedia as a whole. As it relates to broadly the topic of Santa, as Cullen mention below, the facts that the Santa that you represents is fictional / mythology. There is nothing wrong with that, and I have no disregard for people who teach their children about Santa, and give gives from Santa, etc. However, as an encyclopedia, this is not a place for representing fiction as fact.

If you feel you have a legitimate complaint about actual legal criminal activity, as you suggest has taken place off-wiki, then I suggest you contact the appropriate authorities. This is not the place to litigate off-wiki accusations. TiggerJay (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Because you have persisted in engaging in promotional editing to advance your self-interest, I have indefinitely blocked you from editing EmailSanta.com. You can make well-referenced neutral formal Edit requests at Talk: EmailSanta.com. If you engage in similar edits on other articles, the block may become sitewide. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I've reviewed (quickly) the guide so hope I get this right (I understand that I can ask you questions about the block before appealing?). I used to be a regular contributor but that was decades ago now. Before I request the unblock though, there is some context you require.

Felix An has made it his personal goal to "educate" the world that Santa does not exist. If you review the Talk listing for Santa Claus in Wikipedia you will, unfortunately, see a long discussion from a few years ago. He also told me that on at least one Christmas Eve in Toronto he went around and put up posters in public places that "Santa was not real". He has also fixated on my websites and on me personally. For instance, he has phoned me at home on my home line. He has hacked at least one of my websites to make it swear. He has spent days going thru and editing every minor detail of the emailSanta.com entry to make it look as negative as possible and has now deleted simple factual information to that end.

As bizarre, unreal and as sad as all of this may sound, I am afraid these statements are all true. Felix has tried to turn Admins against me in the past. Fortunately, the Admins quickly realized what he was doing. Due to his persistent fixation and actions, I have simply avoided Wikipedia for several years now (hence my surprise at the accusation of "persistently" engaging in promotional editing when I haven't posted in a few years). I would never presume that my additions are perfect but I do make every effort to uphold the principles of Wikipedia (albeit good intentions are not a defense). I will admit, however, to running my recent addition thru ChatGPT first to test whether it met Wikipedia's guidelines. Although ChatGPT said the addition passed muster, I should've known better than to rely on it as a final arbiter. To that end (as always), I welcome constructive edits that improve the entry for the end user.

Based on the above and following your own review of Felix's sordid history, I hope you will reconsider the block. To be honest though, I have minimal intention of ever posting again.

And, to be upfront, before I saw your note, I was making an addition to the Canada Post entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Post#Letters_to_Santa_Claus) in light of their strike's impact on kids' letters to Santa. The entry is the entire final paragraph therein. The entry does mention emailSanta as it was part of the news stories, and, IMHO, relevant. Hopefully the reference is taken as simply useful factual information presented in a non-promotional way. I am more than willing to make any edits.

I suppose I should ask whether Felix should be banned from making edits to certain entries (i.e. those related to Santa Claus) where he has shown an unhealthy fixation. This is proposed for his own well-being as well as the Wikipedia entries/community in general. Kringle Claus (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is an educational resource and since Santa does not exist except as a fictional character, I fail to see how Félix An educating the world through Wikipedia that Santa does not exist is necessarily a bad thing. As for your accusations of misconduct, you say that administrators have investigated Félix An but he has never been blocked and I see no Santa related warnings on his talk page or its archive. You have failed to provide evidence, and we place a very high value on evidence on Wikipedia. You are an editor focused on promoting your Santa related business on Wikipedia. Félix An, despite his problems as an editor, is a generalist editor working on a wide range of topics. You, on the other hand, edit almost entirely on the article about your business and other Santa related topics, and discussion of those articles.. And you are accusing him of an unhealthy fixation? Please be aware that No personal attacks is policy and you are not permitted to make a mental health evaluation on Wikipedia.

So, I will not unblock you because I do not believe that my block was an egregious error. However, you are perfectly free to follow the unblock instructions above, and another uninvolved administrator will review your appeal. By the way, I am not hostile to the Santa character. I have a full beard now because my granddaughter likes to see me dressed in a red suit in late December. Cullen328 (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, ChatGPT and other large language models are utterly incapable of properly evaluating Wikipedia content in late 2024. Cullen328 (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Too busy to get into this all right now. I do have proof of my previous statements. However, for Mr. An's sake, I do not want to post them publicly. If you contact me privately via the emailSanta website we can discuss further, preferably after the holiday season. A very important part of the emailSanta website is to help children in need while protecting their privacy (I've worked with police depts in the past on this for example). I have found Felix forthright in the past so he is very likely to confirm what I've said if you ask him.

I have to respectfully "disagree" with you slightly on dealing with the existence issue. I'm more a follower of Francis Pharcellus Church in this regard. However, I try to leave "bread crumbs" on my site so that kids can discover the truth for themselves. I've also removed other's edits in Wikipedia regarding Christmas characters that went too far with promoting the existence claim. I may not have written the books on the history of Santa and Christmas (Gerry Bowler did that 😉), but I've certainly read most of them in doing research for my "little hobby" (a persona, not a fixation) of the past 27 years 😆. In previous "lives", I was a University lecturer, Board Member of a TSX.V listed company etc. etc. so researching is just part of what I do. I try to only edit things of which I have a deeper than average knowledge.

Without question relying on ChatGPT was a huge mistake on my part. Lesson learned.

Question: Is there a time limit for appealing? Couldn't find anything. I'm getting up to 2 media requests a day for interviews and handling thousands of letters from kids right now so do not have time to pursue immediately.

P.S. Enjoy being the "man in the red suit" with your granddaughter. It is a magical time. Kringle Claus (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no time limit for filing an appeal. I will not be contacting you off-Wikipedia. Enjoy the letters and the media attention. Cullen328 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for info & kind wishes. If I post a screen grab here (I'm assuming there is a way to do this?), is it possible to completely scrub it after we discuss? Kringle Claus (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Screen grabs are highly likely to be copyright violations which aren't permitted, and the only things that get "scrubbed" here are highly inappropriate things. I urge great caution. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the insight. It's a screen shot of an email I rec'd from the person in question substantiating previous comments. However, I have no desire to publicly humiliate him, even if it helped you understand what's been going on / prevented him from running amok on the entry for personal reasons. I would not want it part of any public record, for his sake and my conscience. Kringle Claus (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

LOL, he just helped me find where he posted how he got one of my children's websites to swear (I wasn't looking, he's just been trash talking me online again): https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/18pu36a/the_maker_of_emailsantacom_has_a_new/

Hopefully this will help you understand the extent of his fixation. In the email screengrab I was considering posting, he talks about going around Toronto putting up posters saying that Santa wasn't real among other things.

P.S. I did of course immediately patch so that kids wouldn't be affected by Felix's hack. Kringle Claus (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, here is my response to Kringle Claus's allegations (which I also posted on Reddit):

While I understand your concerns, I’d like to clarify a few things. First, the posters I put up in Toronto stating the nonexistence of Santa Claus were fully within the legal rights granted by municipal law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They were simply a creative expression of my personal opinion, which I am entitled to share in a public space. Not only have I emphasized the importance of rationality during the Christmas season, but high-profile figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson have also expressed similar views. Regarding the "hacking" claim, it’s important to note that I merely used a public chatbot interface in a creative way, engineering a prompt to interact with the system—this was well within the capabilities of the platform at the time and did not constitute hacking, as no explicit terms or conditions (which did not exist at the time) were violated. As for your "get a life" comment, I am proud to be a software engineering student at Zhejiang University, one of the top universities in China, and have volunteered with China Railway and Hangzhou MTR. I also supported Christmas by donating to and packing shoeboxes for Operation Christmas Child when I was in high school, proving that I not only respect the Christmas spirit but actively contribute to it.

Now, I find it curious that you accuse me of unethical behavior while failing to acknowledge your own. Editing Wikipedia to remove content that doesn’t align with your perspective or agenda is a well-known unethical tactic. It’s similar to other high-profile cases where individuals manipulate platforms to protect their interests, rather than allowing the information to speak for itself. Integrity is crucial, both personally and professionally, and I encourage you to reflect on the ethical implications of such actions. Félix An (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Félix An, to say that I am shocked by what you have written above is a giant understatement. You may (or may not) have a legal right to do such things but if you are openly and publicly campaigning against Santa Claus, and then disrupting a website to display profanity on a website that caters to children and their parents, then that behaviour is definitely unethical, and frankly, utterly bizarre. You clearly have a deep conflict of interest about this website and the entire Santa Claus topic area. Wikipedia is not a place to grind axes, to pursue grudges or to carry out vendettas. Accordingly, I have indefinitely pageblocked you from emailSanta.com and sternly warning you that any more disruptive editing will result in a sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, I'm sorry if you saw my actions as disruptive. I really didn't mean to cause this much argument between me and KC, but he has made allegations against me that I felt the need to explain. In the free market economy of Canada, he is free to run his website as long as he abides by the relevant regulations. I wasn't trying to hold grudges against him; I was simply stopping him from violating Wikipedia policies. I'm very sorry if I inconvenienced you as an admin, and I will try to avoid provoking any trouble in the future. I have submitted an unblock ticket. I welcome KC to also submit an appeal and continue editing the article after he gets unblocked, as long as he abides by the rules of Wikipedia. Félix An (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Cullen328, but Felix still seems to be going strong despite your stern warning.

I noticed that he has deleted part of his post above (removing his admission regarding my children's website SantaChatter.com). For the record, I am reposting that portion of what he posted here:

"... Regarding the "hacking" claim, it’s important to note that I merely used a public chatbot interface in a creative way, engineering a prompt to interact with the system—this was well within the capabilities of the platform at the time and did not constitute hacking, as no explicit terms or conditions (which did not exist at the time) were violated..."

I would note that OpenAI does indeed have explicit terms and conditions regarding usage, which Felix very clearly violated. Of course, this is beside the point, which is his ongoing and, in this case, unprovoked malice/fixation toward me.

However, my main reason for posting is to alert you that he has been continuing with his vendetta, actively attacking me on Reddit. There is also the distinct possibility that he has been attempting to get me banned, or at least muted, there as well (I've been posting there to let parents know that they can use emailSanta to send their children's wishes to Santa when Canada Post has announced they won't be doing that this year).

I'd also note that he has been apparently editing the Santa Claus entry, while knowing that he was page-banned here. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:EmailSanta.com for discussion between him and TiggerJay. I didn't really check into this so hopefully my understanding is correct.

Again, no time for this right now, but how would I get status as an "interested party" in Felix's appeal?

Thank you for your time and efforts in this. Kringle Claus (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kringle Claus this is generally not the venue to have your grievances with a person for their off-wiki activity (see exceptions later on). Seek appropriate resolution through reddit and/or your legal options available in your country. As far as on-wiki activity, there is nothing that is extremely concerning about their behavior anymore. They were blocked from editing a single page, which only experienced editors have positively contributed to the page since the block -- an no evidence of block avoidance or sock-puppetry is observed. While their on-wiki behavior shows they've been having issues understanding "broadly dropping the stick," when each issue has been brought to their attention they have avoiding further disruption [1] [2]. Otherwise I see no other disruption nor deleting posts as you described. This might result in more disruption elsewhere in less moderated spaces like reddit, but that isn't something you can seek for resolution on here. Technically there are some options available for you regarding harassment, including factoring in off-wiki behavior, but generally that still only results to on-wiki sanctions, and will not help what you are experiencing off-wiki. Let me also caution you, that while it feels like you are the target/victim, and that your page is being vandalized, your behavior is approaching the appearance of both harassment, and more significantly violating WP:OUTING. That latter of which is taken far more seriously than any allegation you have lobbied so far. TiggerJay (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)