City of Silver's archives · Archive 1 · Archive 2 · Archive 3 · Archive 4 · Archive 5 · Archive 6 · Archive 7 · Archive 8 · Archive 9 · Archive 10 · Archive 11 |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
Congratulations on ranking among the top five most active pending changes reviewers during the previous 30 days. Fantastic work. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 18:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC) |
Regarding
this, per
WP:REMOVED they are entirely permitted to remove such notices from their talk page; their block is recorded in the block log, so the notice itself is purely for their benefit and removing it is acknowledgement that they have read it. They may not remove Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block.
but the notice of the block itself is not something that needs to remain on their talk page.
This edit summary ending in cHeErS
, the alternate capitalization of which is typically used online to mock someone else, is neither helpful nor constructive. An editor being blocked for incivility is not carte blanche to taunt them with incivility in kind. -
Aoidh (
talk) 23:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't IAR mean that I'm required to violate policies in situations where I sincerely believe complying with them will do harm?I'm curious what harm you believe is being done to Wikipedia by an editor removing a block message on their own talk page, something that happens on user talk pages every single day. Do you believe that removing the notice hides the fact that they were blocked? It does not. No harm is being done, and your edit warring is not preventing anything. - Aoidh ( talk) 00:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I said what I said, you said what you saidmatter. The fact that you did not answer the question of how your edits on that talk page supposedly improved Wikipedia does not go unnoticed. Also to be clear, I am not threatening you, I am warning you about would occur should that disruption continue, in the hopes that the warning will be heeded and that nothing further comes of this. If you feel that I am mistaken or have erred in some way you are more than welcome to ask for a second opinion on this matter, though I will note that I am not the first editor to point out this issue with your edits on that editor's user talk page. - Aoidh ( talk) 01:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Even this is enough to get me blocked isn't itI want to stress that I am not going to block you for disagreeing with me on your talk page, or for challenging what I am saying. Even if I don't agree with your explanation, I'm not going to block you for giving one; administrators on Wikipedia are not that petty. I'm writing to you out of a genuine concern of a problem that I see, with the sole hope of seeing that problem ended. Blocking you for an explanation on your talk page would solve no problem, but if you continued to edit war or continue with the incivility on that editor's talk page, that would be a problem. IAR does not permit ignoring WP:REMOVED in this circumstance and mocking a blocked editor in an edit summary is not civil. Those are the only two issues I'm concerned about. - Aoidh ( talk) 01:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
"IAR is valid in many circumstances, but this is not one of them."I cannot square this with the "A" part of "IAR" because I interpret that to mean no exceptions. If there are circumstances where IAR isn't valid, how do I know what they are?
Thanks for trying to tone down the language about Magnus's endgame play. But let me make a couple of suggestions:
Since it's Wikipedia, I could jump in and try to make the above corrections myself, but it might turn out better if you did it. Thanks! Bruce leverett ( talk) 02:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I am new to trying to support Wikipedia as an editor. I’m not sure how to handle other editors who are trying very hard to undo my edits and insert obviously non-neutral information in its place. Any advice is appreciated. LeonDias19 ( talk) 19:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
{{ping|City of Silver}}
Hiya :). Would you be willing to change your signature colour (the City part) to something that meets Web Content Accessibility Guidelines? It currently has a contrast of 1:1.4, where 1:4.5 is recommended for contrast with the white background. This tool may help you find a different colour. I've prefilled the colour black we use in Wikipedia. A possible alternative is #8B750F. Thanks in advance :). —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 14:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
But forgot to ping. It got late. Not sure it's what you were looking for, but I'll have some time this weekend if you need, want or would like to talk about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk contribs) 19:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thanks and sorry about the signature. I usually remember that.
TL;DR is that the article doesn't currently say anything at all about being prime minister or the Provisional Government. The police battalion training unit, well, may or may not have ever existed as an active unit. There are also sources that say it committed a massacre. It definitely did exist as an administrative structure. The sourcing is in Lithuanian though, Itt needs more verification and referencing; detail tweaking.
There are also differences of opinion about whether there was ever a government in exile, apparently. Non-trivial content problems that need attention but don't preclude some or all of those facts from being true nonetheless. Doesn't guarantee that it is either. I put a rough bibliography on the talk page of each article. Elinruby ( talk) 01:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the edit dispute on the John de Lancie article. Since you may be busy and this minor editing dispute may not be a priority for you, I fully understand if you do not participate in this. The thread is " John de Lancie" .
Please join us to help form a consensus if you are interested. Thank you!
-- EpicTiger87 ( talk) 00:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to clear up a couple things. There's no need to take things so personally. My original comment wasn't particularly even aimed at you, but rather all the participants. My point was just that if we would have had 4-5 people present a succinct "oppose" (or support) comments, this could already have been resolved and done with.
Also, I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this edit summary but uninvolved admin is a specific and relevant distinction to be made. Involved admin can't take administrative action in disputes. I was just establishing that I have no stance in this dispute, I don't maintain the article or care about the wording of the article. I only found out about it from an ANI case about it, and as such, I could chose to close disruptive discussions, protect pages, block editors (I don't mean you) etc, if need be.
Anyways, I won't bother you about this further, too much time has already been sunk on this silly dispute. It just didn't feel right leaving it as that, as you seemed to be interpreting some sort of malice that I simply was not intending towards anyone, let alone you. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the edit dispute on the John de Lancie article. Since you may be busy and this minor editing dispute may not be a priority for you, I fully understand if you do not participate in this. The thread is " John de Lancie" .
Please join us to help form a consensus if you are interested. Thank you!
EpicTiger87 ( talk) 23:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
You're the only editor who's even bothered to ask about the RFA allegations, which even if they are untrue are nonetheless immensely serious and should've been taken as such until evidence proving or disproving them was provided. It is people like you that save the wiki time and again. Thank you. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 23:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
The Special Barnstar | |
Congratulations for being one of the top five most active pending changes reviewers in the last 30 days! Fantastic job! – DreamRimmer ( talk) 04:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC) |
Hello! I noticed that there was a heated discussion about me with a Portuguese Wikipedia contributor. I apologize for the repeated reversals, but due to inexperience, I didn't find a way to use the "Reversal and warnings" gadget. Regardless of ideological orientation, Paulo Freire is an undeniably notorious personality. In my editions, I restricted myself to restoring and giving due emphasis to scientists born in the city of Recife, and to inserting in the article the Co-Cathedral of Recife. Juniorpetjua ( talk) 04:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Once the war criminals at Google have been arrested, tried, and executed for crimes against humanity, the white hats will be coming for you next. In the mean time, PLEASE DO range block the entire internet. If I were you, however, I would get my affairs in order and flee to one of the few countries left in the control (for now) of your dying Satanic crime syndicate.
Perhaps Moloch will even give you the honor of being his last meal. Cabal Agent 5902 ( talk) 21:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I have been contacting editors with experience in specific areas of editing to participate in a survey study. In order to limit access without forcing editors to disclose their identity in the survey form itself, I have been contacting them via email, which you have disabled for your account. If you would like to participate, please send me an email through Wikipedia and I will follow up with additional details and a link to the survey. Jonathan Engel (researcher) ( talk) 13:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
If I add a source to the Ohtani Ippei thing and say accused instead of was, will it be posted? Not tryna get banned again. 136.33.146.80 ( talk) 22:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Congratulations on being among the top three most active pending changes reviewers during the last 30 days. Fantastic job!
–
DreamRimmer (
talk) 06:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Same modus operandi. Juniorpetjua ( talk) 05:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron ( talk), via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
City of Silver's archives · Archive 1 · Archive 2 · Archive 3 · Archive 4 · Archive 5 · Archive 6 · Archive 7 · Archive 8 · Archive 9 · Archive 10 · Archive 11 |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
Congratulations on ranking among the top five most active pending changes reviewers during the previous 30 days. Fantastic work. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 18:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC) |
Regarding
this, per
WP:REMOVED they are entirely permitted to remove such notices from their talk page; their block is recorded in the block log, so the notice itself is purely for their benefit and removing it is acknowledgement that they have read it. They may not remove Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block.
but the notice of the block itself is not something that needs to remain on their talk page.
This edit summary ending in cHeErS
, the alternate capitalization of which is typically used online to mock someone else, is neither helpful nor constructive. An editor being blocked for incivility is not carte blanche to taunt them with incivility in kind. -
Aoidh (
talk) 23:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't IAR mean that I'm required to violate policies in situations where I sincerely believe complying with them will do harm?I'm curious what harm you believe is being done to Wikipedia by an editor removing a block message on their own talk page, something that happens on user talk pages every single day. Do you believe that removing the notice hides the fact that they were blocked? It does not. No harm is being done, and your edit warring is not preventing anything. - Aoidh ( talk) 00:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I said what I said, you said what you saidmatter. The fact that you did not answer the question of how your edits on that talk page supposedly improved Wikipedia does not go unnoticed. Also to be clear, I am not threatening you, I am warning you about would occur should that disruption continue, in the hopes that the warning will be heeded and that nothing further comes of this. If you feel that I am mistaken or have erred in some way you are more than welcome to ask for a second opinion on this matter, though I will note that I am not the first editor to point out this issue with your edits on that editor's user talk page. - Aoidh ( talk) 01:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Even this is enough to get me blocked isn't itI want to stress that I am not going to block you for disagreeing with me on your talk page, or for challenging what I am saying. Even if I don't agree with your explanation, I'm not going to block you for giving one; administrators on Wikipedia are not that petty. I'm writing to you out of a genuine concern of a problem that I see, with the sole hope of seeing that problem ended. Blocking you for an explanation on your talk page would solve no problem, but if you continued to edit war or continue with the incivility on that editor's talk page, that would be a problem. IAR does not permit ignoring WP:REMOVED in this circumstance and mocking a blocked editor in an edit summary is not civil. Those are the only two issues I'm concerned about. - Aoidh ( talk) 01:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
"IAR is valid in many circumstances, but this is not one of them."I cannot square this with the "A" part of "IAR" because I interpret that to mean no exceptions. If there are circumstances where IAR isn't valid, how do I know what they are?
Thanks for trying to tone down the language about Magnus's endgame play. But let me make a couple of suggestions:
Since it's Wikipedia, I could jump in and try to make the above corrections myself, but it might turn out better if you did it. Thanks! Bruce leverett ( talk) 02:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I am new to trying to support Wikipedia as an editor. I’m not sure how to handle other editors who are trying very hard to undo my edits and insert obviously non-neutral information in its place. Any advice is appreciated. LeonDias19 ( talk) 19:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
{{ping|City of Silver}}
Hiya :). Would you be willing to change your signature colour (the City part) to something that meets Web Content Accessibility Guidelines? It currently has a contrast of 1:1.4, where 1:4.5 is recommended for contrast with the white background. This tool may help you find a different colour. I've prefilled the colour black we use in Wikipedia. A possible alternative is #8B750F. Thanks in advance :). —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 14:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
But forgot to ping. It got late. Not sure it's what you were looking for, but I'll have some time this weekend if you need, want or would like to talk about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk contribs) 19:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thanks and sorry about the signature. I usually remember that.
TL;DR is that the article doesn't currently say anything at all about being prime minister or the Provisional Government. The police battalion training unit, well, may or may not have ever existed as an active unit. There are also sources that say it committed a massacre. It definitely did exist as an administrative structure. The sourcing is in Lithuanian though, Itt needs more verification and referencing; detail tweaking.
There are also differences of opinion about whether there was ever a government in exile, apparently. Non-trivial content problems that need attention but don't preclude some or all of those facts from being true nonetheless. Doesn't guarantee that it is either. I put a rough bibliography on the talk page of each article. Elinruby ( talk) 01:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the edit dispute on the John de Lancie article. Since you may be busy and this minor editing dispute may not be a priority for you, I fully understand if you do not participate in this. The thread is " John de Lancie" .
Please join us to help form a consensus if you are interested. Thank you!
-- EpicTiger87 ( talk) 00:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to clear up a couple things. There's no need to take things so personally. My original comment wasn't particularly even aimed at you, but rather all the participants. My point was just that if we would have had 4-5 people present a succinct "oppose" (or support) comments, this could already have been resolved and done with.
Also, I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this edit summary but uninvolved admin is a specific and relevant distinction to be made. Involved admin can't take administrative action in disputes. I was just establishing that I have no stance in this dispute, I don't maintain the article or care about the wording of the article. I only found out about it from an ANI case about it, and as such, I could chose to close disruptive discussions, protect pages, block editors (I don't mean you) etc, if need be.
Anyways, I won't bother you about this further, too much time has already been sunk on this silly dispute. It just didn't feel right leaving it as that, as you seemed to be interpreting some sort of malice that I simply was not intending towards anyone, let alone you. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the edit dispute on the John de Lancie article. Since you may be busy and this minor editing dispute may not be a priority for you, I fully understand if you do not participate in this. The thread is " John de Lancie" .
Please join us to help form a consensus if you are interested. Thank you!
EpicTiger87 ( talk) 23:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
You're the only editor who's even bothered to ask about the RFA allegations, which even if they are untrue are nonetheless immensely serious and should've been taken as such until evidence proving or disproving them was provided. It is people like you that save the wiki time and again. Thank you. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 23:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
The Special Barnstar | |
Congratulations for being one of the top five most active pending changes reviewers in the last 30 days! Fantastic job! – DreamRimmer ( talk) 04:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC) |
Hello! I noticed that there was a heated discussion about me with a Portuguese Wikipedia contributor. I apologize for the repeated reversals, but due to inexperience, I didn't find a way to use the "Reversal and warnings" gadget. Regardless of ideological orientation, Paulo Freire is an undeniably notorious personality. In my editions, I restricted myself to restoring and giving due emphasis to scientists born in the city of Recife, and to inserting in the article the Co-Cathedral of Recife. Juniorpetjua ( talk) 04:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Once the war criminals at Google have been arrested, tried, and executed for crimes against humanity, the white hats will be coming for you next. In the mean time, PLEASE DO range block the entire internet. If I were you, however, I would get my affairs in order and flee to one of the few countries left in the control (for now) of your dying Satanic crime syndicate.
Perhaps Moloch will even give you the honor of being his last meal. Cabal Agent 5902 ( talk) 21:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I have been contacting editors with experience in specific areas of editing to participate in a survey study. In order to limit access without forcing editors to disclose their identity in the survey form itself, I have been contacting them via email, which you have disabled for your account. If you would like to participate, please send me an email through Wikipedia and I will follow up with additional details and a link to the survey. Jonathan Engel (researcher) ( talk) 13:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
If I add a source to the Ohtani Ippei thing and say accused instead of was, will it be posted? Not tryna get banned again. 136.33.146.80 ( talk) 22:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Congratulations on being among the top three most active pending changes reviewers during the last 30 days. Fantastic job!
–
DreamRimmer (
talk) 06:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Same modus operandi. Juniorpetjua ( talk) 05:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron ( talk), via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)