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) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
A year or so back you asked by the presence of Tamarack (Larix laricina) in the Flathead Valley of Montana, in contradiction to the range given on the species page. It seems likely to me that the name was being applied to the western larch (Larix occidentalis), which is native to mountains in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and southern British Columbia. Lavateraguy ( talk) 19:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
It occurs to me that if you were ignorant of the independence requirement in WP:N you might be unaware of its editor related cousin Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 08:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Can you please follow the WP:COI rules for all pages where you have a COI or WP:PAID conflict? I don't see where you have disclosed, on enwiki, your COI with regards to e.g. Irreantum, the AML and its awards, or any other pages you may have a conflict of interest with (like Elias: An Epic of the Ages). Fram ( talk) 13:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Large parts of Elias: An Epic of the Ages are cited to your own blogpost on your substack, not to an independent WP:RS. How you can claim that you don't have a COI here is beyond me, but considering the problems raised by others above, I shouldn't be surprised. It isn't a one-off lapse either, here you you use another of your blogs as a source, and here yet another one. There seems to be a pattern here, I guess I would easily find other examples if I kept looking. Using your own work as a reference is part of the WP:COI page anyway, but using unreliable sources to do so pushes it clearly beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable. Fram ( talk) 08:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 already touched on this, but looking more closely, your dismissal of your COI on Irreantum beggars belief. You claim "As for, say Irreantum, I believe I have not edited that page since a COI came to exist." These are your edits to that page; every single one came after your COI started, you edited it last in October 2023, your name is immediately visible again and again when one just looks at the page history... Perhaps next time, if you don't remember the facts, first check such things before dismissing the concerns from others? Fram ( talk) 08:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
On Association of Mormon Letters is this [3] supposed to be the COI notice? It feels like it should be mentioned in the edit summary of edits like this [4] (edit summary: "removed notability warning for two reasons: patently untrue and to draw attention to the sources issue which is more significant and urgent") but I don't see anything. If you never actually made the declaration thats fine, but please clarify if that was the case. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Would you consider James Goldberg a COI? You and him served on the same board. It seems you, and two other people related to the AML have been editing his bio? Big Money Threepwood ( talk) 00:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I see you all clearly measure "a week" much more strictly than I do! I haven't had much Wikipedia time of last as I have several writing projects coming due and it's a busy time at work as well. I see from the conversations elsewhere that this has been interpreted as me being recalcitrant and avoidant, which hurts my feelings, but I understand that rage must be spent. I hope things work out to your satisfaction. Thmazing ( talk) 22:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to Mike Pekovich. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ratnahastin ( talk) 14:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Explain this mention to me. I'm considering blocking you for harassment for that and for your conduct above otherwise, so please be concise when providing this explanation. And no more personal comments or tone, please; no more passive-aggressive masquerading as light-hearted, either. A matter-of-fact approach is now required. Thank you. El_C 01:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Motley Vision until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Big Money Threepwood ( talk) 04:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_for_Thmazing jps ( talk) 13:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi!
In case you weren’t aware, titles around here are generally not case-sensitive so there’s not really any reason to create redirects like you’ve been creating.
Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 10:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Thmazing,
Per WP:DRAFTNOTIFY, this is a notification that, per WP:BOLD and other policies and guidelines, I have unilaterally moved Fire in the Pasture to draftspace because, in my opinion, nominating it for deletion could be considered disruptive at this time.
Cordially, RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 13:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Thmazing, my conclusion from the ANI discussion is that there is broad consensus for a topic ban on Mormonism, broadly construed; please see the latest edit to my close of the discussion. For an explanation of how to request a lifting of that ban, please follow Wikipedia:UNBAN. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
It's charming that the handful of editors engaged in this discussion believe they represent "the wider community,"23 supports, 2 opposes seems like a sufficient quorum for such matters. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
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) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
A year or so back you asked by the presence of Tamarack (Larix laricina) in the Flathead Valley of Montana, in contradiction to the range given on the species page. It seems likely to me that the name was being applied to the western larch (Larix occidentalis), which is native to mountains in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and southern British Columbia. Lavateraguy ( talk) 19:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
It occurs to me that if you were ignorant of the independence requirement in WP:N you might be unaware of its editor related cousin Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 08:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Can you please follow the WP:COI rules for all pages where you have a COI or WP:PAID conflict? I don't see where you have disclosed, on enwiki, your COI with regards to e.g. Irreantum, the AML and its awards, or any other pages you may have a conflict of interest with (like Elias: An Epic of the Ages). Fram ( talk) 13:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Large parts of Elias: An Epic of the Ages are cited to your own blogpost on your substack, not to an independent WP:RS. How you can claim that you don't have a COI here is beyond me, but considering the problems raised by others above, I shouldn't be surprised. It isn't a one-off lapse either, here you you use another of your blogs as a source, and here yet another one. There seems to be a pattern here, I guess I would easily find other examples if I kept looking. Using your own work as a reference is part of the WP:COI page anyway, but using unreliable sources to do so pushes it clearly beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable. Fram ( talk) 08:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 already touched on this, but looking more closely, your dismissal of your COI on Irreantum beggars belief. You claim "As for, say Irreantum, I believe I have not edited that page since a COI came to exist." These are your edits to that page; every single one came after your COI started, you edited it last in October 2023, your name is immediately visible again and again when one just looks at the page history... Perhaps next time, if you don't remember the facts, first check such things before dismissing the concerns from others? Fram ( talk) 08:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
On Association of Mormon Letters is this [3] supposed to be the COI notice? It feels like it should be mentioned in the edit summary of edits like this [4] (edit summary: "removed notability warning for two reasons: patently untrue and to draw attention to the sources issue which is more significant and urgent") but I don't see anything. If you never actually made the declaration thats fine, but please clarify if that was the case. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Would you consider James Goldberg a COI? You and him served on the same board. It seems you, and two other people related to the AML have been editing his bio? Big Money Threepwood ( talk) 00:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I see you all clearly measure "a week" much more strictly than I do! I haven't had much Wikipedia time of last as I have several writing projects coming due and it's a busy time at work as well. I see from the conversations elsewhere that this has been interpreted as me being recalcitrant and avoidant, which hurts my feelings, but I understand that rage must be spent. I hope things work out to your satisfaction. Thmazing ( talk) 22:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to Mike Pekovich. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ratnahastin ( talk) 14:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Explain this mention to me. I'm considering blocking you for harassment for that and for your conduct above otherwise, so please be concise when providing this explanation. And no more personal comments or tone, please; no more passive-aggressive masquerading as light-hearted, either. A matter-of-fact approach is now required. Thank you. El_C 01:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Motley Vision until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Big Money Threepwood ( talk) 04:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_for_Thmazing jps ( talk) 13:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi!
In case you weren’t aware, titles around here are generally not case-sensitive so there’s not really any reason to create redirects like you’ve been creating.
Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 10:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Thmazing,
Per WP:DRAFTNOTIFY, this is a notification that, per WP:BOLD and other policies and guidelines, I have unilaterally moved Fire in the Pasture to draftspace because, in my opinion, nominating it for deletion could be considered disruptive at this time.
Cordially, RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 13:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Thmazing, my conclusion from the ANI discussion is that there is broad consensus for a topic ban on Mormonism, broadly construed; please see the latest edit to my close of the discussion. For an explanation of how to request a lifting of that ban, please follow Wikipedia:UNBAN. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
It's charming that the handful of editors engaged in this discussion believe they represent "the wider community,"23 supports, 2 opposes seems like a sufficient quorum for such matters. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)