This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes They should not be given alerts for those areas.

User talk:Dronebogus/Archive 1

I made a WP:RFCL for the RfC. [1] Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 14:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Happy New Year!

Dronebogus,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Sundostund mppria ^{( talk / contribs)} 06:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Sundostund mppria ^{( talk / contribs)} 06:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey, you just welcomed a mentee of mine who hadn't yet edited; I actually have a custom welcome template for my mentees. If you're going to welcome people who haven't edited, you may as well join the mentorship program; that way, you can have of list of mentees to yourself that you can welcome to your hearts content. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 16:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply

(BTW, the template I use is {{ mentor welcome}}) I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 16:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi Dronebogus, there isn't any mention of policy or guideline in your edit summaries and the removal appears to be prohibited by WP:TALK. You're going to need to explain your actions, specifically where you acquired the right to decide what is a real response and what isn't... Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I’m Wikipedia:Ignoring all rules here. Yes, there’s content beyond the initial bad faith request, but it consists of a canned answer and an insult. There is no intelligent discussion here worth preserving and the “request” was impossible to do anyway. In other words, what is the net positive of keeping this section? Dronebogus ( talk) 19:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Agreed. That content had no justification for existence. Glad it's gone. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC) reply

You edit warred on the basis of IAR? That is bold. Why are only the intelligent discussions worth preserving? Why delete rather than hat in this instance? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC) reply

A waste of bytes and effort. There was nothing worth preserving or defending. Simple common sense. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Removing it takes more effort than letting it be archived automatically. I disagree that there is nothing worth preserving. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC) reply

An insult is worth preserving? Let alone arguing for? Dronebogus ( talk) 20:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Only one of the comments could be perceived as an insult and even then its not the sort of personal attack whose removal is justified. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 21:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC) reply

If there were such a thing as a Darwin Award for stupid threads, I'd nominate this one. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 21:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC) reply

What would be the wikipedia equivalent of procreation? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 21:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I thought it was odd that you went to my talk page, after never having interacted with me before, and removed one of the sections. It's in keeping with BLP, arguably, but still odd. Can I ask how you stumbled across this and why you felt it was necessary? I get BLP, and I'm not going to argue about whether or not the IP's comments were in violation or not, but showing up on random talk pages and removing archived conversations because someone implied something bad about Joe Biden seems a bit extreme.

Also, I do not appreciate the tag you added to my section on the Joe Biden talk page. The discussion would have played out and ultimately ended without you hiding it. A more honest and honorable way to handle this would have been to simply comment on the discussion and share your perspective. Instead, you implied that I'm a "civil POV pusher". Which heavily insinuates that my edits and actions are undertaken in bad faith. Could you expand on why you feel entitled to throw out the accusation that I'm operating in bad faith, and what "POV" you think I'm pushing? Philomathes2357 ( talk) 05:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The comments about Biden on your talk page were so bad they were removed from public archives. I’m pretty sure nobody in the discussions I hatted agreed with you, and I’ve been thanked at least twice for hatting the Biden one. I think this is a you problem here. Dronebogus ( talk) 05:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply

That's fine, I appreciate the fact that potentially defamatory claims made about living people could open the platform to legal liability. As for the discussion, you didn't address my questions. You assumed bad faith on my part, which is frowned upon, and something I've been talked to about - rightly - in the past, when it's been made clear that assuming bad faith is absolutely unacceptable. You also said that I am pushing a "POV". Why do you assume that you know what my intentions are, and what POV am I pushing? Philomathes2357 ( talk) 06:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply

You are pushing the POV that Biden’s dishonesty and Santos’s dishonesty are somehow equivalent and should be covered ad such when reliable sources (and common sense) say they are not. Biden has lied (of course he has), but not to the ridiculous extent of Santos. Nobody else sees things your way and you’ve provided no hard evidence to convince them otherwise. Dronebogus ( talk) 06:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The {{ hat}} template is meant for closing conversations, not winning them. If you find a thread on a talk page that's compelling enough that you want to respond to it, please just comment in the thread; don't enclose the entire thing in a template whose header is a derisive comment about the content inside it. jp× g 09:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I thought this wouldn’t be controversial on a SPA pushing political conspiracy theories but I’ve changed it nonetheless. Dronebogus ( talk) 09:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Please stop doing this. There is no reason to close talk page sections by insulting the participants in the {{ cot}} template. If you cannot stop yourself from getting emotionally involved in the discussion, you should not be applying close templates to it: see WP:INVOLVED and WP:BADNAC. jp× g 09:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jpxg: I’ve removed the only part that could be considered insulting. Btw please start a new thread instead of replying to one from the beginning of this year. Dronebogus ( talk) 09:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I actually can't believe you stumbled upon something like this and this. How on earth that happened? It looks like one must dive deeply into a garbage dump, in order to dig up something on this "level" of nonsense. You certainly should be thanked for bringing crap like this to the sunlight, and helping Wikipedia to get rid of it! — Sundostund mppria ^{( talk / contribs)} 20:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply

It involved following a paper trail of two other blocked users (since they all commiserated at the same talk page) and subsequently falling down an absolute black (rabbit) hole of fossilized wikidrama. Dronebogus ( talk) 21:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply

This [2] is a personal attack. Comment on the discussion, not insult other editors by dismissing their opinions as invalid because you don't like their voting history. Dream Focus 16:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I’m sorry, @ Dream Focus:. It was a lousy ad hominem argument, I know. Dronebogus ( talk) 14:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Well, as can be seen, this " masterpiece" is still with us, this time due to " no consensus"... I can say that, if it ends up at MfD ever again, I'll participate in that nomination only as a voter, and that's it. — Sundostund mppria ^{( talk / contribs)} 02:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Dronebogus Hi, I have seen that you have edited Portaro article and I want to ask you why you have removed the Portaro logo, the photo of Portaro at International Showroom and the photo of Portaro headquarters? These photos makes the article look better and the visitors have more information about the company. Thanks FLORIKRUJA ( talk) 15:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

It screwed up the article tags Dronebogus ( talk) 01:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Dronebogus I saw you added Portaro logo but I added again the photo of Portaro at International Showroom and the photo of Portaro headquarters. Please don't remove them as they make the article look better. Thanks FLORIKRUJA ( talk) 07:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I just discovered this new article. It needs some work, especially the notability of each item. Mention in one source isn't enough for adding to a list article as each item must be notable, unlike content in regular articles.

My wondering is related to its original creation as a user space sandbox and how it finally ended up as a list article. I see it went through some(?) deletions(?) and restorations, and then a Deletion Review:

• /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_December_27#User:.usarnamechoice/sandbox

Then on to an MfD:

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:.usarnamechoice/sandbox

That ended with a Keep (as the sandbox it was). Nothing about becoming an article. Yet it ended up being moved by the creator to mainspace. What do you know about this? Please ping me. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 23:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Pardon me, but that was overzealous. I wasn't repeating the same things over -- I made different suggestions each time. There was no need to collapse discussions, and when I tried to make one more post, you nuked my whole topic? No offense, but did you even read it, or jump to conclusions? The first time, I suggested documenting their version of reality while calling it false. The second time, I suggested describing their politics and relation to the larger culture war (not the same thing). In the latest post, I was saying that more info could be provided on the history of that movement, and mentioned a handful of topics to work from; it wasn't a direct continuation and I acknowledged the consensus. I think you just saw a post with my name on it and presumed the worst. Really, I appreciate that it's one of the most contentious topics, right up there with abortion, but if you had just let discussion play out, it would've been fine. I wasn't being excessive or unreasonable at all. Xcalibur ( talk) 01:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, Dronebogus. For some time, I am thinking about somehow including these three pics into WP:NOCONFED, but I am not sure how and where to put them, or whether they should be included at all. Any ideas would be valuable, really. — Sundostund mppria ^{( talk / contribs)} 08:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I don’t find them necessary. I don’t understand the gay confederate one, and the other two are a little… unsubtle. Dronebogus ( talk) 08:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

As I understood it, the gay confederate flag suggests that there are gays among neo-confederates (which, I suppose, sounds appalling to the majority of them). And the other two flags are quite direct in a way, but I still like them. They may be out of place in the essay tho. — Sundostund mppria ^{( talk / contribs)} 08:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

In the course of a random search, I came across these, apparently, problematic userpages – Dixielee, ConfederateLord, Birdman1014, Wōdenhelm and Erlo1783. The first four are obviously pro-Confederate (with a noticeable userbox at Wōdenhelm's userpage), while the content at Erlo1783's userpage can be classified as nothing more than nonsense. I am not sure if these userpages are MfD-worthy, tho. — Sundostund mppria ^{( talk / contribs)} 08:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I’m more curious how your even found those. Nominating all except wodenboyface, since that appears to be a single userbox Dronebogus ( talk) 08:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

You would be surprised at all the stuff that can be found here, if you just type something simple into the search engine. In this case, I typed just the word "Confederate", and it was enough. As for the Erlo1783's userpage, finding it was a pure chance really... Thank you for nominating them! And, yes – in the case of Wōdenhelm, only the CSA "citizenship" userbox was really problematic. — Sundostund mppria ^{( talk / contribs)} 10:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

And, I almost forgot about this, a "great" creation of ConfederateLord. — Sundostund mppria ^{( talk / contribs)} 11:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Its mean Widget-Policy Thy Editor ( talk) 18:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

why does User:Dronebogus/True facts about Wikipe-tan have a link to Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:WeaponizingArchitecture/Trivia in it

WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 04:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I don’t remember, that was ages ago. Dronebogus ( talk) 14:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Because Wikipe-tan came up in the discussion Dronebogus ( talk) 14:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

i see. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 03:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, I hope you won't mind, I renominated this article for deletion. You were quite right to close the previous nomination procedurally as it had been nominated by a blocked sock-account and the justification wasn't appropriate at all. Nevertheless, I had a look at the article, and was unimpressed. The sock and IP's might have a valid point, I don't know. I think this article is basically one guy's PhD, as retrieved from some conference proceedings, referred to in one of his own paper, which makes me wonder whether it was produced by someone closely related to the work, and also makes me wonder just how mainstream it is. I think it's worth a proper deletion debate based on properly Wikipedian principles, which is why I chucked it back into the arena for round two, with no intent to reflect badly on your closure of round one. Elemimele ( talk) 22:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Fair Dronebogus ( talk) 23:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Twinkle rollback should only be used against obvious vandalism. It should not be used to revert good faith edits (such as this one) even if they are erroneous. Someone who's wrong on the internet ( talk) 14:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Could you take a look at this section and determine whether it's useful? Wes sideman ( talk) 14:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Just appears to be one KoN running their mouth. It’s tedious but I’m not sure if it rises to disruption level… yet Dronebogus ( talk) 02:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello,

This is not a big deal, but in response to your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonfire (Dark Souls), you probably should not have invoked WP:SNOW. First, SNOW is generally used to justify early closes, and the usual 7 day listing period had expired, so there was no need to justify an early close anyway. Second, SNOW generally implies that the consensus is one-sidedly overwhelming or that there's a very clear rule in play. While consensus was certainly strong for a merge, there were 3 good faith !votes for something else by editors in good standing. I would gently suggest reserving SNOW for cases where there is essentially at most one person swimming the other direction, as it is generally only invoked for extremely clear-cut cases rather than normal closes.

(As noted before, I'm not contesting the result, consensus clearly was merge, just the reasoning - this was just a normal AFD, not a SNOW case.) SnowFire ( talk) 20:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I know you and I do not agree on a lot of things. That said, I was sure that you said you were going to stop closing MfDs you were involved in. Why not wait for an uninvolved admin to close? Yes, I realize the discussion is trending a certain direction, but that decision should be left up to someone whose job it is to assess consensus. ⛵ WaltClipper -( talk) 12:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• I'll disagree with Walt that it doesn't take an admin to close an MfD. However, Wikipedia:Non-admin closure also says a person doing the closing shouldn't be involved. This isn't a matter of bureaucracy, but rather a needed element of the process to help ensure needless problems don't arise. Note that I agree with the close; that isn't the issue. The MfD wasn't going anywhere but to no consensus. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 12:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, to be clear, there are times where WP:NACs are perfectly valid. I've seen plenty of appropriate ones to know. Hell, I've closed a few discussions myself, but I always try to step away when it comes to a discussion that I've !voted on, even if it's something I don't feel particularly strongly about. It's a matter of preserving the integrity of the discussion (and yeah, avoiding a needless DRV on procedural grounds). -- ⛵ WaltClipper -( talk) 12:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

    Please do not use my talk page as a general discussion page. Dronebogus ( talk) 12:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

? We're discussing your close. That's the whole point of this thread. We are talking to you. Unsurprisingly, your close of that MfD has been reverted [3]. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The notice is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dronebogus and involved NAC closures. BusterD ( talk) 19:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Dronebogus, I just saw that you appear to be feeling a bit stressed over that ANI thing, and that's entirely understandable. And I just want to offer you a bit of support. ANI exaggerates minor issues into major drama, and blows things out of all proportion. I think all you're really guilty of is a bit of over-enthusiasm. Please don't let it drive you away, and I hope you carry on with your seriously net positive contributions. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 11:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to say try to maintain positive thoughts. To paraphrase Joseph Campbell, sometimes the best that we can do is to participate joyfully in the sorrows of Wikipedia. Sincere well wishes. Dumuzid ( talk) 21:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

And see that this is one of the many ways Wikipedia can drain things out of us :(. The hyper-bureacratic attitude of this site can so often drain us of our love for the project, especially when every "gotcha" is brought to bear at times like this. Just wanted to say I definitely support you continuing to contribute in a zillion different ways on this site, and I think your activities in general have been a positive force. Keep up the good work, truly. In the grand scheme of things, this is a blip. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 21:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi Dronebogus. I've closed the ANI thread ( permalink) with consensus for the following sanctions:

• Dronebogus is indefinitely topic-banned from closing any XfD discussion.
• Dronebogus is indefinitely topic-banned from miscellany for deletion, broadly construed.

I have logged these sanctions at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community#Dronebogus. You are expected to comply with them, and violations can result in blocks. Please read Wikipedia:Banning policy for more information about topic bans, exceptions, appeals, etc., and let me know (here or on my talk page) if anything is unclear. Thank you. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 08:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Extraordinary Writ: so in regards to closing I am only restricted from closing XfDs? Dronebogus ( talk) 19:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC) reply

That's correct, yes. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I am really sorry to find out about your TBAN (I didn't even know there was discussion about it, until today). Whatever you do, please stay within the limits of that TBAN, until its eventually lifted (and that will surely happen). You are a valuable and productive editor, and divert your energy and time eslewhere, until this unjust measure is lifted. — Sundostund mppria ^{( talk / contribs)} 21:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Stay cautious, I feel like you might be next. Dronebogus ( talk) 22:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Really? How come? — Sundostund mppria ^{( talk / contribs)} 22:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

You’re pretty aggressive at MfD, might want to dial it back. Dronebogus ( talk) 22:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Yeah, kinda, but honestly – I already dialed it back, by rarely posting MfD nominations of my own for some time now. Since recently, I basically just vote there, as I rarely find material that is really MfD-worthy. Also, so far I've never made a non-admin closure, and I don't plan to do that at all. Once your TBAN is lifted, you really should abstain from doing such closures in the future. Don't give any excuses for future TBANs and/or blocks. — Sundostund mppria ^{( talk / contribs)} 22:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, Dronebogus,

Your User page is tagged for deletion. It looks like it has something to do with transcluded userboxes but you have such a full User page, I don't want to hunt around to figure out what the problem is. I suggest you do so so that your User page isn't inadvertently deleted. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Liz: G8’d ubox. Kind of annoying that someone deleted something in use by a non-disruptive user (me) but I’m not fighting over something in my “junk userbox” section. Dronebogus ( talk) 23:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't think that WP:DENY applies to the comment you removed from the Hunter Biden Laptop Controversy page. WP:DENY is about vandalism, which it wasn't. Yeah, it was a troll like comment, but it wasn't vandalism per se.

It's generally a bad idea to remove comments from Talk pages because it can make the discussion hard to read. The standard is to strike out a comment that you want to retract. It's also considered bad form to remove or edit a comment made by somebody else. I added a note explaining the missing comment without restoring it or naming the now-banned editor.

RoyLeban ( talk) 10:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Just let people vote on that policy thing. Arguing with people who have been entrenched for years isn't going to help anything except making it more contentious. Nemov ( talk) 19:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes I know. It was a knee-jerk response out of annoyance to “never hearing that one before”. Dronebogus ( talk) 19:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey—if you want to keep engaging, I'm not going to officially say you shouldn't, but, while I definitely don't think you've crossed this line, I'd be careful about nearing WP:BLUDGEON. So far, you have responded to every single oppose voter, which looks a bit intense. I might suggest, if you want, going back and adding point to your own vote if someone raises a point you'd like to respond to, unless you really think a back and forth will be productive.-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 20:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I know, but the second two were more just comments/requests for reconsideration than “BTW YOU ARE WRONG”. I’ll lay off the commenting for now. Dronebogus ( talk) 20:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Agree with this point. It ends up driving people away from your position. You've said your piece on this and it's time to see where it goes. Nemov ( talk) 02:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

• I'm begging you to stop commenting. I agree with you and if I think you're bludgeoning the process, certainly others will as well. Nemov ( talk) 16:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  Okay okay I’m not allowed to say anything now fine Dronebogus ( talk) 16:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

On the page Black Aria II, I thought it was vandalism and I was gonna self revert the revert myself. I won't do it again (if possible) since I've might or might not have broken Wikipedia's good faith rules. 64andtim ( talk) 15:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

That’s fine Dronebogus ( talk) 15:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

User:ImJustThere/sandbox ( WP:FAKEARTICLE)

• User:EricAllums11/sandbox
• User:Ericallu1115/sandbox

WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:G5

118.149.85.1 ( talk) 21:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks good IP person but I can’t legally participate in MfD anymore. Please ask somebody else. Dronebogus ( talk) 22:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply

You're not legally obstructed from CSD tagging :P— Alalch E. 21:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

	Janitor (cool) Award
	Yo I noticed some of your efforts in my recent browsing. Thanks! Zorblin ( talk) 22:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Why did you revert this editor's removal of material from their talk page? With some specific exceptions, users are allowed to remove mayterial from their user pages, and the stuff they removed isn't of the sort that needs to remain. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I bumped something by accident, I should have reverted it. Dronebogus ( talk) 00:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply

OK, but yes, you should have. NP, we all make mistakes. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply

There's a lot of cool stuff in there but it should best be compartmentalized further so that it's more navigable. Synotia ( moan) 07:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I was actually going to transfer it into favorites on commons since it nearly crashes the page Dronebogus ( talk) 11:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Please stop engaging. You're well past the point of productively contributing. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I think someone should just close as indef ban at this point. Dronebogus ( talk) 16:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

It has to stay open for 72 hours per WP:CBAN. – bradv 16:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Knock this off. I suggest you disengage from this entirely. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I left a message on your talk page Dronebogus ( talk) 22:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

If you see them marching towards a site ban, don't knit beside the guillotine. It's almost like gravedancing before they're even banned. I don't know if it's a twitter/internet thing but have some compassion for Roxy and the other editors in this dispute and let the issue fall silently. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks but I haven’t commented in hours and am not about to. I don’t know why some people are still defending Roxy, or why Roxy is so intent on dying on this hill, but I know I’m not going to change that. Can’t be helped. Dronebogus ( talk) 01:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I haven't log on Wikipedia in a long time. I noticed that nearly a year ago one of my userboxes was up for deletion and has since been deleted. I tried to make userboxes for all views on the bathroom issue, even ones that I did not agree with. Pink Fae ( talk) 13:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

It was deleted by consensus as transphobic (not a comment on you) a long time ago. Dronebogus ( talk) 18:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

That is interesting. The userbox has been up since 2016 and never challenged on these grounds until you did so five years later. Is transphobia a recent grounds for deletion of material? Is there other type of prescribed phobias that are not permissible on Wikipedia? Is this just restricted to userboxes or does it also apply to articles? I'm just curious. I haven't been active on Wikipedia in a long time. -- Pink Fae ( talk) 15:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes transphobia is now considered as highly unacceptable as racism, homophobia and misogyny. A long-term user was actually just banned for repeated transphobic remarks (as well as general incivility) Dronebogus ( talk) 18:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Actually, I think you are confusing transphobia for genderism or gender binarism. It is like the difference between gynophobia vs sexism. Gynophobia is the fear of women, while sexism is discriminatory beliefs towards women. Transphobia is the fear of transgender people, while genderism is the discrimination of those outside of the traditional gender roles. There is nothing really essentially immoral or unethical about fears, but there is when you talk about discrimination. Also, transphobia is a non-clinical phobia, while gynophobia is a DSM-5 clinical phobia. Yet, You never did answer my question, is this limited to userboxes or are we including articles as well? -- Pink Fae ( talk) 23:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I am discussing transphobia under the assumption we are referring to its use to refer to anti-trans sentiment Dronebogus ( talk) 02:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, because you recently participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries, which also led to the deletion of Comparison of the Turkic states, I would like to invite you to participate in the partial follow-up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of the Baltic states. The situation of these three pages is not exactly the same (because language family plays no role in these cases), but because many issues are similar, I've nominated them as well, and am curious what you think. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 08:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:

• User:Valjean/Wikipedia's credibility

Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 23:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply

You're very fast in drawing conclusions (WP:BLUDGEON and WP:SEALION,) and putting labels on people. (talk page Denialism)

If you check my quite long history in Wikipedia, you won't find anything near to this behaviour you have suggested in your edit. Better yet, I have never participated in any “heated discussions” or tried to win an argument (any argument). Entropy1963 ( talk) 02:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

You were trying to win the argument that something you don’t like in the denialism article needs to be removed because it’s offensive to you. Multiple users didn’t agree or talked “around” you. You persisted anyway with repetitive arguments. QED Dronebogus ( talk) 13:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I must say, this is a new one to me. It's pretty batshit... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 15:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for making a report about Tsteves1234 ( talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. IanDBeacon ( talk) 15:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply

You have recently made edits related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. This is a standard message to inform you that discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

Re this and numerous other occurrences. Please stop throwing out accusations of ownership just because other editors disagree with you. The continual personalisation in discussions and insult throwing is a continual problem that you are exacerbating. Please stop. - SchroCat ( talk) 05:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply

An infobox was added in 2020 by User:Ben Novotny who had worked on the article. It was reverted by a now banned user, but brought back by a friend of mine, and tolerated by Smerus. Much later, Smerus worked on the article towards GA and took it away. The GA reviewer supported that (no surprise.) It's all in the article history and talk page archive. I had no time nor energy for the case then, nor today, sorry. We have a discussion going on Classical music, DYK? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply

When you say “reverted by a now banned user”, do you mean Omnipaedista, who removed it with this edit? As far as I can see, Omnipaedista has never been blocked, let alone banned, and they were editing less than 20 minutes ago. Was there another removal and addition in between? - SchroCat ( talk) 07:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I meant this edit. I think I unwatched at some time and am not aware of all ups and downs, as said above. - I happen to see this question only now, accidentally, when I came to tell Dronebogus something. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello. Please don't stop posting on the talk page, I'm not complaining about your posts at all and am enjoying your good defense of your position. Hopefully we can work on the same side at some point, you'd be better to have as an ally than not. Have you seen either film? I saw Oppenheimer but not Barbie (looking forward to it), and the use of the nickname "Oppie" is evident throughout (but that's neither here nor there, mostly there). Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Review bomb into List of review-bombing incidents. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{ copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Charcoal feather ( talk) 20:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The ANI has been closed here with evident consensus by the community to ban you from the area of XFDs. Please review the closure and details written within for your benefit. Thank you, Lourdes 05:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Oh thank god Dronebogus ( talk) 18:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

All you've done is draw attention to disruption and invited additional disruption. There was no forthcoming disruption until you hopped in a month after the last comment and needlessly stirred the pot. Don't do that. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

September songs

my story today

Today's story is about a great pianist with an unusual career, taking off when he was 50. It's the wedding anniversary of Clara and Robert Schumann, but I was too late with our gift. When do you think did Mrs. and Mr. Schumann get their infoboxes, and by whom? (Of course not by me.) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello

Hello,

I’m not getting any responses but genuinely trying to understand why the article picture keeps coming down. Do you personally prefer this picture? Or is it something with the one I uploaded? I won’t bother again if you can please offer some insight. I followed the suggestion of the user ‘Edwardx’ and made the ‘COI’ declaration for page help/suggestions in both the talk page of the article and in the edit itself. What else am I missing here? Thanks for your help!

Happy2Be100 ( talk) 00:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Please stop reverting without leaving an edit summary. It is not helpful in a collaborative environment. If you would like to help edit this article, then do come to the talk page and discuss the issues rather than just reverting. Thank you — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 17:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Erasing this kind of thing could make an unblock request easier. Sometimes I think it might be best to let people say bad things so that there is a record of their bad behavior. Won't revert you, but just my two cents. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I think that the "reporters" (such as they are, it's likely Philomathes is someones sockpuppet, their page edits even admit they sockpuppeted) are bullshit but they are required to notify you and they haven't done so, be aware that [4] exists.

Here's hoping you are cleared and Philomathes's sockpuppet farm is exposed. 76.143.193.135 ( talk) 01:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

i love you wikipe-tan!!!!1!1!!!!!!!!1 Lumidaze ( talk) 16:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, Dronebogus! I hope that you've been doing well, since our last contact some months ago. Your absence is surely visible at WP:MFD, in terms of both votes and nominations. Are you still under that topic ban? In any case, you deserve all the possible respect IMHO, as a fellow fighter against neo-Confederate trash around here. Stay strong! Cheers! — Sundostund mppria ^{( talk / contribs)} 18:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes I’m still under topic ban Dronebogus ( talk) 20:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm def sorry to hear that... — Sundostund mppria ^{( talk / contribs)} 20:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply

What's the topic ban? Also, why is Philomath out to get you? WTF is that all about? You should enable your email. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I’m under a general XfD topic ban, this isn’t related Dronebogus ( talk) 04:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

What's XfD? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 14:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

[x] for deletion Dronebogus ( talk) 14:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, You may want to be aware that the largest and most active thread on a Wikipedia criticism site is about you and coordinating to get you banned. Three users of that forum, Philomath, Bbb23sucks, and Ericbarbour are working together on your SPI and attempting to recruit others.

The post is in a members only section of the forum, but the site is set up to enable specially configured browsers to read the members only area while logged out. If you are unsure how to configure your browser for access, just google "Dronebogus raxythecat" and you will get a few excerpts.

[5]

Malibu Sapphire ( talk) 18:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The redirect Get Woke - go Broke has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 13 § Get Woke - go Broke until a consensus is reached. Qwerfjkl talk 15:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply

October songs

my story today

Thank you for efforts towards accessibility, just take it easy, please ;) - Towards the end of the month, I thought of Brian Bouldton, and his ways to compromise, - with musings about peace there, - feel free to join. Hevenu shalom aleichem. Today is Reformation Day, and I believe that reformation is a work in progress. Over the last five days, three stories were about classical composers, DYK? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, I added my comment on the RfC for the Georges Feydeau RfC but I am on mobile and I do not think it was posted in the proper area. It was not my intention to purposefully post it in the wrong area. If it is possible for someone to move my comment to the right place, I would greatly appreciate the assistance. Barbarbarty ( talk) 21:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC) reply

No problem, I’ve moved it to the bottom as it should be. Dronebogus ( talk) 22:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Just a word of advice if you're going to create infobox RFCs. Separate the sections for support and oppose. Also, don't argue with the oppose bloc. Large walls of text between entrenched parties discourages comment. These discussions are slam dunks if a lot of editors comment. Nemov ( talk) 03:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi Dronebogus,

I've been meaning to do this for a while, but I keep forgetting. As you know, I accused you of being tied up with Vizorblaze/Raxythecat based on circumstantial and behavioral evidence. I found circumstantial behavioral similarities that I observed to be compelling, and I'm so sick and tired of being harassed by LTAs that I just wanted to do something proactive to make it stop.

However, it appears that I was wrong. There is an LTA troll (Vizorblaze/Raxy) who became fixated on me last January. You were accused of being Raxy, and you invoked my name in the process of defending yourself. I think Raxy saw the drama, latched onto it, and thought it would be funny to stir the pot by imitating you while harassing me. I fell for it, but (allegedly, it's a bit unclear), a CU was performed that cleared your name.

Therefore, I must say to you: I am sorry. I hope the LTA has not started targeting you as a result of that SPI. The SPI I opened did not lead to any clarity on the LTA's identity, but the SPI could potentially have caused harm to your reputation, and could have also caused you personal distress, and genuinely I regret that. I apologize. I would like to make amends if possible, and I hope we can have a non-contentious and collegial relationship in the future, should our paths cross again. Take care. Philomathes2357 ( talk) 21:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding your behavior in infobox discussions. The thread is Break: "Manage the conflict". Thank you. — SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional seaplanes has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 11:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wanted to be the first to wish you the very best during the holidays. Thank you for open dialogue and frank discussion. I hope that we find ourselves working together in the new year. Lightburst ( talk) 15:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

December: story · music · places

Thank you for your work for accessibility! - Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. - I wish you a good festive season and a peaceful New Year! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Dantus21 ( talk) 21:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Dantus21 ( talk) 21:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I saw on social media this morning a death announcement from a family member of Keith Fowler, the account holder of User:KFFOWLER. An ip address added a death date to the article last night and I've reverted it and made a new thread on the talk page about that edit. I happen to know the family member on social media and have dm'd them to ask them for an obit or notice when they post one in RS. Could you prevent me from stepping on a rake here? BusterD ( talk) 16:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I’m not surely exactly what you’re asking Dronebogus ( talk) 22:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I noticed your name on Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Members so I thought your experience might be useful in that regard. So far I'm still looking for an actual obituary or official notice. BusterD ( talk) 22:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I’ll see what I can do Dronebogus ( talk) 19:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:DENY is not applicable in this situation. It's also just an essay, whereas WP:TPO is not. Just because the comments are getting under your skin and the users aren't reading the FAQs. Keep on doing it, and you're going to get blocked. Jauerback ^dude?/ _dude. 01:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

It may not be vandalism, but “Disgusting he’s even on Wikipedia” “Remove "Sir" he is dead. If he were alive he would be relieved of this title, he was not worthy of in the first place.” “Correct. Wikipedia should be ashamed.” “Remove all sir and any glowing act [sic] he did they where all deceitful and planned to help with his predatory ways” directly beneath a very straightforward message saying “no” screams both trolling and assuming bad faith. This is not a content dispute or a legitimate edit request, it’s people using the talk page as a WP:FORUM first and former and secondly to uncivilly demand content changes based on WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT Dronebogus ( talk) 07:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

People have asked umpteen times to remove Savile's knighthood, but this is within WP:TALK guidelines.-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I still think it’s page-protection worthy and some (not all, mea culpa) of the comments were borderline trolling or just purely insulting to Wikipedians in general. Dronebogus ( talk) 08:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

You wrote "One example does not a section make". There is no rule that an editor cannot add one entry to the section, and it was not right to delete the entry for that reason. You can edit it if you think that it can be better, or anyone else can. Please stop it. I'm considering starting an arbitration. Tkorrovi ( talk) 17:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

A civil content dispute is not trolling. You are being more disruptive than me here by insisting that a single uncited pop culture example is necessary for the integrity of the article. Dronebogus ( talk) 02:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

You change the topic, whatever is by your interpretation integrity of the article or pop culture, this was not what i was talking about. I don't think that there is more integrity in that section than examples from the science fiction, and i think that it is only important that the examples are relevant, but this is another topic. Tkorrovi ( talk) 03:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

This dispute is also not anywhere near a stage where it needs to be sent to a dispute resolution notice board, let alone WP:ARBCOM. You should have pinged me on the article talk as part of WP:BRD instead of coming to my userpage, which in general is reserved for “need to know” messages. Dronebogus ( talk) 02:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

story · music · places

Yesterday was a friend's birthday, with related music. - I'm on vacation - see places. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, Dronebogus

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Knowledgegatherer23, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Ribbits!, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Knowledgegatherer23}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Knowledgegatherer23 ( Say Hello) 17:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

story · music · places

Music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Your village pump comment is a really terrible ad hominem (see WP:NPA#WHATIS) -- a person's spelling and edit count has no bearing on the legitimacy of their request for help in editing, which is what this fundamentally is. I strongly ask that you remove it. SamuelRiv ( talk) 20:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ SamuelRiv: done Dronebogus ( talk) 20:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real page has been renominated for deletion. You are being notified because of your participation in the previous MFD. Should you desire, any comments to the discussion are welcome at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real (2nd nomination). Thank you — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I was going to email you a few questions (nothing super juicy, the only reason I'd do it offwiki is because there's some personal info I don't usually share publicly) but I noticed you don't have an "email this user" option. Are you willing to email me? Let me know! Thanks Annierau ( talk) 07:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Annierau: What’s it about? Dronebogus ( talk) 12:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply