This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, I'm TuskDeer. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Scrunchie, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. After looking at the article, it does not sound like it is meant to be taken seriously, and was probably just meant for entertainment. TuskDeer ( talk) 05:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Monorail (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Disney monorail ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Iamreallygoodatcheckers. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Bryan K. Barnett".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian ( talk) 22:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

―  Tartan357  ^Talk 04:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Your recent edits at Donald Trump violated the arbitration remedy in affect at that page, which says in relevant part (on the talk page): " 24-hr BRD cycle: "If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit)." Will you please promptly self-revert? Thanks, Neutrality ^talk 03:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality Did I revert what you wanted? I'm not really in the mood to get banned today. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 03:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello. The Donald Trump article is under Discretionary Sanctions, per the notice you received on this page some time ago from @ Galobtter:. In this sequence of edits, your edits your edits reverted your reinstatement, you violated the 24-hour BRD restriction by reinstating edits of yours that had been reverted without waiting 24 hours and discussing the matter on the article talk page. Please undo your reinstatement to avoid enforcement of the page sanction against you. Thanks. Editors will respond to your views on the talk page if you choose to discuss the matter.@ Awilley: SPECIFICO talk 03:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO did I revert what you wanted me to revert? If there's something else you want to revert back go ahead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 03:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the 3 reverts rule? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 03:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Without a 24-hour revert rule, and only relying on 3RR, it could easily be far too chaotic on an article like this. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 09:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I see you are nominated New Castle County Council for deletion, so i thought maybe you can nominated these articles too : Cuyahoga County Council, Nassau County Legislature, Pierce County Council too. Sorry I don't familiar with the AfD stuff so I ask your help. Thank you. -- Tensa Februari ( talk) 08:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Iamreallygoodatcheckers,

While you may have had good intentions, please do not move a highly watched article to a different title before discussing a possible move on the article talk page. A page move in the immediate aftermath of a criminal incident is bound to be controversial and challenged. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Iamreallygoodatcheckers. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Bryan K. Barnett".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The article 2021 Miami Beach spring break upset has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I don't believe that this event has proven to be notable beyond the Miami Beach area months ago.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

re this: Good call! I didn't know we had that! Now, if we could just get someone to take a pic of the Cocoa Hut itself (which is, after all, where the article's coordinates link to) ...

(Theoretically, I could drive from where I live to Mahanoy City and take the picture and be back within the day, but that's really too far to go IMO to take just one picture of a convenience store). Daniel Case ( talk) 19:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Daniel Case: Thank you Daniel, I thought the image would be good. If it was ever convenient for you to get an image of the Cocoa Hut itself that would be awesome. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 20:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

–– FormalDude talk 05:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@ FormalDude: I've been edited political articles like Donald Trump and Joe Biden for over a year. I'm a member of both of their Wikiprojects. I know it can dirty in the talk page, but thank you for trying to warn new editors before they walk into the octagon. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 05:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm FormalDude. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Donald Trump seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. –– FormalDude talk 02:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Love of Corey. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Killing of David Amess have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Love of Corey ( talk) 23:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, both CNN & MSNBC should be disregarded the way Fox has been. But, good luck with getting that passed on the 'pedia. GoodDay ( talk) 04:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you GoodDay. I know it's a rough road and my battle to lose, but I still think it's worth the discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 04:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Wear a helmet. GoodDay ( talk) 04:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

And leather jacket. InedibleHulk ( talk) 22:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

In an effort to fool you, I changed the proposed target title in my RM just before you posted your support !vote. Leaving this note to make sure you saw that so you're not inadvertently supporting a title you may not support. Levivich 19:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Levivich: Thanks for letting me know! Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 19:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Darrell Brooks. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 23#Darrell Brooks until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't notice that part was already mentioned on the 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car rampage. I should look at articles more closely before editing. Cwater1 ( talk) 23:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Cwater1: You're good, it happens. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

On 27 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sarah Weddington, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai ( talk) 23:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mary Jane Bode, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lockjaw.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

On 14 December 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Brandon Bernard, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 12:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Iamreallygoodatcheckers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Donald Campbell (Texas politician), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 00:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Please adjust or undo your closure of this RfC. It currently misrepresents other editors' comments, as explained by Sdkb. –– FormalDude talk 04:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@ FormalDude: I have addressed the issue. Thank you for pointing it out to me. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 04:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Iamreallygoodatcheckers: I understand the whole over linking thing but what is having one extra link to the Austin page gonna hurt? I might have missed it but is there a single link to city of Austin on Adler's page? Is Austin not relevant to the subject? Putitonamap98 ( talk) 04:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Putitonamap98: I noticed you are a newer user, and when I was a newer user I felt the same as you about this guideline and I would go do edits like the one you did at Adler's page. You just have to understand that guideline is guideline and that's what keeps Wikipedia consistent and overall structured. If it wasn't for guidelines like WP:SEAOFBLUE Wikipedia would be a mess. So we have an obligation to follow it, that's community consensus. Linking Austin is just unnecessary and not consistent with guideline or precedent. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 04:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be a good faith contributor, although in my observation you sometimes miss the point and go off in the wrong direction. At any rate, greetings. I just want to tell you that it's not good form to revert the close of a discussion thread, all the more when you have been involved and the close goes against your view. You can challenge a close and present your reasoning for an uninvolved reversal or reopening of the thread. Please see here. SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@ SPECIFICO: I will be sure to follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE in the future. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 18:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks -- keep up the good work! SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

If all that is true and the closer says to feel free, it's totally OK to present no reasoning whatsoever. Not even sarcastic. Just a genuinely legitimate exception that happens to involve two occasionally sarcastic editors with recently divergent views on the educational merits of inconsequential things versus fluffy things. I like our differences, just dislike sidetracks. Not saying they should or shouldn't be treated as normal parts of an unrelated discussion, though, I'm no expert. InedibleHulk ( talk) 09:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! In a recent closure of an RfC, you referred to me by a name under which I no longer edit. Would you be willing to modify the close to contain my current username? — Mhawk10 ( talk) 04:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC) — Mhawk10 ( talk) 04:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Mhawk10: I have changed it to reflect your new name. If I missed any feel free it change them yourself, I believe I got them all though. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 04:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

In your recent RFC close, I believe you miscounted the tally; CarringtonMist switched their !vote from "yes" to "no", making it five opposed, though I don't know whether that is enough for you to support a no-consensus result. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ BilledMammal: Yes, I had missed counted the no votes by 1, there are really 5 not 4. However, I do not believe that changes the result of this closing. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 06:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I also have a question about the close, not so much to nitpick but to find out if you have a policy-based answer. You discarded the !vote of Charles01 on the basis of WP:SYNTHESIS, citing WP:DISCARD. I was surprised at this so reread DISCARD and did not see any mention of original synthesis there. As I imagine you know, original synthesis is not allowed in article space but it is expected in talk page discussions. As is stated in the first paragraph of WP:OR: This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Is there something I'm missing? Thanks very much. While we disagree on the merits of the arguments I found your close to be very well written. Generalrelative ( talk) 06:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ BilledMammal: I was under the impression that WP:DISCARD was for arguments that contradict policy and guidelines. He was arguing practically that Franco was fascist by providing historical examples. DISCARD says !votes that "flatly contradict established policy" should be excluded. I didn't know WP:OR explicitly stated it doesn't apply to talk pages. I saw his comment as practically not helpful since he analyzed a situation then concluded in his personal opinion that Franco is fascist. I may have been overly brazen by putting it as DISCARD, but I still see the comment as not based in policy or guideline, therefore, might as well not be counted. It may have been best for me to label the comment as personal opinion rather than WP:SYNTHESIS. Also, I almost ruled this no consensus due to how weak the affirmation was at providing RS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 06:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You meant to ping me instead of BilledMammal, yeah? Glad to be of help in clearing up the confusion about SYNTH. I certainly don't agree that the yes !votes were weak at providing RS, just less bombastic about it. But there's no need to relitigate that now. It's good to see you were able to execute a close contrary to your own instinct, based on an appraisal of the consensus. Best wishes, Generalrelative ( talk) 07:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Generalrelative: Oh my gosh, I can't believe I pinged the wrong person. Anyway happy editing! Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 07:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I am following the procedure that says that before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. I would like you to please reopen the discussion for the following reasons:

• 1) There are really 5 not 4 "No" votes
• 2) Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration and you have recognized that some of the Yes are supported by sources that in reality do not support the Yes, in fact support the No. Users Seraphimblade, Vacant0, Asqueladd do not provide any sources at all. User Fyunck(click) uses a statement ("last surviving fascist dictator") that has been classified by Stanley Payne as an hyperbole and then Fyunck(click) uses a recent newspaper article that says that "Spain makes it a crime to apologise for Franco or glorify civil war", but the article does not mention fascism anywhere, so again, no sources. User "Beyond My Ken" unduly quotes Robert Paxton. User Generalrelative is worse, because he says that Stanley Payne said that "Franco was never a "core fascist" or a genuine Falangist, and never personally espoused or gave any priority to all the goals of the Falangists and their Twenty-Six Points, but his political orientation was definitely pro-fascist." but it was not Stanley Payne who said that, it was Roger Griffin. However Roger Griffin also said that Thus scarcely any of the serious historians and analysis of Franco consider the Generalissimo to have been a core fascist. (See "Fascism: The 'fascist epoch", p 98) What Payne actually said was He [Franco] has frequently been denounced as the general who led a Fascist coup d'état against a democratic republic, but this allegation is incorrect in every detail. The only accurate part of this claim is that he was a general...The hyperbole associated with. Europes last surviving Fascist dictator was remarkable.
• 3) According to Wikipedia:Closing discussions, Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. So most of the yes votes are to be discarded. Actualy none of the votes provide a RS that really supports the claim. I can find a few sources that support the yes, but those sources have not been provided. The sources provided say, no or say contentious.
• 4) Most RS say No, but on top of that RS also say "that scarcely any of the serious historians and analysis of Franco consider the Generalissimo to have been a core fascist (Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman) and say It is now increasingly rare to define Francoism as a truly fascist and totalitarian regime (Enrique Moradiellos) , If you’re asking an academic political theorist what constitutes a fascist then you’d have to say Franco isn’t. (Paul Preston), so RS also thing that the consensus is NO.

J Pratas ( talk) 10:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I had less time than I would have liked to contribute to that RfC. However, I would like to point out that incontrovertibly, academic literature in the last five years sees Franco as a fascist. Ferrandiz, F., 2022. Francisco Franco Is Back: The Contested Reemergence of a Fascist Moral Exemplar. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 64(1), pp.208-237. Or Valencia-García, L. D. (2020). Pluralism at the Twilight of Franco’s Spain: Antifascist and Intersectional Practice. Fascism 9, 1-2, 98-120, Available From: Brill https://doi.org/10.1163/22116257-09010001 [Accessed 21 February 2022] who writes, "Franco, was a commixture of militarism, nationalism, patriarchy, religion and Spain’s own strain of fascism, Falangism. Under Franco, Spain’s fascism resulted in the enslavement, incarceration, murder and exile of people who did not conform to strict social norms (including feminists, anarchists, communists, socialists and members of the LGBT community)." Historiography has moved on, in other words. In addition, outside of academic sources, the heavy-hitting RS such as NY Times and others describe him as a Fascist. This tidbit from the NY Times in 1942 is also informative: "MADRID, Dec. 8 -- Generalissimo Francisco Franco, in a state speech, told the nation today that the world had only the choice between communism and fascism, and made it plain that in this choice he favored fascism. Generalissimo Franco carefully re frained, however, from leaning one way or the other in his attitude toward the war." https://www.nytimes.com/1942/12/09/archives/franco-says-worlds-choice-is-fascism-or-communism-franco-defines.html?smid=url-share . Apologies to Iamreallygoodatcheckers for responding on your talk page if the article talk page was more appropriate. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 11:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

These new, very interesting sources should be added to the article's talk page. And these additions only reinforce my request to reopen. A consensus was not reached the the discussion is still very much alive. When and edito asks to reopen or challenges the closing the editor is not supposed to bring new items, he is supposed to limit himself to challenge the closing. That is what I did. J Pratas ( talk) 13:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ JPratas: I understand your frustration with this. You appeared to have put more effort than any other editor into this. However, about 70% of participants said Yes and they did provide some RS. I don't disagree that your argument was a little stronger, it was, but the argument analysis can't turn into WP:SUPERVOTE. At the end of the day, the affirmation did provide literature and the majority of the community believed in reflected calling Franco a fascist. That's the consensus, that's all I care about from the closing end. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 17:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ JPratas: If you read the close and the above section on this user talk page, you will see that Iamreallygoodatcheckers is already aware of each of your points. Perhaps he should reword the close to fix the math error (though if we're quibbling, the IP editor who !voted gave reasons for their !vote, and even gave concrete examples elsewhere in the discussion, so probably shouldn't have been discarded). In any case, the consensus was clear. Any other result for this RfC would have been contrary to policy. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

JPratas and AugusteBlanqui, you both speak of some sourcing that had not been provided in the discussion. Now, under WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I would be willing to overturn my closure since some information and context was not provided. However, this information doesn't seem to be contrary to my closure, it seems to only further embrace the affirmation side. However, like I said in my closing comment this discussion had been quiet for about 5 days, so to call the discussion "very much alive" feels like a stretch. If this new information only reinforces the affirmation why should I reopen this for further discussion? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 17:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No need to reopen. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 18:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Generalrelative: Thank you for pointing the IP's further participation in the discussion later on where we provided RS, I must have read over that. I will go include their vote in the tally. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 17:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Cool, I appreciate your circumspection. Generalrelative ( talk) 06:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the "Yes" votes are backed up by sources that say "No". This is a clear case where editors saw the word fascism in the book's title and assumed the author thinks that Franco is Fascist. But that is not the case. Editor have not even take the time to read the book. Stanley Payne, Robert Paxton, etc. are being used to support the Yes but they said No. Wikipedia is based on RS not on some weak popular vote. J Pratas ( talk) 08:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

JPratas I’ll reopen to allow for a second opinion to close it, also the new information provided by the other editor I believe could be beneficial to the discussion. Just let me get home to my laptop, I’ll open it later today. (Idk how use signature in mobile)

Before you do, please be aware that JPratas is pulling this characterization entirely out of the air. I know precisely what the sources say and I can assure you (as a professional historian of 20th-century Europe) that many others who !voted in this discussion do as well. JPratas' behavior here, casting aspersions on opponents in a content dispute by assuming to know what motivated their !votes, is unacceptable. It is wrong to allow it to influence your decision. Generalrelative ( talk) 14:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Generalrelative I haven't felt good about his close, and I don't want to have to drag this to WP:AN. I'm going to notify AugesteBlanqui since there were comments he was unable to make. It's not going to hurt anything for this to get a second opinion from another closer. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Having discussions closed and then opened again can be quite disruptive. If it's a good-faith error now and then, no one is likely to fault you personally. But I see below that you are having a similar problem with another close right now. If this is part of a pattern, I would strongly suggest you take a step back from closing discussions that are even remotely contentious for the foreseeable future. I am more than willing to credit you for your maturity in handling issues at this level when you're still in high school. But please understand that the manner in which the largest encyclopedia in the world discusses one of the world's most notorious dictators is an extremely important thing, and closing an RfC such as this should not have been taken so lightly. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Generalrelative, I was asked by an editor to undue the discussion. That's it. If they see a problem with my closing, I'm not gonna fight tooth and nail for it, that's not my personality. I mainly based my decision on the fact that some evidence had been left out, which is a reason explicitly stated in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

As you yourself noted just above, none of the new information presented by AugesteBlanqui weighs against the consensus determination you've already made. And they asked you explicitly not to reopen the RfC. The fact that you reversed this decision when no reasons had been submitted which weren't already considered –– just an involved editor refusing to drop the stick on your talk page –– shows that you did not give this important close sufficient thought. The fact that a similar situation is now playing out with regard to a close you made on another hot-button issue in global politics just reaffirms that you are not yet quite ready to be engaging in this way. I will therefore reiterate my strong suggestion that you refrain from closing discussions that are even remotely contentious until you have gained a bit more experience and maturity. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I will consider your point of view. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Best wishes, Generalrelative ( talk) 01:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Iamreallygoodatcheckers, just to let you know, I've opened a closure review request at AN following on from the discussion we had at the NPOV noticeboard. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 16:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I read your closing at Talk:Tucker Carlson#RfC: Media Matters analysis and was impressed. My internet actually went out for around five days. I weighed in on the "Oppose" side as I feel strong opinion pieces and blogs should be used cautiously especially on BLP's. It does not matter the political leaning as deception by manipulation is propaganda over journalism.

I was impressed with your summary. It considered comments from both sides as well as the community consensus. other previous discussions such as Is it permissible to include links to partisan media watchdog groups in BLPs? likely had a part in establishing the caution "marginally reliable" and use on a "case-by-case basis". I do agree with the use of partisan advocacy groups per policies and guidelines but a source with criteria so broad and vague it puts a one-way slant and clouds any reputation for fact-checking.

I assumed that you were an admin, simply because I didn't see any indication of "non-Admin closure", at the least a very seasoned and experienced editor, or maybe even a lawyer, law clerk, or judge. Your comments were fairly long which in this case was absolutely necessary and showed you considered the various issues in depth.

I very rarely view editors' user pages. In fact, I intended to click on the talk page link but went to the user page instead. I had not seen the user infobox (that I find interesting) and your birth year was near the top as well as other interesting information. Your age was a surprise. Based on your comments in this instance I think that if you ever decide to grab a mop it would be a Wikipedia asset.

Bottom line: regardless of the sides taken I think you deserve a barnstar.

		The Closer's Barnstar
		For your thorough closing comments that seems to have left little reasons for challenges. Otr500 ( talk) 14:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Otr500:, thank you so much for the kind words and for my first barnstar ever. Anytime I make a closing, particularly a contentious one, it's paramount that a proper and thorough rational is given for the closing statement and consensus analysis. Closing Wikipedia discussions is a way that I practice impartiality and reasoning, a skill that will be valuable for my career plan of being a lawyer and maybe one day a judge. Thank you! Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 22:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I just read your close of Peter Sellers and support the barnstar! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

adding: was your close understood in this edit? If not, then perhaps reword it, but I may be wrong, - English is not my first language. The first sentence has a rich load of "consensus" which is possibly not needed. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Gerda Arendt: I'm a little confused on what your asking me. The consensus was to include the years_active parameter, which is what the edit difference you linked was concerning. I'm sorry, but I really don't understand the question. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 05:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Please read the diff. I'm not concerned about the correction of years active (see the edit summary, and the next edit). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Gerda Arendt: I never specified in the RfC closing what years Sellers was active, only that the parameter should be included. If that's being disputed it should be discussed in the talk. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 06:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

try again, and it's not the years active parameter (and didn't I say so?) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Gerda Arendt: I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what your concern is. Can you please clarify. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 06:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't like to interpret the edits of others, and especially Nikkimaria because we have a history (see my talk archive of 2013). Do you see what I see (obviously not yet) that the honorific title was removed, claiming the rfc? And indeed, the rfc didn't mention that parameter, and when I looked closer, not even the name parameter (but I think the infobox would take it from the article title per default). But: should the close be interpreted as "parameters for which there was no consensus are forbidden"? Not in my language, but I may be wrong. And if it needs interpretation it's perhaps not clear enough? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

[1] - does she read it right? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Gerda Arendt:, the RfC does not endorse the removal of the honorific parameter, there was no consensus for it's removal. Citing the RfC would be inappropriate. (pinging Nikkimaria since their name has been mentioned). Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 22:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The status-quo set of parameters was among the proposals, but the one for which you found consensus was a different set which didn't include this item. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Nikkimaria: Your right that I didn't find a consensus for the inclusion of that particular parameter, but in my closing I specified that there was no consensus to remove any parameters. My closing in no way negates the need for the honorific parameter. If there's a dispute over it's inclusion, that should be brought to the talk page. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Your closing established that there was not consensus for inclusion of anything beyond the set specified. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I said "inclusion or exclusion". If it wasn't clear, my closing was not negating any additional parameters, merely saying that there was no consensus for them to not be there or to be there. Any changes to the infobox, other than the parameters I found a consensus for, should be treated normally and go through the edit, discussion cycle if there is a dispute. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That's what I understood, but obviously it was not clear. Can you please rephrase? Even if not clear: to fight and argue about a honorific thing, part of the name I believe, three letters ... - Can we please stop this? I'd like to see the infobox wars ended, and editing infoboxes handled as other editing: bold edits only reverted if they are detrimental to an article. An honorific title is not. My 2ct. - Prayer for Ukraine.

@ Gerda Arendt: I will clarify my consensus in the closing. I understand you want the "infobox wars" to come to and end, but this consensus only ended the wars for the parameters discussed. Also, the WP:BRD cycle is not just for things "detrimental" to the article; it's for any dispute, including normal content such as the parameters of a infobox. If you want the honorific parameter I would recommend following that cycle. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 17:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I think we still have some misunderstandings, but - thinking of Prayer for Ukraine - not in the mood for clarification. CBE is back, and that's enough for me today. I didn't "want" it, but once it was there I saw no reason to remove it, - actually that's almost all clarification needed, - I hope. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Gerda Arendt: If there is anymore clarification needed, I would be happy clarify. My prayers are with the people of Ukraine as well. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 21:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You clarified well, thank you. I will be busy until Monday. I took the pic in the "Prayer" article, DYK? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Gerda Arendt: I did not know you took that picture. It's certainly a good addition to the article. Keep up the good work! Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 21:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I see you note that you have requested a close. But not all talk page discussions benefit from a close. That thread (with the malformed RfC header in the middle of it) is so diffuse and so disjointed that a firm close is not possible and any attempt at a close is only going to cause problems that would be much more difficult to resolve than if the issue is simply left open for whatever future ideas may be offered. I suggest you withdraw the request. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@ SPECIFICO:, I withdrew the request. The RfC probably isn't formatted well enough for a consensus analysis and the result would almost certainly be no consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 16:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)