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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

In view of your role in DRN I'm asking you how I should proceed with a content dispute on the article Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The problem from my perspective is that the other user won't engage in discussion on talk without being forced to do so by my reverting his edits - otherwise he just ignores me. This obviously isn't ideal. The time has come for some third-party mediation, but what would be appropriate? Achar Sva ( talk) 23:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is time to get more eyes on this. I would recomend WP:3O first- get another set of expert eyes on the page and get their opinion. THen, if that doesn't work, bring it to the WP:DRN, but definitely try another subject matter expert first. Nightenbelle ( talk) 15:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Achar Sva - Both Third Opinion and DRN are voluntary. I haven't yet read the history, but if you have an editor who does not discuss, 3O and DRN will not work. I suggest that you also read this essay on discussion failure. I seldom recommend WP:ANI, but editors who don't discuss may wind up at WP:ANI; just read the instructions on preliminaries first. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, and welcome back again. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time..... but I'm hoping this one will be relatively simple. Life has just been a giant freaking snowball. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. ( t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The filing party threw a boomerang at a kangaroo that wasn't there. The filing party is lying motionless on the ground, and someone else can pick up the weapon and use it more wisely. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

One of the few times it was easy to pick up and return the boomerang to its proper kangaroo. :-)

Well, in this case I see that you assisted in the deflection of the boomerang. This was a bizarre case in that we were asked to block an administrator for issuing a valid block. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the user was the kangaroo. That would explain why they jumped into the middle of something silly. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you were the second to revert my edit (see also user's talk page), but please note that in German Perspektive is the correct form. If you don't speak German, you might rather consider refraining from editing German content. Drkazmer ^{Just tell me...} 08:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I do actually speak German (admittedly at a quite basic level- but my Granny taught me enough to say sei nett zu anderen anyway)- so you might want to refrain from making snarky comments du kennst mich nicht. Had you left off the last sentence- you would have just got an "oh sorry, I'll fix that" Instead I say- du kennst mich nicht and WP:AGF and I'll roll back my change. Nightenbelle ( talk) 14:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I am curious why the other editor got a very polite "Hey you did this and maybe you shouldn't have" and I got a rude notice. Why polite to one of us and rude to the other? Nightenbelle ( talk) 18:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Because you're the second one doing the same rollback without checking the issue first. Drkazmer ^{Just tell me...} 19:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

THats still not an excuse to be rude. Nightenbelle ( talk) 19:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shusha on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Aha. You were polled by the robot on one of the RFCs left over from the dispute that I just failed after both of the editors reported each other to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah.... added my opinion to that growing snowball... Time to go see how the DRN is fairing this morning. Nightenbelle ( talk) 14:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Something weird seems to have happened at Raza Samo; you nominated it for deletion via Page Curation, but the page appears to not have been properly created. Right now, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raza Samo is just a oneliner from the creator. AngryHarpy‍ ^talk 06:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Nightenbelle, User:AngryHarpy - That looks like a tool failure. I have seen enough of them that I don't consider them "weird", only troublesome. User:Nightenbelle - Please provide your deletion rationale, and I will !vote Delete. If you prefer, I will make a deletion statement, but I would prefer to let the original tagger go ahead. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I thought that I had seen a controversy about that article before. I had. I found that I had mediated it in August 2021, and then was thinking about how to respond this time. The documentary film is largely about athletes, which I am not. However, then, unrelated to my thinking about that controversy, I thought it was time for my daily exercise. When I came back from the pool, I saw that you had closed it as one-against-many, and the only real choices had been between that and an RFC. But you are right that this was a case where moderated discussion was unlikely to do anything except restate viewpoints. Thank you. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:20, 11 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) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I was wondering why you undid my update on the Memory Alpha article? I don't really understand how a link to the wiki the page is talking about in considered "inappropriate" or why an update of the page count is "unneccessary". Both seem relevant to the topic of the page. I added the link there to help people to get in contact with the relevant people on MA rather than the old founders who have nothing to do with the site anymore. This has caused some issues in the past and even relatively recent. 109.135.30.140 ( talk) 17:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I undid it because we are not the yellow pages. We do not exist to direct people how to get in contact with owners of niche webpages- nor do we direct them how to get in touch with the owners of any webpages other than WP itself. That is promotional and does not belong on WP. We give descriptions, we are an encyclopedia. If people want to get in contact with the owners- they should google "What is the phone number of the owner of this website" or something similar. Do you have a connection with this website? I ask because the one and only edit you made was to add the contact info for them, and to post here when that info was removed. Nightenbelle ( talk) 19:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Nightenbelle,

Thank you for your comments on my request for dispute resolution regarding the Saint Peter article. I am still getting my feet wet and was not aware of the WP:3O option; if I had been aware, I would have requested that instead, since despite its short length the discussion appears fully stalled.

Much appreciated, Fureto Fureto ( talk) 19:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For reviewing at least 25 articles during the drive.

Thank you for reviewing or re-reviewing 38 articles, which helped contribute to an overall 1276-article reduction in the backlog during the drive. ( t · c) buidhe 12:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2021 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2021.                  Current and upcoming events Election time: Our end-of-year election of coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before " Auld Lang Syne". Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: We have scheduled a week-long copy-editing blitz for 12 to 18 December. Sign up now! Drive and Blitz reports September Drive: Almost 400,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 27 people who signed up, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. October Blitz: From 17 to 23 October, we copy edited articles tagged in May and June 2021 and requests. 8 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. November Drive: Over 350,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 21 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. Other news It is with great sadness that we report the death on 19 November of Twofingered Typist, who was active with the Guild almost daily for the past several years. His contributions long exceeded the thresholds for the Guild's highest awards, and he had a hand in innumerable good and featured article promotions as a willing collaborator. Twofingered Typist also served as a Guild coordinator from July 2019 to June 2021. He is sorely missed by the Wikipedia community. Progress report: As of 30 November, GOCE copyeditors have completed 619 requests in 2021 and there were 51 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog stood at 946 articles tagged for copy-editing (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you repeatedly referred to the disruptive editing as a "consensus" shows you are not here arguing in good faith. The conversation did not "go stale," there was no one interested in discussing the issue in the first place, evidence of the lack of notability. I've been the one pleading with those two to discuss the issue instead of edit warring. If you have a problem with the edit war, take it up with those insisting on it instead of those insisting on discussion and finding a consensus. And I would implore you to discuss the issue instead of just going " I"m going to revert it to my preferred version and if you do anything about it I'll report you." I've reverted that section to how it was before I got involved in hopes that we can come to a solution instead of any more edit warring. Also, since the article is nominated for deletion- I would encourage you to instead contribute to that discussion and see how it plays out rather than continuing to edit war and threaten others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The onus is on you to get consensus for the change. You have not done that. Two editors agree that it should stay. You disagree. Again- you can not like it all you want. I am an uninvolved 3rd party- I'm telling you- this will not go your way unless you change tactics- IE- try a WP:RFC. Arguing with me will not change the current consensus. They stopped discussing because the consensus was reached and nothing further needed saying. You disagree with the standing situation- fine- find more people to join the discussion. Don't keep reverting. You have been banned for a very similar situation before. If you continue down this road without changing directions- you will be in the same situation. And agressive behavior like that displayed on my talk page here- will not help your case. I've offered you suggestions. Take them or don't. If you continue your edit war- you will end up on the ANI. Nightenbelle ( talk) 20:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Also- sign your posts with 4 tilde's please. and 2nd- I don't really give a damn if the blacklist is included or not- but I do give a damn about policy - policy says get consensus before you change. You have not. Next time you make that change without consensus- you will be taken to the ANI. Nightenbelle ( talk) 20:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a friendly suggestion: I don't think the ping-pong match you both are engaging in at the ANI filing is helping either of your cases. I think it would be best to let other editors review the information and draw their own conclusions at this point. I'm not an admin and this isn't an order, just advice based on my own past experiences. Cheers. DonIago ( talk) 15:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

After the last two crazy posts.... yeah- I'm done trying to reason with the unreasonable. Someone else can tackle the next mad rant they make on whatever page they decide to obsess over next. Sheesh. Not the worst [WP:IDHT]] I've seen at the DRN- but definitely in the top 10. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I was about to say something similar to what User:Doniago said, to advise you to leave him alone and let him either dig his way out or dig deeper. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

He must have got a really amazing shovel for Chritsmas.... good lord. And wow- I'm sure popular- look at all the best friends I have..... that I've never met or talked to once. WOW. (/sarcasm) Nightenbelle ( talk) 22:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You probably saw that he has been indeffed. One admin expressed the opinion that he was probably a sockpuppet of some previously indeffed battlefield editor. Well, if he is back again, it will be as a sockpuppet, and we may never know who is who. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of political parties in Italy on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Your close is as good as another. I have suggested that the English Wikipedia should provide links to the Help Desks for other language encyclopedias. We sometimes get nearly incomprehensible help requests that are about something that was done in some other language encyclopedia, and this seems to be one. There was a link to a page on the Hebrew Wikipedia, and I have no idea what it said except that it had recognizable CE years, and that it looked like Hebrew. As you probably know, Hebrew is written from right to left, and is written using an alphabet, and that is about what I know about it. (Greek and Russian are written from left to right, and are written using alphabets.) That was the only edit that editor had made. Maybe someone will help them on the Hebrew Wikipedia. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I know just the smallest bit of Hebrew- had to study it a bit in college (went to a Christian School- we were required to minor in biblical studies) but certainly not enough to help or direct them. I wish I could. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI (you too @ Robert McClenon), [1]. Not much to be done, IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and Killing of Barel Hadaria Shmueli. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

... come dangerously close? Well, please take me to ANI and make the case that Wikipedia values coldly polite POV pushers more than content creators who upon being hounded by a group occasionally lose their cool. Academics who have spent a lifetime thinking about precis writing are of no value. The thing though is I won't participate in my trial. I hope you manage to block me for a week, a month, perhaps a permaban. Give the lie to Jimbo's celebrated interview in the NY Times, "The Encyclopedist's Lair," whereupon being asked What is the Greatest misconception about Wikipedia, he replied, "We aren’t democratic. Our readers edit the entries, but we’re actually quite snobby. The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn’t be writing." You won't have any problem garnering support for a ban. All the Hindu nationalist POV pushers, the India-POV pushers, have been waiting in the wings for years to drive me away. All the best, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Take the warning or don't. I don't get joy out of taking people to the ANI- and I don't have beef with you- I don't edit the same articles you do. I was giving you a warning to prevent you going to the ANI- It was not a threat that I would take you- but continue like you will, and someone is going to. Personally- I'd rather keep good editors, but problematic behavior detracts form knowledgeable content creation. Do what you will with it. But it is possible to be knowledgeable without being a dick. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"it is possible to be knowledgeable without being a dick." Absolute gold, there. It's all lost on F&F. NebulaOblongata ( talk) 19:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler - You are acting like an editor who knows almost as much as they think that they do. There was a period when Wikipedia was tolerant of "excellent content creators" who were habitually uncivil and whose ownership of articles was ignored. More recently such editors have been finding Wikipedia less friendly. If you are knowledgeable, you will learn from their examples. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not being a dick. I am trying to suggest that you have no clue, and I mean none whatsoever, of the level of refined POV pushing prevalent on some South Asia-related pages. By refined I mean it is always polite, but does nothing but promote false and even dangerous perspectives. (There is a good reason ARBIPA sanctions exist.) Editors get banned. Mysteriously a week or two later others reappear with similar POV. Editors who create content, on the other hand, spend a huge amount of mental energy just getting the nuances right let alone patiently countering the POV. (See for example India alone. See how much engagement over how many years it has taken on the talk page to get it right.) I can off the top of my head ping here (if I wanted to) at least a dozen administrators who know my work who do not think I am habitually uncivil. You guys are falling for the surface chatter, you don't have the energy, nor probably the familiarity with the field, to delve into the deeper content issues which throw up these seeming disputes. Please think about that before you are holier than thou next time. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

since you don’t know me or Robert- you are not qualified to make that assumption. You being a jerk does not help the matter or your case. Ping who you want. Like I said- it was a warning do what you will with it- I’m going back to editing and mediating now. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Is "jerk" and "dick" civil? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You're on my talk page- continuing to engage. TO be fair- I never actually called you a dick. I said it was possible to be knowledgeable without being one. If you felt guilt- that's on you. As for calling you a jerk- its an accurate description of your arrogance to come on my page and tell me I'm not qualified to judge NPOV content without you knowing a single thing about me. So.... if you don't like it- you are free to disengage and/or change your behavior. Your choice. Nightenbelle ( talk) 01:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I am disengaging all right, but just pointing out that you have given no evidence thus far on Wikipedia of knowing anything about the topic of Kashmir. It is a subject area in which more than a dozen books have been published in 2021 alone by the major academic publishers of the western world (Cambridge University Press, Oxford, Yale, Manchester ... all of which I have added to the article). You are proposing to tell someone who is the author of the FA India, Wikipedia's oldest country FA, now going on 17 years, and the principal author of Kashmir, British Raj, Company rule in India, Partition of India and a host of Kashmir-related articles that they are a dick and a jerk even if you are attempting now to circumvent the first description by verbal subterfuge. That defense won't stand on ANI, by the way. In the future, please don't make inaccurate judgments about me, let alone uncivil ones. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I have yet to see a single inaccurate judgement about you that I have made. You just keep proving them right. You don’t want to be judged- stop judging others. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

An editor whose native language is not English shouldn't criticize the details of the use of the English language by an Anglophone American.

By the way, I notice that both SDC and Checco refer to exposing the rules for selection of political parties. They clearly mean providing an exposition of the rules. They aren't aware of the connotation in English, which is all right, but maybe they should realize that English has subtleties. I understand that Italian also has subtleties. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

meh. It’s a mess. I am fairly certain many subtleties are being ignored at this point. Nightenbelle ( talk) 23:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I seriously thought you were referring to me too, I am Italian and I don't understand all the subtleties. Obviously it was not my intention to criticize the details of the use of the English language, it has simply been a small misunderstanding. @ Robert McClenon I would appreciate it if you were still available to mediate the discussion when I'll file it at Drn. I'm trying to understand which users are potentially interested, also contacting them on the talk pages. As soon as we have an acceptable number, I will send the request. In this case, I am here because I wanted to inform Nightenbelle about this.-- Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 10:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

no worries. :-) Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Yadav on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gallican on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you closing that dispute quickly as premature. I just wanted to comment that I think that editor may wind up being banned. There are a few more issues that you may have noticed (but didn't mention because you didn't need to). First, the filer is a self-promoting academic, and self-promoting academics have a long track record in Wikipedia of flaming out. Second, the topic area is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which make it easier for admins to ban disruptive editors. I will watch the topic area, but I don't expect that there will be mediation. It may be "interesting". Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I am calling it a Shakespeare fantasy case because that is my opinion of all of the authorship theories. There are multiple reasons that I am aware of that are not normally mentioned that indicate that there is only one person who could have written the Shakespeare plays, the actor from Stratford-on-Avon. Some of the strongest reasons to back up the obvious theory are not even usually mentioned, so the alternate theories are even sillier than we sometimes think. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I did notice it was a self-promoting author who is already winding up to flame out- and I doubt he will take my suggestion to not edit that article to heart. As for the actual subject- I was an English major and high school English teacher back in the day- I ‘’’cared’’’ about the authorship issue deeply- until I realized it doesn’t matter. Written by a single actor from Stratford-upon-Avon or by 50’peoplr scattered across London- the language, humor, and psychological honesty make this collection of plays a truly inspired set and the most amazing literary accomplishment of any age. So now- I don’t care! Nightenbelle ( talk) 13:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You wrote: "I doubt he will take my suggestion". An editor who dislikes misgendering has misgendered Anna Faktorovich. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of Shakespeare authorship candidates on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

When closing a case as a general close, please insert 'closed' rather than 'Closed' in the status field. The bot is case-sensitive in recognizing it as a general close, and so thinks it is a new case after you have closed it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

stupid bots. Will correct moving forward. Nightenbelle ( talk) 17:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Wingnut (politics) on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

My edit was 100% constructive! Excuse me, why would you revert my edit?! ExpositionLaner2835 ( talk) 16:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary- it was not a grammatic improvement. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits! ExpositionLaner2835 ( talk) 16:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop making bad edits. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The sockpuppet has been stopped from making bad edits. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is My edits on David II of Scotland were reverted by another user!. Thank you. It was started by the user above. — Tenryuu 🐲 (  💬 •  📝 ) 16:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Already saw it. Thanks though :-) Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The revisions you just undid were to fix erroneous changes. Democracy Docket (DemocracyDocket.com) is a news site. Someone edited it based on a recent article that mentioned a project (Democracy Docket Legal Fund) of a different entity. I just want the wikipedia entry to correctly refer to the news site and not the Hopewell fund project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.69.166 ( talk) 18:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

All changes need to not sound like an advertisement for the subject. Do you have a wp:coi with the subject? Nightenbelle ( talk) 18:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I went back and checked- and now I am convinced you do have a COI. Democracy Docket is literally a voter advocate group who likes to think its blog is an actual news site- but its extremely biased. So I would suggest you not edit that page any more. Nightenbelle ( talk) 18:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

There is definitely a WP:COI situation going on here, and there has been for some time at both Democracy Docket and Marc Elias. Either Elias and/or his associates have been editing the pages. I don't know if this should be brought to a noticeboard or what, but it's very obvious and very unencyclopedic. Marquardtika ( talk) 20:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe.... maybe COI noticeboard, maybe just AFD them both. Maybe ask for protection on both. ... still kinda debating- if you have a preference or suggestion- I'm open to it! Nightenbelle ( talk) 20:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, pardon me, in your haste to delete stuff, you removed the 3 cases that had the correct citations to Mr. Elias arguing them. Please look at the citations https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1262 and you will notice on the right side of the page the text " Marc E. Elias for appellees " etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoryGuy ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

For Cooper vs Harris https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-1504 text: " Marc E. Elias for the private appellees "

For Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections text: "Marc E. Elias for appellants"

I'm restoring the cases and the links that you inadvertently removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoryGuy ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply, on the [ [2]]. As you closed the dispute and did not give me chance to reply - I will reply here.

1. You are using WP:SYNTH to come to a conclusion that is not clearly stated in WP:RS

No, I am not trying to do that. You say that it is WP:SYNTH, but I am not asking to combine material and made the conclusion. Both secondary sources ( https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/) and primary source Jean Chardin into Persia explicitly state information on their own, without the need to combine them. Why this should not be at least mentioned in the article? Even if we drop primary source, secondary source is providing clear conclusion.

I still do not understand why provided the primary source and secondary sources do not count. Are they so unreliable, that they can not be mentioned even in-line? Besides, the current article mostly refers to the https://iranicaonline.org as a source, why this source is acceptable/reliable, but https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/subjects is not?

2. consider this your second warning

I really shocked, I am the one who is accused and I am the one who gets a "final warning". Is it how it should work?

1. The user LouisAragon [ [3]] on the talk page replied with direct accusations. I did not accuse him, just let him know how things that he wrote looked to me and asked him to stop that.

2. Another example, you closed the dispute with the comments part of which has no connection to the dispute, but isn't it an accusation of me in nationalistic editing and threatening me with ANI? How nationality is related? Consensus will be reached either to include or not to include provided sources. Why is everyone dropping the main subject of discussion and focusing on nationality?

Does not the above two fall under WP policy [WP:ASPERSIONS] and [WP:NPA] either?

P.S. I'm not trying to push my agenda, I am trying just to understand. The above things, which I wrote, I am doing with all respect to you and the work you did.

-- Abrvagl ( talk) 20:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

In regards to number 1- the first source you gave me does not say that the area north of the river- so does not support your claim in any way shape or form. For the second source- the primary one- primary sources cannot be used to support controversial additions except in very rare circumstances- and this addition is obviously controversial. If multiple secondary sources say one thing and a single primary source says something different- mentioning what the single primary source says in WP:UNDUE. that is the case here. Secondary sources take priority. The first source-= the encyclopedia- you provided is also, not a secondary source- it is a Tertiary source- like WP itself. A tertiary source presents a summary of what other sources, usually secondary, say about a topic. Meaning it can be used, but will be given less weight than secondary sources (see WP:TSF). As to the 2nd question you had- Warning you of being taken to the ANI- is not an aspersion- it is a clear and direct warning that you are in danger of being reported- Its actually me trying to be helpful and give you yet another opportunity to change your ways. And accusing you of nationalistic editing is fully supported by your editing history- focusing only on adding a specific POV to articles relating to a single nationality. I checked your contributions as I do pretty much anyone who files at the DRN. Its only an aspersion if I am making an accusation unjustly- if you would like, I will retract the warning and instead take you to the ANI now as a WP:NOTTHERE- it won't be the first time you have had to defend your actions there. You don't appear to be making much progress on learning the correct way to collaborate with your fellow editors. Perhaps you should walk away from this genre and edit something you feel a bit less passionately about. What is not going to happen is further debate here. You opened a DRN, I closed it, this conversation has reached its conclusion. Nightenbelle ( talk) 20:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Arvbaq1 - I came to User talk:Nightenbelle to state that I agreed with her closure of the dispute. I still agree with her. I won't add anything at this time unless she or you add anything (and then I may or may not). Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Nightenbelle, thanks for comprehensive explanation. Robert McClenon Thanks for professionally sharing your view, I highly appreciate that.

Nightenbelle, I did not mean to debate, It is more like conversation to understand decision. I will bring screenshoots of the page from Encyclopaedia of Islam. There more details and references to sources, and I just want to know your opinion on that, if it is still not counts as reliable source?

https://ibb.co/nszLXwd

https://ibb.co/7yFjrrf

P.s. honestly, im not an nationalistic editor. Im editing only for few weeks, and the only aim of mine is to improve articles. Im doing edits when on my free time and I physically cannot focus on more than 2-4 articles, because im also spending time to find and read the sources (which is time consuming). Should I not do edits on the articles about which Im reading and doing my own research only because that others will see something negative in that? I mean if I propose something valid and which will improve article, does nationality staff really matter? -- Abrvagl ( talk) 23:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

up to now your edits have been in areas highly edited by editors from the area who traditionally seek to put their nationalist pov in. The information you have added is the same type they try to add with the same low quality sources they use. That is not adding value. Before you edit again - read all of wp:rs to understand what exactly we need from a source. And yes- I would recommend until you get the hang of editing you stay away from pages that have political conflict associated with them that also happen to be related to the region you live. After you prove your competence and that you are truly here to build and improve this encyclopedia- people will be less likely to assume you are yet another nationalistic troll. I hope you mean what you say and you are here to collaborate and add to this project- but, for now, you need to move off this subject- you are not editing it well or fairly at this time. Nightenbelle ( talk) 00:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess you are right. I will finish discussions on the proposed edits which I already stared and move for a while to the articles which not such stressful and has political conflict potential. You right there is already ANI on me, but I found this ani more political and try to block me, rather than rational. For example there even wa try to falsely accuse in order to get me blocked: User Kevo327 accusations that I allegedly logged out of my account and deleted some information from the article is aslo WP:WIAPA.

But anyways, thanks for spending your time to explain! Have a good day! -- Abrvagl ( talk) 05:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Passion is not a bad thing- but it does lead to bias editing. From what I can see from your contributions- you have not been editing according to what the majority of secondary sources say. It seems like you have felt your preferred point of view has not been receiving enough focus so you find 1 or 2 sources to support you and add it. Unfortunately- when there are 1000 sources that say one thing- and 2 that say another- The neutral thing to do is focus on the perspective with 1000 sources at the exclusion of the 2 sources. Giving those 2 sources as much attention as the 1000 is not equitable and makes it seem that those two sources are more valuable than the 1000- when, in reality, 1000 > 2. Its frustrating I know- but its how we stay neutral. Now- when its more equal- like 800 vs 300, we can add a sentence about the other perspective-but only a sentence. We do not exist to cover every single perspective. That's not our purpose. Our purpose is a brief overview. There are areas I avoid editing because I am too passionate. I know I cannot be neutral enough to be fair- so I just stay away. Sometimes that is best. Nightenbelle ( talk) 14:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I got it and agree with the approach. So I'm closing the dispute and won't return to it unless new sources float to the surface. All the best to you! -- Abrvagl ( talk) 18:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Nightenbelle, you rollbacked multiple edits I made to the page, which are all sourced. The claim that "the high school was an all-white school until the 1950s" is sourced in the "History" section of the page. I can easily source that, but could you please undelete all my edits, which are sourced? NaturalSoundsYEAH! ( talk) 18:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC) All you have to do is add the sources. That's all I'm asking. I can't restore an edit unless it is sourced- so I'm sorry, you need to re-add the information including a source for the controversial edits. Nightenbelle ( talk) 19:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. NaturalSoundsYEAH! ( talk) 19:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Višeslav of Serbia on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Continental Association on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{ db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{ db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bengali Kayastha on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Adolf Eichmann on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey!!! Really need your help here. Kindlly check out this draft article I wrote, Draft:Vict0ny. I'd really like some feedback on what to do better and if it's good enough as it is. If there are things i could do to make it bettter, I'd like your feedback on that as well. Thank you so much Olakunle Rufai ( talk) 14:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I was planning to decline it as promotional advocacy. Do you think the organization itself is notable? Most reviewers, I'd just send to AfD, but when you & I disagree, I want to check. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I do think it is notable in and of itself- borderline, but notable.... however its current state is pretty promotional. I was pretty on the fence about this one- but ... I don't know. Its one that if I read on a different day I might have sent back to the drawing board to tone down the promotion, I just really feel on the fence about it. Nightenbelle ( talk) 15:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Taw on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gautama Buddha on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2022 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the April newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2021. Election results: Jonesey95 retired as lead coordinator. Reidgreg was approved to fill this role after an 18-month absence from the coordinator team, and Baffle gab1978 was chosen as an assistant coordinator following a one-year break. Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu continued on as long-standing assistant coordinators. January Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up, 16 editors claimed 146 copy edits including 45 requests. ( details) February Blitz: This one-week effort focused on requests and a theme of Africa and African diaspora history. Of the 12 editors who signed up, 6 editors recorded 21 copy edits, including 4 requests. ( details) March Drive: Of the 28 editors who signed up, 18 claimed 116 copy edits including 25 requests. ( details) April Blitz: This one-week copy editing event has been scheduled for 17–23 April, sign up now! Progress report: As of 11 April, copy editors have removed approximately 500 articles from the backlog and completed 127 copy-editing requests during 2022. The backlog has been hovering at about 1,100 tagged articles for the past six months. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Syro-Malabar Church on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

As you have probably seen, it is now at WP:ANI including my summary. It looks like a case where an administrator was out of line and is slowly apologizing. At least, that is what I think. I am going to my daily swim workout, and will be back in a few hours. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, the conclusion was, as I thought, that an administrator was out of line and has been cautioned. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, as you may have seen, other editors have taken the case to WP:ANI, and I have thrown out the idea of topic-banning both of them for three months. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

FFS. heading over there now. If they are topic banned- maybe those of us not emotionally invested can actually clean that mess up without fighting those two. Nightenbelle ( talk) 19:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Heja, I asked you for help with the Daniel Lee page ages ago and now it seems that people are deleting important contextual information to drown the information. I fixed it, but am worried that without a lock company propaganda will continue and am more convinced than ever that the last incursion was actually a Botega Venetta Employee. The totally deleted all information from Botega Venetta, so I readded it there once more, I expect it will quickly evolve into another edit war, it seems Botega really cares about it's image in Wiki. talonx 77.13.166.64 ( talk) 18:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I also contacted the person who tried to reveal my geolocation to bring them into the discussion again, this was a part of their edit war last time too. talonx 77.13.166.64 ( talk) 19:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Nightenbelle ( talk) 19:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Just checking to be sure you know he has had talk page access removed as part of his indefinite block. Doug Weller talk 13:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Didn't even realize he had an indef. Sigh. Oh well- he could have been a great addition- if he could have taken some accountability. Nightenbelle ( talk) 14:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe. He's said that is his real name and he's described himself, so I'm guessing he is [4] [5] [6]. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh now I'm hungry. Tempted to make a mug cake. Or use my Ghirardelli mug cake mix. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

A user attempted, I think- to give me the mug cake and butterfly cupcake as a barnstar- but yes, it makes me hungry every time I come to my own talk page. I must say, I'm surprised that someone who publishes such controversial things in much more public spaces has not yet learned how to take criticism without imploding. Or does every person who disagrees with their opinion article also commit the sin of persecution of handicapped catholic Italians? Sigh. As another neurodivergent, I find it frustrating when people use theirs as a crutch- or a reason for demanding special treatment- its sets all of us back. Nightenbelle ( talk) 14:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. That he was upset and yet publishes such clearly controversial material elsewhere, he either that a thin skin or more likely was just trying to get sympathy. And use it as a club at ANI of course. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2022 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June 2022 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since April 2022. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Blitz: of the 16 editors who signed up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, 12 completed at least one copy-edit, and between them removed 21 articles from the copy-editing backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 27 editors signed up for our May Backlog Elimination Drive; of these, 20 copy-edited at least one article. 144 articles were copy-edited, and 88 articles from our target months August and September 2021 were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: our June Copy Editing Blitz, starting at 00:01, 19 June and closing at 00:59, 25 June (UTC), will focus on articles tagged for copy edit in September and October 2021, and requests from March, April and May 2022. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 07:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 209 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,404 articles. Election news: Nominations for our half-yearly Election of Coordinators continues until 23:50 on 15 June (UTC), after which, voting will commence until 23:59, 30 June (UTC). All Wikipedians in good standing (active and not blocked, banned, or under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Are we both being a little unpleasant today? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Were there three absurd cases that needed closing today? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, you could say four cases in two days, but the European colonization of the Americas case was closed concisely, and there really would have been a content dispute if the editor hadn't flamed and insulted other editors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't feel unpleasant- was I? I felt stern and blunt.... but I was't actually trying to be unpleasant. If I was.... well if I was it was kinda appropriate- but I didn't intend to be. Nightenbelle ( talk) 21:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Stern and blunt, not inappropriately. I am sure that any of the three closures would be unpleasant for the filing party. In each case, they brought it sort of on themselves. I was about to close the tagging dispute differently, but also bluntly, and I don't disagree with your closure. I would have closed it by saying that all tagging disputes are essentially stupid, and that they should be resolved by doing something rather than arguing over the tagging. In the case of a notability tag, if the tag is disputed, either send it to AFD, or remove the tag. As I said, any of the three closures would seem unpleasant for the filing party. And racism is racism, whether it is by Asians or against Asians. I think that the real problem with an older White male marrying a young attractive Asian trophy wife is not racism but sexism, which doesn't depend on the races of the couple, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

except the filing editor was saying the women were marrying the white men as trophy husbands- which I had not heard of…. But it’s possible I guess Nightenbelle ( talk) 02:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes. That is a different spin, still sexist and racist, to blame the women for finding trophy husbands. Yuck.

The Gary Wilson case is really bizarre. They seem to have been some sort of troll or trolls operating sockpuppets. They have been blocked, not for edit-warring, but as sockpuppets. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the Gary Wilson case.... what the heck? Is it a full moon this week or something? Odd. Weeks of few cases, boring cases even (not complaining) and then BOOM- 3 or 4 wild cases back to back to back. Nightenbelle ( talk) 12:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, full moon. And see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OwDOnimEDGENiORmyTErentea. (Don't try to type it in. Just click on it.) Those sockpuppets with those bizarre names were arguing over the Gary Wilson dispute. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

That is bizzaro. Full moon and summer vacation in America- lots of kiddos home with very little to do and even less adult supervision on computers. Nightenbelle ( talk) 15:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy birthday! Hi Nightenbelle! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

I read the Teahouse discussion. You could have said, "But wait! There's more. It gets worse!" The question is whether Flahistory needs to be blocked for a combination of conflict of interest, article ownership, and competency concerns. I will think about that this evening after doing more important things, such as swimming, and reading the Bible publicly. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah….. it’s my birthday weekend. I don’t have time for a trip to ani- too busy wallowing in self-pity at turning 40. Nightenbelle ( talk) 22:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:North Carolina on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tewodros I on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

hi sorry to bother you can you check my draft ? thank you /info/en/?search=Draft:Sina_alam Kiava ( talk) 21:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

or whatever, out of touch with the Internet.

There have been eight DRN cases, of which three were opened for mediation, and five were closed without being opened. Of the three open cases, one was closed as abandoned by the filing party, who didn't follow up and provide details. (That annoyed me.) One I closed as failed because the other editor has reported the filing editor as a sockpuppet. One is awaiting statements.

Of the five that were closed without being opened, two were closed for inadequate discussion, one for inadequate discussion and other defects, one for other defects, and one for being an overall mess. I may update this in the future. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it standard procedure to shut-down moderated discussion of content when one editor accuses another editor he disagrees with of being a sock-puppet? If so, then I guess it can't be helped. I left a note on the DRN talk page anyway including the paragraphs that were requested. I hope moderated discussion can continue soon... 50.45.170.185 ( talk) 05:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey Robert- sorry, we moved Saturday, I wasn't sure when I would have internet access set up at the new house- but surprise- I do now. I'm sorry its been a mess over at DRN. I'm here now- and all I'm doing is unpacking- so lots of time to help out between boxes. Now- IP User- yes, it is standard proceedure to shut down DRN once behavior issues are brought up. As is CLEARLY stated MULTIPLE times on the page and when a volunteer opens, or closes, the dispute- we handled content issues only- behavior issues belong on another board. Also- we do not handle cases that are also open on other boards- so if you accuse someone of sock-puppetry- we assume either- you are going to open a case at the appropriate board, or you can't read the rules and are going to keep using personal attacks to slow the process down and shut down the DRN board. I'm not saying you did that- because I have no idea what's been going on since I've been away- I'm using the general "You" to indicate a person who would do that. If someone is accusing you of sockpuppetry and NOT opening a case- I would get an admin to advise you on how to proceed (assuming you are not in fact a sock puppet- if you are a sock puppet- go away you're breaking rules.)... Again- I'm using the generic you- not you personally IP user- because I have no clue what is going on. Nightenbelle ( talk) 13:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that DRN was a mess. It is just that the cases that we had to dismiss were more messed up than usual, but that didn't make more work in closing them; it just made them differently stupid. The two cases that I closed after opening are a different matter. In one case I have no idea why it was filed if the filer wasn't going to make a statement. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

( t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Višeslav of Serbia on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I am unfortunately not really surprised that the dispute fizzled out. It seems that much of the problem is that two of the editors do not like each other, and are being civil but are not working effectively. There may be some history between Kvng and Hipal of which I am not aware; I don't know. The other problem is that it appears to have been largely a tagging dispute, and tagging disputes are essentially stupid. There shouldn't a quarrel over whether to remove a tag, but over whether the article should be improved, and if so how. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I wonder whether they are going to attempt an RFC, or discuss effectively, or discuss ineffectively. I don't wonder that hard. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah.... I can see both sides on this one- but it seems that it would be a simple dispute- the side that believes the tag should be left on should generate a list of what needs to be done (specifically) before it can be removed. And the other side should do those items they don't have a problem with, and then both discuss items they differ on. Simple. They are making it a big deal for no reason. Nightenbelle ( talk) 19:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to advocate for a COI editor who is respecting our policies and has given productive suggestions but is not being given any respect by Hipal. I don't have a history with Hipal but I do take issue with a sentiment that all declared COI contributions are garbage. ~ Kvng ( talk) 21:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this advocating for a COI editor is being done without a good understanding of the relevant policies. The comments like I do take issue with a sentiment that all declared COI contributions are garbage are disruptive. I never said anything remotely like that, nor demonstrated it. Quite the opposite, but perhaps not in the discussions for this specific article. Then there's but is not being given any respect, which is worse. -- Hipal ( talk) 18:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

wasn’t gonna comment on this…. But since you two decided to jump on a conversation between me and another editor… Hipal as an outside observer- you have not been showing the coi editor respect at all. They have made numerous suggestions which you dismiss and they have asked you multiple times for specific concerns and you don’t provide them. I agree- the article still sounds promotional- but you should be guiding them- not blocking their attempts to improve it. Like I said- I wasn’t gonna get into it- but you came to my talk page- so you get my two cents now. I’ve done closed the case- my neutrality requirement has expired. And- should it be re-opened, I’ll gladly recuse myself now that I have been allowed the luxury or an opinion. Nightenbelle ( talk) 19:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

We disagree. I've provided specific concerns. If you'll identify anything that I've written that shows disrespect on my part, I'll refactor it and apologize. -- Hipal ( talk) 19:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Just popping in here to thank User:Robert McClenon and User:Nightenbelle for their interest in helping resolve this dispute. I agree that this has gotten somewhat out of hand. User:Nightenbelle's comment above describes my frustrations pretty well. I have been trying to better understand the specific steps that need to be taken in order to align the Icertis page with Wikipedia's content standards, but have not received clear guidance.

With respect to the DRN thread, I apologize for not contributing swiftly enough. I wasn’t sure if it was best practice for me to participate. I would be happy to offer my perspective if the discussion was reopened. Alternatively, if either User:Robert McClenon or User:Nightenbelle believe there's a better forum at which to sort this thing out, I can chime in there.

In general, I don't want to editorialize too heavily on the nature of this dispute, given my COI status, but I am available to answer questions and clarify the details of my involvement, as needed. I want to help however I can to move this process toward a resolution. Icertis Laura ( talk) 21:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hipal, well, since you asked..... lets start with [ [7]] where you make up a definition of promotional entirely unsupported by any WP policy. Thats bizzare and I would love an answer to where you got that definition- link please- not just an opinion. Next- how about the fact that 2 non-employee accounts agreed that the article sourcing is fine and it does not sound promotional. Thats a consensus- yet you refuse to allow the tag to be removed or WP:DROPTHESTICK- why? Again- please link to the policy that is supporting your actions, not just your opinion- because we edit according to policy- not opinions here. Third- in this edit- [ [8]] you mention MANY undeclared SPAs. Please list your suspected COI accounts on the COI noticeboard- since MANY implies more than the 2 that were explained by the declared COI account and apologized for. Failure to do that is WP:Casting_aspersions and is generally considered WP:Personal attack- although you don't name names so.... skirting that rule. On June 29th you remove adequately sourced information because you don't like it- [ [9]] Again- if there is another reason- please link the policy supporting you. Ask Kvng stated- this information is typically in articles about start ups- so what is wrong with it in this article? (Notice I am ignoring anything supported only by the COI editor- while I happen to think they have done admirably balancing their COI with improving the article- for the sake of this discussion- I'm going to focus on only issues other non-COI editors have seen with your editing of this page. Next- please explain how this edit [ [10]] is in any way constructive or moving towards a compromise? In your next edit- [ [11]] You then accuse Kvng of having a COI- or why would you want to bring them to the COI noticeboard? Again- without proof- that is WP:ASPERSIONS- and that is certainly disrespectful- so you might want to strike that. As for them calling you disagreeable- you literally just commented "We continue to disagree" with nothing more. So yeah- that's disagreeable. You disagree.....consistently. And finally- here [ [12]] you state you intend to WP:Forum shop until you get your way. All of this is concerning behavior- I'm sure you can see that. Its not quite reportable to the ANI.... yet- but I would strongly recommend you work with your fellow editors and make some concessions and respect WP:CONCENSUS. Nightenbelle ( talk) 17:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do this.

I'm having some difficulties with your diffs, so I'll repeat to ensure we're talking about the same thing.

First [13]: How is this disrespectful to anyone? Second, it's based upon NOT and POV: NOTNEWS, SOAP. If you'll look at my comments and edit summaries, you'll see I brought up NOTNEWS from the beginning, yet no one has directly responded to it even now...

Writing an article entirely from a corporation's own publicity doesn't make an encyclopedia article. That's what I think we have here, though the sources are warmed-over press releases and the like, making it more difficult for us to judge what is due from them, as opposed to if they were the press releases that they're based upon. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

2 non-employee accounts agreed Consensus is not a vote, and ignoring policy (such as NOTNEWS) does not make for consensus. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion is they are not quality sources. No- its not a vote- but two other accounts disagree with you on if they are acceptable sources and YOU alone are saying your evaluation is of more weight than theirs. And if you cannot see how you are disrespectful to your fellow editors- I don't know how else to help you. The most important pillar of WP is collaboration. You are displaying WP:OWN and ignoring anyone you disagree with. Multiple people are telling you this. Listen or not but at some point if you don't listen- you will have problems. Nightenbelle ( talk) 17:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

We disagree. You appear to be personalizing the situation, and you too are ignoring NOTNEWS while accusing me of ignoring others... -- Hipal ( talk) 17:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

MANY undeclared SPAs I've refactored my comments on the article talk page, striking out "likly UPE". I can look further. I may have assumed the editing by the two identified UPEs was indicative of a larger problem.

Looking a bit further: I use the article stats to determine the extent of editor activity, but I don't know of any way to see the stats for the article at the time I made comments or edits, so I don't know exactly what I was commenting on at the time. There are at least a few SPAs, the article creation looks sketchy, and there's at least one blocked editor there for SPAM/PROMO problems. I've struckout "many". -- Hipal ( talk) 22:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

because you don't like it [14] We disagree. You've made assumptions that are wrong and not in good faith. I will continue, but please strike out. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I've made a quick pass through your comments, and struck out one more item [15].

Without commenting on anything else, I think it best to stop here, but I'll try to continue if you'd like. -- Hipal ( talk) 22:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Again with the "we disagree." That statement from you is ridiculous, unnecessary, unhelpful and uncollaborative. I will strike out nothing. You have given no indication you understand the policies you quote. Many of the sources are genuine, from respected sources. You reject them and claim WP:NOTNEWS but just quoting that doesn't make it true. You seem to think your agreement is necessary for progress- its not. Consensus is. You're right- its not a vote. But at the same time- when one editor is displaying WP:OWN and WP:DROPTHESTICK and other editors are repeatedly trying to explain how their behavior is unacceptable and they just continue with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT..... Eventually the consensus will be to ignore the one who keeps stating I disagree and edit anyway. When editors go to boards like the DRN to ask for help and opinions and yet more editors come in and say HEY- you are doing something wrong here- you need to take a step back- and you STILL respond with your condescending, unhelpful "I Disagree"- at some point you really have to examine yourself. AS for the comments on this page- I've made no assumptions- I've given you the perspective of an outsider- you don't like it? The only part you can control is yourself- change your actions and maybe you will get a different reaction. Until then- step off my talk page with this nonsense. You are no longer welcome here with your obstinate theatrics. Nightenbelle ( talk) 13:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@ Hipal, sorry for making assumptions about the reasons for your behavior. I do assume your overall motivation is to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. The problem is this is a collaborative project so we need to be able to work together on this. But first, I'm going to take a break from this dispute. ~ Kvng ( talk) 01:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The Nova Scotia dispute is another one that I think is being handled ineffectively by the participants. I closed it after no response. Then the filing editor asked me on my talk page to reopen it because he had been unable to access the Internet for several days due to travel problems. I told him to restart discussion on the article talk page. He has also made one post to another editor, and either has lost interest or is back off the net. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Well the internet thing I get- I don't loose internet, but I do get busy with work or weekends..... but then- I'm also not holding up articles being edited to suit my timeline so meh. Nightenbelle ( talk) 19:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

He says that he often is without Internet access. I have advised him to ask for advice at the Teahouse about advice for editors with only intermittent Internet access. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You closed this due to no response. I wanted to make sure you noticed that there is/was ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Summary_of_dispute_by_Hipal. It doesn't appear to be particularly constructive discussion so maybe not the kind of response you need. ~ Kvng ( talk) 21:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

no one stated they had reviewed the rules or that they intended to participate- thus- no response closure. If the editors involved can’t reply to a simple request in 4 days- drn is not going to work. If you would like to try again- you are welcome to reopen- but please be sure a majority of those involved plan to respond this time. Nightenbelle ( talk) 03:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Kvng - I don't see anything that I would characterize as discussion during the three days after Nightenbelle asked who was willing to take part in discussion. There was a useless back-and-forth a few hours after she asked who was willing to discuss. Neither of you said that you wanted to discuss; you basically questioned the value of discussion. Then there was nothing for three days. Then she closed the discussion, edit-conflicting with another unproductive comment by User:Hipal. If I had been the would-be mediator, I would have closed the discussion 12 to 24 hours earlier (which would have avoided the edit-conflict with Hipal). Just making cynical comments about being unsure if you want to discuss is hardly a response to a specific question. She asked who wanted to discuss, and you were silent for 48 hours. It looks to me as if the paid editor is trying to play by the rules. As I said yesterday, I am not sure about the volunteer editors, but not answering whether you want to discuss is not the same as agreeing to discuss. Maybe the two of you should find an article that doesn't have COI editors, and quarrel about it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

No problem. That's what I assumed. I just wanted to check my assumption. No need to be snarky. ~ Kvng ( talk) 22:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Robert for answering..... Kvng- Robert and I are snarky on this page. All the time. Its not personal. Its just our personalities. Nightenbelle ( talk) 17:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if you pay much attention to WP:AN, which is not the same as WP:ANI (which I think is its brattier child). Did you see the trip that I was taken on there a few days ago? I had warned an editor for suggesting that another editor was lying, with a Level 3 AGF notice. The other editor got upset by this, which I can understand, and then asked me on my talk page what the issue was, but then immediately also reported me at WP:AN. They forgot to notify me. Another editor did. By the time I was able to start writing my own comments, the Original Poster was blocked for personal attacks (not so much on me as on the other editors). Sometimes those boomerangs are fast. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I don’t keep an eye on it as much as ani- but I saw that one. Damn it closed fast though! Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		This award is given to Nightenbelle for 5 reviews and 4 re-reviews in the July NPP backlog reduction drive. Your contributions played a part in the 9895 reviews that took place during the drive. Thank you for your contributions.. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

If you happened to be away from your screen for a few hours, you might not have understood what happened at DRN. An editor filed a dispute about a Taylor Swift song. It had not been discussed at the song talk page, so I closed it. The filing editor then reverted my closure of the case, and changed the title to Taylor Swift, saying that the discussion had been at Talk:Taylor Swift. I closed the second filing because the editor has also filed at the edit-warring noticeboard. So that is sort of two closed cases.

Also, I asked for a comment from the administrator who had revdel'd the copyvio material, and the admin agrees with my analysis. Because the editor had been copying the report of Blinken's remarks from CNN, the account of the remarks was copyrighted. If they find a report of Blinken's remarks on a public domain site, such as a government web site, they can repost them, attributing to the public domain source. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello! This is Laura from Icertis. I'm returning here because I'm somewhat at a loss as to what I can do next to improve the Icertis page. The dispute above has fizzled out, for the time being, and the page is now in pretty bad shape, with three tags and not much content. After Hipal and Kvng went back and forth, a third editor came through and deleted a sizable chunk of the Technology section. They didn't leave a summary on one of their edits, so I posted to the Talk page asking for further clarification, but didn't get a response.

I know my role in contributing to the Icertis page is secondary. I'm a COI editor, so I make suggestions and then independent editors review and implement my ideas. That seems totally fair to me. What I'm having trouble with is that I'm not getting feedback that I can use to strengthen the quality of my edit requests, and the material I'm putting forward. And at the same time, I don't want to nag editors for that feedback. I'm also struggling with generally knowing how to approach the tags issue, since editors have disagreed. I know everybody here is a volunteer, and I want to be respectful of people's time.

You struck me as eminently reasonable, in that big melee above. Do you have any advice as to how I should proceed from here? I'm truly not trying to turn the Icertis page into a promotional brochure. I just want it to feature accurate information about the company and what it does. Any suggestions you might have on how to make that happen would be tremendously appreciated. Thanks! Icertis Laura ( talk) 18:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I will take a look today and see what I come up with. I'm sorry you're hitting road blocks. Nightenbelle ( talk) 13:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you for taking the time to help! The page has accrued quite a dense edit and Talk page history over the past few months. I know it's a lot to sift through. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. I don't want to offer commentary on what other editors have been up to, but I can clarify my own thinking and straightforward details, as needed. Icertis Laura ( talk) 20:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly forgot about this by the time I was back at a computer, so I'm glad you commented again to remind me. I did take a look- and I agree with most of what was deleted. Talking about clients is inappropriate, which makes the blockchain bit questionable as well. However, I did re-add the bit about AI- I think that is useful / interesting. I have to be honest though- I don't see that the company is any more notable than the hundreds of thousands of other software companies. I'm going to try to do more research.... but unless there is something more notable than other run of the mill stuff- I don't see this article growing much. Just because something exists- doesn't mean it needs a huge WP article. I've worked for several companies in the past that, while cool and wonderful places to work, do not require an article, or maybe only a short one. Its just the nature of WP. Nightenbelle ( talk) 15:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to review the page and give me this thoughtful reply. Obviously, I would love to have the Icertis page overflowing with information, but I understand that's not how Wikipedia works. If you do more research and find previously removed content or new information that you feel is up to the site's standards, terrific. If not, that's totally fair. Perhaps, as you said, the page deserves to be brief.

I did want to ask one more thing: do you have any advice on steps I should take to get the tags removed? Those bother me more than the page being short. I feel like they suggest that it's dishonest in tone or that I've made direct edits myself. When I started making edit requests, the page had a written like an advertisement tag on it, and I thought "well, if I follow all the COI and content rules, I should at least be able to solve that problem." Now it's got three tags. You see my predicament.

Anyway, thanks again for your help! Icertis Laura ( talk) 00:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Well- I did remove the advert tag- I don't feel that is an issue anymore, and I'm ready to make that case if needed. However- the other two are still accurate. Even though you are going through the talk page like you should- you are still the main person initiating adding new information- so the COI tag will probably stay for the forseeable future. The sourcing tag- that we could fix IF we could find more sources that were not press releases. And you and I both know that 90% of the articles used were created from company issued information. We're both in business- we know how this works. Until there are independent news articles not initiated by company press releases- that tag is gonna stick around as well. Sorry I don't have better news. Nightenbelle ( talk) 17:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for giving everything a thorough review. I definitely agree with you that the page could use better sourcing. At the company we're hopeful that, as we grow, we'll generate more independent press coverage that we can use to strengthen the page further. If that happens, I'll return to the Talk page with some fresh edit requests and see what non-COI editors think. Hopefully with a little less drama than in this go-round.

It's been nice talking to you about this and I'll take your advice with me going forward. Take care! Icertis Laura ( talk) 22:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The ANI appears to have been archived without action. It was brought by someone who is not a party to the DRN. As a judgment call, I think that if it can be resolved by DRN or by RFC, that is a better solution than pie-throwing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Just wanted to be sure you were aware in case it did blow up. It was on the same topic, even if not the same person. Still- I’m glad they are engaging Nightenbelle ( talk) 15:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

As you have seen, it did blow up with another ANI. That is, the filing party blew the case up by losing his temper at the other editor. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It would be funny if it weren't so sad how many of these are predictable. Nightenbelle ( talk) 21:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The other problem with the request that you just closed was that they had top-posted it. I didn't even see their post at first (after you had closed it), because it looked like the last post to the article talk page was seven years ago. I have left him a note telling him to use the software the way it is written, so that he posts to the bottom.

The speed of light thread is incomprehensible. If there is no further action on it within 24 hours, I may close it as incomprehensible. I really am not sure whether the editor is a troll (I don't think so) or is scientifically deluded (a crackpot) (more likely). Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I saw the top posted discussion- it still had like 3 comments all of them in the last 24 hours. So- still need to slow their roll and discuss more first. The other one- Yeah I agree, I didn't know what else to say or do other than what you said. Nightenbelle ( talk) 21:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Well, physics has its share of crackpots, although I have recently been learning that there are a variety of crackpot theories in history too (which are that periods of a few centuries didn't happen).

And the Most Recent One

The one about the Uyghurs is one of two topic areas that those two editors are quarreling about, with another dispute over another Central Asian people at Third Opinion. The basic problem is that they are enemies, and that one of them has a vendetta against the other one, saying that they are a sockpuppet of a banned editor, but CheckUser says that they are unrelated. They will end up at WP:ANI. Maybe one of them will report the other, or maybe a third party will report them. I don't know if there will be a survivor. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Anfal campaign on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Magnolia hasn't replied to SusanLesch on the city guide dispute. If they don't reply within a few hours, I will ping them. If they still don't reply, the dispute has to be closed, but I expect that they will reply. I will leave it up to you whether then to take that dispute as a follow-on or to leave it to me because you have earned your pay on the Minneapolis dispute. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

As you can see, I pinged them. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

if magnolia responds I’ll take it as follow up. If not- I’ll close it. I’m out driving today- but I’ll be home tonight to follow up on both. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I like your work u solve Racism and other things. could we be friends 201226nick ( talk) 17:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Friends are always a good thing :-) Nightenbelle ( talk) 22:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

yay what times are u online 201226nick ( talk) 22:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't think u would wanna be friends. No one ever wants to be my friend. 😥 201226nick ( talk) 22:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	hi 201226nick ( talk) 18:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I know u from thinker78's talk page 201226nick ( talk) 22:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Nightenbelle. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman ( talk) 11:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Nightenbelle! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

( t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Nightenbelle! I’m glad you’re jumping in on the Accountability Software discussion. I’ve been alarmed that the page was rewritten completely a few days ago in such a way that it misrepresents what accountability software is used for. The editor took a new news story about a church misusing the software and is making it appear that the *purpose* of the software is to misuse it in that way! It’s really bad and I’m concerned he’s not interested in constructive discussion. If I post a comment he generally ignores it (like now - it’s been 6 hours). He usually only comments if I make a change that he or the other guy reverts back, but he never addresses all of my comments.

I really try to give the benefit of the doubt, but he *appears* to have an agenda rather than wanting an even-handed accurate article. Could use whatever help you can bring! I’ll take any suggestions as well. Thanks in advance :). Keithgreenfan ( talk) 00:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Look- I'll be honest- I think its fine as it is. I'm just trying to act as a neutral party to help you figure out what you need to do to get your point of you across- I'm not here to help anyone specifically other than the encyclopedia as a whole. Nightenbelle ( talk) 13:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, makes sense. Should have clarified ‘help’ as in helping with the discussion between all parties. We actually now have the process rolling with a moderator (which I’ve not used before) so hopefully that will help. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithgreenfan ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your resolution of the MSNBC dispute resolution thread. Can I ask your advice on how I should have handled things? I've been around for a few months and lurked as an IP editor before but I still feel like there's rules and norms that I'm not aware of or don't fully understand (yet don't want to break!). Or would it be better to ask at the Teahouse? I don't wanna make it seem like you're roped into explaining things just because you closed the thread lol. Jasonkwe ( talk) ( contribs) 20:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

No problem- from what I can see- you have been handling things fine. You have another editor who doesn't want to compromise, and then the other person on your side is a POV conspiracy theorist who, honestly WP:NOTHERE. At this point- I would post at a Wiki-group that is related- I'm not sure which one that would be- or open a WP:RFC. the DRN is good for extended discussions when both sides are open to compromise- not so much when one side is refusing to discuss at all. You need to gather a consensus to change or leave it alone- and to do that- you need more people involved. Nightenbelle ( talk) 22:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, personal attacks from an established editor. One thing I can advise you about Jasonkwe, if you are established editor with a certain point of view (POV) personal attacks are ignored :)

Nightenbelle, what part of my edits to say, Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade, thus far are "Not here to build an encyclopedia". WP:NOTHERE

Just because my facts doesn't match yours, does not make me a "conspiracy theorist". I mentioned the The Shock Doctrine - (watch the movie here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3B5qt6gsxY&t=703s ) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1114577910 It is painful to watch the first 9/11 in 1973 ( 1973 Chilean coup d'état ) but realizing you have a problem is the first step toward recovery, (and reconciliation). The Germans and Japan did it after World War 2, the USSR did in 1991, and I hope soon the US does too.

By all statistical measures which no one can dispute, the United States is internationally the most violent country in the world today. With 800 military bases, proxy wars in a variety of countries, only 17 years in its entire history where it was not at war, the successful genocide of the Native American (which Hitler studied), and a military industrial complex that spends more money then the top 10 countries combined. If you support this country, what does it make you Nightenbelle?

I understand, it is hard to accept facts that do not build upon your own worldview, in fact it is actually physcially painful. It has been for me. Adam Ruins Everything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8NydsXl32s It is much easier, but much more intellectually indolent, to just dismiss someone elses facts as garbage. :)

I have "ranted" enough, cause that is what you will call it.... :) Have a great weekend Jasonkwe and Nightenbelle. Cheers May1787 ( talk) 02:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I really think you should take some time to step back and take a breath. I know I need to when I get ticked off over stuff on wikipedia.

I understand that some of the issues at hand have been tragic and the US government has had a hand in many of them but wikipedia is not a platform for directly communicating a message(s). If readers are enlightened after reading the content of an article that's a good thing but, as far as I understand, editors don't write or interpret history, we just record it (and its analyses by experts in the field). If the information is true and we make it available, then that's our job done correctly. It's not up to us to try to connect the dots for readers or convince people of anything.

Dammit all. I spent all this time writing this stuff up only to find that May1787 is a sockpuppet and has been banned and won't be able to respond. Well, if you do see this, Happydaze, please consider what was written. Jasonkwe ( talk) ( contribs) 04:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah- I was pretty damn sure they were a sock puppet. The sad thing- its not even that they are wrong- but they are taking a ton of facts and stringing them together and hoping they add up to some big conspiracy when all they really add up to is- we (the US) are a bunch of violent, greedy, egotistical idiots who keep electing the worst of us to run the country because they make compelling speeches vilifying the other side. Regardless of whether I agree or not, until there are big ole factual reports to back it up- its conspiracy and WP:OR. Nightenbelle ( talk) 17:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@ Nightenbelle Thanks for the advice. I thought I said it but I'd initially gone with dispute resolution noticeboard because, looking at it and RfC, the RfC seemed to be described as the more resource intensive since you're asking for opinions of many editors. But then again, the dispute resolution requires in depth time investment from 1-2 dispute resolution staff so I guess it balances out. Good to know that RfC isn't too huge of a burden (not that I would post up there willy nilly!).

Anyhows, Thinker78 dropped by and noted that per MOS:ACRO1STUSE, the recommendation is pretty straightforward so it got worked out somehow.

Yeahh....as I was writing up that post (before I knew they were a sockpuppet), I went through the same thing. His presentation just smacked of conspiracy theory vibes that reminded me of this, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong. Dismissing because of those vibes would just be Graham's hierarchy's Responding to Tone, especially since the links he posted were good sources.

But I think you're saying (and I agree) that the evidence of US foreign policy devastating other peoples is there and the argument that the US society is actually an oligarchy is reasonable, but the leap from that to implying that the US government and big business (whose top people often are of the alleged oligarchy from before) influence US news media is unsupported by those sources, right? Just based on those sources, it's WP:OR to string them together. And there are sources out there that make that connection but most of them, as far as I know, are WP:FRINGE.

All to get back to the original point, he supports the proposal to include the expanded meaning of the acronym but his reasoning for that support is flawed. For one contributor's argument pertaining to a proposal concerning a single facet of an article on Wikipedia--and this isn't the primary day job for any of us (least not the honest editors). Haha kinda puts things in perspective.

Thanks again. It's nice to chat with other editors like this. Jasonkwe ( talk) ( contribs) 17:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

If you look, I believe the evidence is totally there that the government is manipulating the media.... and the media is manipulating the government. And both are manipulating the general population. The problem is - I don't think its new, nor is it as planned out as conspiracy theorists think. Its not some giant mind control master plan- its just greed. Simple greed. However- this is just my opinion. There is no reputable secondary source that has done any kind of expose on this- so we have no sources to put this onto WP. We only have primary sources and synthesis and original research- which means it doesn't belong in a WP article. And, much like the hoopla over our smart phones listening to us- it doesn't change or influence our lives nearly as much as the paranoid want to believe it does. Anyway.... thats my two cents- for what its worth. Nightenbelle ( talk) 13:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@ Nightenbelle Ahh, I see what you mean. Yeah, I agree, there is definitely government influence of media, corporate influence of government, and all the different variations but they're separate individual instances--none of the evidence points to the coordinated monolithic "New World Order" kind of influence that conspiracy theorists point toward. Funnily enough, it's the banal evils that do way more damage to the everyday citizen: excessively high health care costs, poor access to AFFORDABLE healthy food, overwork and underpay, all of which are caused by people in power but it's way less intriguing than a "Big Lie". Ah well, we do what we can, right? Jasonkwe ( talk) ( contribs) 15:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I appreciate your advice. I really didn't want to be "that guy" but honestly did not not know what to do when the person reverting seemed to have no interest in discussing. I've seen with less frequented pages that sometimes talk page discussions take a month or two to actually catch but the page for a major news network seemed like it should've had some response in a week or two (if anyone else was going to).

I'll look into posting up in a related wiki project or RfC. Or I might wait a month or two more and see if anyone else wants to jump in. Kinda tedious to keep it unchecked on my to do list but wikipedia isn't a full time job for most people. Jasonkwe ( talk) ( contribs) 03:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

If you do need any help let me know- but seriously- do an RFC- this is what they are made for. It doesn't make you that guy- it makes you a good editor. Nightenbelle ( talk) 17:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of South Carolina wildlife management areas on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors October 2022 Newsletter Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up for our July Backlog Elimination Drive, 18 copy-edited, between them, 116 articles. Barnstars awarded are noted here. Blitz: Participants in our August Copy Editing Blitz copy-edited 51,074 words in 17 articles. Of the 15 editors who signed up, 11 claimed at least one copy-edit. Barnstars awarded are noted here. Drive: Forty-one editors took part in our September Backlog Elimination Drive; between them they copy-edited 199 articles. Barnstars awards are noted here. Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz begins on 16 October at 00:01 (UTC) and will end on 22 October at 23:59 (UTC). Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 19:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 303 requests for copy edit – including withdrawn and declined ones – since 1 January. At the time of writing, there are 77 requests awaiting attention and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 1,759. We always need more active, skilled copyeditors – particularly for requests – so please get involved if you can. Election news: In our mid-year election, serving coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tenryuu were returned for another term, and were joined by new coordinator Zippybonzo. No lead coordinator was elected for this half-year. Jonesey95, a long-serving coordinator and lead, was elected as coordinator emeritus; we thank them for their service. Thank you to everyone who took part. Our next election of coordinators takes place throughout December. If you'd like to help out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself or other suitable editors (with their permission, of course!). It's your Guild, after all! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Reidgreg, Tenryuu and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Baffle☿gab 03:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• RastaKins ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Western Digital WD16 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The reasons for the rejection of the article were stated as: 1. WP is not a how-to manual. 2. Also- needs more 3rd party independent references to establish notability. Neither of these assertions are valid. Please reconsider.

"WP is not a how-to manual." This article does not contain any how-to information. There are no procedural instructions at all. It may seem technical as I combined the WD16 article and the WD16 ISA article together as the ISA by itself is not notable enough for its own article. Presenting the WD16 ISA is important as it is superset and expansion of the well-known PDP-11 ISA.

The WD16 ISA portion of the article is presented in exactly the same format as the existing PDP-11 ISA article. In fact, that article is credited. The PDP-11 ISA article has been on Wikipedia since 2009: /info/en/?search=PDP-11_architecture

"...needs more 3rd party independent references to establish notability." Remember that this is a nearly 46 year old processor design. Of my nine cited references, I reference FIVE contemporaneous documents including two magazine articles about this processor. The WD16 was certainly notable if magazines were writing about it at the time. Furthermore by 1981, the year the IBM PC was introduced, 5,000 multi-user computers were already built using this processor. These systems cost from $10,000 to $15,000. ($32,000-$48,000 in today's dollars) Most of the documents referenced by the Wiki article are notable enough that third parties have posted them in the internet.

The company that built its business using the WD16 processor to build those 5,000 computers is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page:

/info/en/?search=Alpha_Microsystems

The core technology of the WD16 is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page:

/info/en/?search=MCP-1600

Other processor variants using this technology have Wikipedia entries:

/info/en/?search=Pascal_MicroEngine

/info/en/?search=PDP-11#LSI-11

The WD16 is a necessary article of a historic processor that is related to the articles of Pascal Microengine, MCP-1600, Alpha Micro, Western Digital, and LSI-11.

Please reconsider your decision and move the WD16 article to mainspace.

Rastakins RastaKins ( talk) 17:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF Nightenbelle ( talk) 17:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay- http://www.kicksfortso.com/Am100/- Not a reliable source- its an emulator- not a reliable independent secondary source.

https://ebin.pub/volume-2-dr-dobbs-journal-of-computer-calisthenics-amp-orthodontia-081045484x.html- Chip is mentioned 1 time- does not establish notability.

http://www.s100computers.com/Hardware%20Manuals/Alpha%20Micro/Review%20of%20AM%20System.pdf again- chip is mentioned one time- does not establish notability.

So- find independend secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the chip to establish notability. As to the How-To, perhaps I should have said "User manual" instead- this should be an overview of the chip- not an in-depth analysis of how the chip works. Nightenbelle ( talk) 17:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

http://www.kicksfortso.com/Am100/

"Not a reliable source- its an emulator- not a reliable independent secondary source." This reference was not cited to establish notability. It was cited to backup the article's paragraph that there was a software emulator for the WD16. (Citation 9) If this processor was not notable, why would somebody make the effort to emulate it FORTY years after it was introduced?

https://ebin.pub/volume-2-dr-dobbs-journal-of-computer-calisthenics-amp-orthodontia-081045484x.html

"Chip is mentioned 1 time- does not establish notability." The entire first page (page 3) of this article discusses the development of the WD16 and its features. Page 6 mentions licensing the WD16. Page 7 has a list of the WD16 instructions. The system around the WD16 was so significant that the editor of Dr. Dobb's Journal, Jim Warren, wrote his own editorial comments in a column on page 7 saying he was "totally blown away by it." "It comes close to being an order of magnitude more potent than any other system [he has] seen." Orders of magnitude are notable. By the way, Jim Warren is notable enough to have a Wikipedia biography since 2006:

/info/en/?search=Jim_Warren_(computer_specialist)

https://ebin.pub/volume-2-dr-dobbs-journal-of-computer-calisthenics-amp-orthodontia-081045484x.html

"Chip is mentioned 1 time- does not establish notability." This 1981 article establishes notability because it bookends the 1977 Dr. Dobbs Journal article. The 1977 article was written before the WD16 was commercially sold, and the 1981 article discusses what has happened in the ensuing four years. In these four years, 5,000 computers costing $10,000 to $15,000 each was sold. This $50-$75 million industry at that point was based solely on the WD16. This means there were at least 5,000 WD16 processors shipped by then. (Within a year Alpha Micro would switch to the 68000, sunsetting the WD16.)

As I mentioned in the previous message to you, I included the WD16 ISA in the main Wikipedia article. Do you think I should break out the ISA into a separate article as it was done with the PDP-11 in 2009?

/info/en/?search=PDP-11_architecture

Another notable thing about the WD16 and the computer built around it: It spawned a user group (Alpha Micro Users Society) and a monthly newsletter that has been archived by the Computer History Museum.

https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102676381

Some of these old newsletters can be downloaded here:

http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/alphaMicrosystems/amus/

ALL of the downloadable newsletters are for WD16-based systems only. For grins, I downloaded the newest issue of AMUS newsletter (December 1981) to see if the WD16 would be mentioned. It is mentioned in two places by name and its internal registers are mentioned once. In most of these AMUS newsletters, the WD16 is called "AM-100" because that is the name of the board the WD16 is mounted on. The AM-100 is mentioned in many of the 38 AMUS newsletters. There are also WD16 assembly code samples there too.

I believe every production microprocessor should have a Wikipedia article. Many that made a far shallower impact were notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles even though they saw few applications. Some examples:

/info/en/?search=Fairchild_F8

/info/en/?search=Hitachi_6309

/info/en/?search=National_Semiconductor_SC/MP

/info/en/?search=IMP-16

I think I have presented compelling evidence that the WD16 is not something I just made up. It is well known, contemporaneously documented, produced in volume, and used for years. I respectfully urge you to mainspace the article.

Rastakins RastaKins ( talk) 20:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I have waited 21 days for your response. How long should I expect to wait for you to respond to my query? RastaKins ( talk) 20:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Nightenbelle,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Aiwass First, I vaguely recall a rule that the discussion should continue for at least 48 hours before filing here, but where is such a guideline written?

Second, I was about to close it because the filing editor had not listed other editors who had taken part in discussions. I think it is sometimes worth mentioning that. Sometimes the editor who has made one comment may be a voice of reason.

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:05 am, 18 October 2022, Tuesday (22 days ago) (UTC−5)

I'm not sure where it is written, but our page does say "The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN" So even if that doesn't give specific length of time- it does say extensive. The time line guide is just my own put there as a general idea of what "extensive" means- its not meant to be a hard and fast rule. Maybe we should give a set time line though? We could set it up as either a length of time or number of posts.... but there will always be those few that are exceptions to the rules where you get two users arguing back and forth a million posts in an hour. Nightenbelle (talk) 9:03 am, 18 October 2022, Tuesday (22 days ago) (UTC−5) Yes, we should clarify what the minimum time and number of posts is. I will think about this. Robert McClenon (talk) 1:23 am, 19 October 2022, Wednesday (21 days ago) (UTC−5) I tweaked the wording in the Header page, and may be making other tweaks if necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:07 am, 3 November 2022, last Thursday (6 days ago) (UTC−5)

You closed the request Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Padre Pio because you say discussion has been ongoing for less than 24 hours. May I ask you to reconsider? Unfortunately, discussions about the lead section have been going on for nearly two weeks and all attempts to improve the lead section have been reverted a dozen times by the same user over catholic point of view. First discussion dates back from 18 October in Talk:Padre Pio#Changed introduction of the article. Please also see the history page as proof. Honestly, I really don't see any possible outcome without someone reviewing the changes. SanctumRosarium ( talk) 18:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Please ignore my previous comment I am going to put a request on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard as it seems more appropriate. SanctumRosarium ( talk) 19:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I think thats a good decision. You can always come back to the DRN if other discussions don't work out- but we should be the last stop, not your first. :-) Nightenbelle ( talk) 19:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I thought that the editors in the Reparations dispute were starting to get out of control, and that you would take action to get them under control or tell them to control themselves or whatever. They needed a rebuke. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah- That was getting a little ridiculous. Hopefully they will chill and we can work it out. Nightenbelle ( talk) 18:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It now appears that they are being slow to answer your question to summarize the dispute. Maybe they know what they disagree with, which may be each other, more than they know what they agree with or want to agree with. I have a similar feeling about the Star Control dispute. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Some weeks ago you agreed to mediate the dispute between me and another user at Independence referendum. After you closed it as failed, I made one of the changes that I saw as a good compromise, and the other user has not reverted for four weeks now, so I think the dispute has been solved by “silent consensus”. Thanks for your help. Rsk6400 ( talk) 09:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

They haven't replied, and you first asked them more than three days ago.

I didn't know that the apostrophe in the second person plural pronoun went where you put it. I thought it was y'all.

The usual statement of the Schrodinger experiment is improperly anthropomorphic, and is insulting to the cat. If the cat is alive in the box, then she knows that she is alive. If the cat is dead, the cat knew briefly that something was wrong before she died. So the experiment is misrepresented.

The two disputes that I am cleaning up may not be that difficult. They may have done all of the insulting in advance, and may be ready to discuss details. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

the Y'all thing is different depending on where you are in the south. Texas I know is Y'all- around northern Arkansas we say Ya'll. It just depends- either is right.... or wrong depending on if you agree with the second person plural being an actual word in English. Where I grew up- it was not considered a word and I got in no end of trouble for using it. (Grew up in Southern California- but my family has lived in Arkansas for four generations except me and my Dad- we moved here when I was 24.) I'll go ahead and close I think. And as for the cat- I'm not entirely sure the cat would know something is wrong..... We adopted a stray 4-8 week old kitten last Thursday- she does some truly stupid crap and has no idea her life is in danger- for instance- Friday night she managed to climb on top a nearly six foot tall cabinet and was about to leap off if my husband hadn't seen her and ran to save her just in time..... so- perhaps the cat in question was like my little fluffball and had no idea she was in mortal peril.... either way- the concept of being both alive and dead worked for the point I was trying to make- and added a bit of Big Bang Theory humor- always a good addition to any conversation. But I formally appologize to any cats I may have offended. Our 3 year old cat is quite offended I'm sure, but then- she's offended by life so.... take that with a grain of salt. Nightenbelle ( talk) 02:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't watched Big Bang Theory. My knowledge of Schrodinger's cat is from having studied physics in college a little more than fifty years earlier. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Greetings.
Sorry to bother you, but I don't know what to do now. I expected an actual mediation, a conversation between all parties, not a ruling without any way to give details; the problem takes more than 2000 characters to explain.
I see now the 2011/2013 citation of Daily Mail is an absolute no-no here, despite Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Acceptable_uses_of_deprecated_sources clearly stating: "In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. While some deprecated sources have been completely eliminated as references, others have not. [...] Additional exceptions may be specific to individual sources as summarized in the RfC: for example, the 2017 closure of the Daily Mail RfC mentioned that participants said it may have been more reliable historically," and, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources stating about YouTube: "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability," which is the case of that Daily Mail citation, which contents came from the Associated Press. Anyway, I had already offered to cut it, and I will, no need to bite my head off. The Big Problem was, and still is, if you read my full edition and check the way Gerard took it down, is that he deleted not only the Daily Mail only citation, but everything including the Investigation subsection, which was based on reliable sources only, the Funeral, idem, and even internal quotations from three reliable sources in the Early life section, unrelated to the October 18 edition, all in 8 minutes flat. How can I know if he isn't going to block me if I re-upload the edition, only mentioning the tabloids without citations as Michael_Jackson#Increased_tabloid_speculation_(1986–1987) does? His alacrity gives me reason to feel threatened.
Respectfully, I ask you, did you read both versions of my edition before giving your ruling? And the notes I left on the Talk page? Is the lone citation to the Daily Mail the one and the only problem you see? Because Gerard doesn't think that. That's why I asked for mediation; this issue is more than a single citation, and I expected wider, deeper advice.
The funny thing is that Gerard and I are essentially in agreement. The example from his Talk page I gave you shows he deleted a citation from the reliable Kyiv Post because it was based on an unreliable source; a part of my edition was about ABC, NBC, etc., doing exactly the same... yet he deleted everything.
In all my years here I never had the need to request mediation; I had never met an administrator who deleted almost a whole section leaving a misleading stump instead and considered that the best action. If I re-upload my edition, obviously without that one leprous citation, and he takes everything down again, which is the next step? Do I request mediation again, hoping that someone will read the edition, give advice, and mediate, or should I request another kind of intervention? Thanks. Maykiwi ( talk) 21:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear- I did not give a ruling. I relayed to you policy and rule information, and let you know that your case does not yet qualify for the DRN because you have not spent enough time discussing it. This is not a ruling- it is a rule. Once again, however, you have posted a giant wall of words. No one wants to read this. If you read what I wrote- I recommended you stop posting these long diatribes. That is not a rule- just some very good advice from someone who has been editing more than ten years and mediating for about three years. Now- go back, have a civil discussion on the article talk page, and give the other avenues a try before you return to DRN. Because- had you read my entire reason for closing- you would have seen that I invited you to return AFTER a prolonged good faith attempt to solve on your own. Don't lecture people about not reading your wall of words when you have not read their words yourself please. Nightenbelle ( talk) 22:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

And for the record- yes, I read every word you posted on the article talk page and the DRN page before I closed your dispute. I always do. Nightenbelle ( talk) 22:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

We know that not commenting on the other editors isn't a new rule, but I see that you had to state it to them as if it were a new rule so that you could hit them over the head with it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks like a difficult morning when the participants don't listen. Maybe they need some also, but two days ago, I read "Eat your own food" to 150 people. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Eat your own food?? Lol- um why? Nightenbelle ( talk) 15:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

2 Thessalonians 3:12. Paul was admonishing busybodies who were minding the business of others and so not earning their own food. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Nightenbelle! I recently saw some of your comments at the Craffael.09 WP:ANI thread talking about how more volunteers are needed at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and after reading a bit about it all and becoming rather interested, I would like to start helping out. I was wondering if you could give me any advice for when I mediate my first case. I understand it's a difficult process, and it's hard to explain it all, but it would really help if I could get a few tips from someone who has been working in the area for a while.

Many thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 08:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC).

Are you planning to resume moderation of the Hong Kong case? Are you all right? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since October. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz focused on July and August 2022 request months; and articles tagged for c/e in December 2021 and January 2022. Seventeen of those who signed up claimed at least one copy-edit, and between them copy-edited forty-six articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: In the November Backlog Elimination Drive, thirty editors signed up, twenty-two of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Both target months—December 2021 and January 2022—were cleared, and February was added to the target months. Sixteen requests were copy-edited and 239 articles were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Our seven-day-long December 2022 Copy Editing Blitz begins on 17 December at 00:01 (UTC)*. It will focus on articles tagged for copy-edit in February 2022, and pending requests from September and October. Barnstars awarded will be available here. Progress report: As of 22:40, 8 December 2022, GOCE copyeditors have processed 357 requests since 1 January, there were seventy-four requests outstanding and the backlog stands at 1,791 articles. We always need skilled copy-editors; please help out if you can. Election news: Nomination of candidates for the GOCE's Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2023 is open and continues until 23:59 on 15 December. Voting begins at 00:01 on 16 December and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Coordinators serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on June 30. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, please nominate yourself or any editor you consider suitable—with their permission, of course!. It's your Guild and it doesn't coordinate itself. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers and best seasonal wishes from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Tenryuu, and Zippybonzo. *All times and dates on this newsletter are UTC. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report Our 2022 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page Membership news and results of elections Closing words – Your Guild coordinators: Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nightenbelle! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the March 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December and our Annual Report for 2022. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members, including those who have signed up for our current March Backlog Elimination Drive. We wish you all happy copy-editing. Election results: In our December 2022 coordinator election, Reidgreg and Tenryuu stepped down as coordinators; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo were returned as coordinators until 1 July. For the second time, no lead coordinator was chosen. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators open on 1 June (UTC). Drive: 21 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 14 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 170 articles totaling 389,737 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Our February Copy Editing Blitz focused on October and November 2022 requests, and the March and April 2022 backlogs. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine claimed at least one copy-edit; and between them, they copy-edited 39,150 words in 22 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: Sign up now for our month-long March Backlog Elimination Drive. Barnstars awarded will be posted here after the drive closes. Progress report: As of 12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 73 requests since 1 January 2023, all but five of them from 2022, and the backlog stands at 1,872 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox settlement on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nightenbelle! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Outreach/Participants, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 6 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Outreach/Participants.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nightenbelle! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over six months.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in six months.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
3. Paste {{ Frs user|Nightenbelle|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name subscribed to the FRS, you may be receiving this message on your new username's talk page still. If so, make sure your new account name is subscribed to the FRS, using the same procedure mentioned above.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since March. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election news: Fancy helping out at the Guild? Nominations for our half-yearly Election of Coordinators are open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC)*. Starting immediately after, the voting phase will run until 23:59 on 30 June. All Wikipedians in good standing are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed; it's your Guild and it doesn't organize itself! Blitz: Of the 17 editors who signed up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, nine editors completed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 24 articles totaling 53,393 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 51 editors signed up for the month-long May Backlog Elimination Drive, and 31 copy-edited at least one article. 180 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are posted here. Blitz: Sign up here for our week-long June Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 11 to 17 June. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 03:09 on 6 June 2023, GOCE copyeditors have processed 91 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,887 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybongo. *All times and dates in this newsletter are in UTC, and may significantly vary from your local time. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2023 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. David Thomsen: Prolific Wikipedian and Guild member David Thomsen ( Dthomsen8) died in November 2022. He was a regular copy editor who took part in many of our Drives and Blitzes. An obituary was published in the mid-July issue of The Signpost. Tributes can be left on David's talk page. Election news: In our mid-year Election of Coordinators, Dhtwiki was chosen as lead coordinator, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo continue as assistant coordinators, and Baffle gab1978 stepped down from the role. If you're interested in helping out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself for our next election in December; it's your WikiProject and it doesn't organize itself! June Blitz: Of the 17 editors who signed up for our June Copy Editing Blitz, 12 copy-edited at least one article. 70,035 words comprising 26 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are here. July Drive: 34 of the 51 editors who took part in our July Backlog Elimination Drive copy-edited at least one article. They edited 276 articles and 683,633 words between them. Barnstars awarded are here. August Blitz: In our August Copy Editing Blitz, 13 of the 16 editors who signed up worked on at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 79,608 words comprising 57 articles. Barnstars awarded are available here. September Drive: Sign up here for our month-long September Backlog Elimination Drive, which is now underway. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 14:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have processed 245 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,066. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)