Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hello, welcome to my talk page brothers and sisters, please comment below if you want to discuss anything!

TheGracefulSlick recently accepted an edit to remove two sentences from Zachary Taylor. There is a section on that article's talk page where I requested feedback on the potential of that edit to be WP:GOOD. Please address the issue in section "168 years" before reverting the edit again, thanks. - Sleyece 17:43:02, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

Good Articles: Music needs the help of willing reviewers!

Hi there. You nominated an article for evaluation against the good article criteria some time ago, but I noticed you have yet to review an article yourself. Although it's not mandatory, it would be helpful if every user who creates a nomination also reviewed at least one other article, as this would help clear the massive backlog. Reviewing someone else's article can also help you in the long run: every article reviewed brings yours one position closer to the top of the nominations list! If you worked on the article you nominated, chances are you're already familiar with the six good article criteria. It really isn't hard to review, and may take an experienced editor only a few hours to complete. If you have the time and would like to help, please click here, take a moment to figure out which article you'd like to review, then click on its (start review) button. Thank you for reading, and if you need assistance with your review at any point, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'll respond to you as soon as I can. Homeostasis07 (talk)

Hi, @TheGracefulSlick: you might remember me from our collaboration on the "Look at Your Game, Girl" article. I recently nominated the (short) article for Marilyn Manson's album Lest We Forget: The Best Of for GA and I was wondering if you might like to review it. Let me know --MagicatthemovieS

Part are you unblock conditions that you have taken upon yourself was I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months, then honestly evaluate my progress with an administrator..Such edit goes against this conditions [1] or this [2].If you want to remove this condition that OK but you should ask permission from community at WP:AN --Shrike (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your current edits seem to be going against your editing restrictions. I urge caution. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph my unblock conditions are here. What Shrike cites is a self-restriction made on a voluntary basis for my health. I wouldn’t be disregarding it if it were mandatory. Thanks though.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, if this is going to be a reoccurring issue where editors are watching my edits, I will ask Tony to clarify my unblock conditions. If the conditions are indeed mandatory, I will stop editing in the topic area. Apologies.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph and Shrike hope this clarifies things for you both: [3] TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not clarify things for me. Why do you think that you can adandon your commitment to the community so cavalierly? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not watching your edits, I have many articles on my watchlist, please try too agf, I'm not going around looking at people's edits. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I said this on my talk page: I don't consider this an editing restriction because I'm not exactly sure how you can enforce "controversial subjects" without it being so broad that any edit could lead to a block. That being said, coming here after the discussion on my talk page, I'll add this TGS: you gave your word that you would avoid controversial areas. You gave politics as an example, I think you should avoid it, not because it is a formal logged sanction, but just like Cullen328 pointed out, you told the community you would avoid it and avoiding it is the right thing to do.
  The community was willing to overlook the normal requirements for the standard offer for you and has placed a lot of trust that you are here for the good of the encyclopedia. Even if it's nothing formal, showing that you take what you told people seriously is important and goes a long way in repaying that trust. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• query - @TonyBallioni:, @Cullen328: - how do edits/reverts to controversial aspects of recently elected congresswomen (which seems to be present day politics) - e.g. Rashida Tlaib (10 Jan, 8 Jan, 8 Jan), Ilhan Omar (10 Jan) as well as WP:ARBPIA topics - e.g. Palestinians (5 Jan), Lifta (4 Jan), Military occupation (2 Jan), jive with the November 2018 "I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months, then honestly evaluate my progress with an administrator." commitment? Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear that TheGracefulSlick has decided to break the promise they made to the community when seeking to be unblocked. This is very troubling. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that Cullen328; however, I am not doing anything disruptive. Right above Tony say: I don't consider this an editing restriction because I'm not exactly sure how you can enforce "controversial subjects" without it being so broad that any edit could lead to a block. I do not find my efforts to address BLP violations, reintroduce reliable secondary sources, and edits by a disruptive editor to be troubling behavior, so I am sorry you feel that way. But this was settled in December and I am not interested in a continuation of it. Any constructive criticism or advice will always be welcomed, however.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you lied to the community in order to get unblocked and do not consider your lying to be disruptive. Well, I consider lying to be very disruptive and I will keep it in mind going forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I'm curious. Apparently, you're unwilling to sanction TGS for breaking their promise or, alternatively, take it back to WP:AN for the community to evaluate. So, what exactly do you mean by your comment above? I, too, am disappointed, although not surprised, that TGS has not kept their promises, not to mention the wikilawyering responses they have made, but I am unwilling to block TGS without either evidence of renewed socking or a consensus they should be blocked and, if so, for how long.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I too am unwilling to block this editor now but I was pinged here, looked at the evidence that Icewhiz presented, and expressed my opinion of this behavior. Nothing more than that at this point in time, but I am interested in what TonyBallioni will have to say about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 and Cullen328: Add me to the disappointed camp here. TGS is correct that I said I didn’t consider these restrictions in the formal sense, but I do think there is a certain moral obligation to follow their word. TGS, this is the sort of thing that looks really bad if you’re ever taken to AN, ANI, or AE again, and like Cullen implied is something that admins are likely to take notice of. Since I was quoted above, I’ll quote myself You gave politics as an example, I think you should avoid it, not because it is a formal logged sanction, but just like Cullen328 pointed out, you told the community you would avoid it and avoiding it is the right thing to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure why you are acting the way you are. It is as if you are spitting in the face of all the editors here, especially TonyBallioni. More importantly, you gave your word that you will stay away from editing certain areas, and I would have assumed that coming off such a block keeping your word would be your number one priority to regain trust. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello TGS, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 21:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi TheGracefulSlick, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 14:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas Grace. I'm glad to see you back. While you were gone I created this from your Sandbox, Hala Alyan but someone is questioning its "notability" and I just thought I'd mention it in case you care. Peace. --the eloquent peasant (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Level C yeah I noticed that a little after I was unblocked. Notability is far too obvious for me, so I removed the tag. If it goes to AfD, I already have the article watchlisted. In the meantime, you can always expand the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Have a good day.--the eloquent peasant (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you might have seen already you were brought up in a discussion at WP:WikiProject Baseball. You can read my reply to the content dispute there but I am curious about what basis you suggest the IP user was edit warring. While I hadn't looked over the IP (or your) edit history prior to the comment, I have now and I'm seeing an editor acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. What am I missing? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 the editor failed to discuss my initial revert at Andrew Knapp; the onus was on him/her to explain their reasoning for including a social media account. A bot removed a link to a twitter account at Dylan Cozens, introduced by the IP. A subsequent notice by the bot was ignored and the account was reintroduced, as were others on baseball-related articles. My basis for removal comes from WP:ELNO #11, listing: “Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists”. Since the bot message specifically mentions this, it would have been more productive for the IP to discuss his edits.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I did see everything you've noted. You'll notice that my initial response was to tell them to start a discussion to gain consensus to include it so I get ONUS. However, the fact that they choose to undo you a single time is not edit warring. As they explained in their edit summary, which as we both know is not a replacement for actual talk page discussion, their ignoring of the bot's message and your removal had a basis in policy so it seems reasonable to suggest they hadn't ignored anything - they had simply considered it and decided that an automated message by a bot did not apply to them. This might not be correct and the consensus that is ultimately arrived at for those pages, but I guess I would just ask you to perhaps not be so quick to suggest a good faith editor has a behavior problem like edit warring. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I