Thanks for your review of Sieges of Taunton at A-class review. I've now listed the article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sieges of Taunton/archive1 as a Featured article candidate. If you had any more critical comments, then your further input would be more than welcome. Harrias ^talk 14:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Supported. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 20:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though I suspect the form of your proposal wasn't quite right to be widely accepted, I wish you would have kept your proposal open for more than a day, to give time for more editors to weigh in. Even if the proposal didn't achieve acceptance, the discussion is invaluable to gaining insight into what may be acceptable to the community in future. A quick withdrawal unfortunately gives the impression that the proposal lacked a degree of forethought, which I assume was not the case.

My personal suggestion is to have professional mediation to work out the best approach in cases of dispute (and ideally, binding content arbitration, but I know that will be an even harder sell). One key to success is for the process to clearly include the community's input, and not be seen as the imposition of the will of an autonomous group. At present, though, the idea hasn't garnered much support. isaacl (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't seem that the proposal was going anywhere, but I believe that there does need to be more discussion as to how we deal with situations where, for some reason, consensus is unattainable. I'd welcome more ideas. I have a few of my own, and I'll keep exploring them in the next few days/weeks. --ceradon (talk • edits) 03:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Determining consensus requires patience; there hadn't been very many replies yet, which is probably not surprising for a weekend in the middle of the summer for the northern hemisphere. Even so, the replies so far were interesting and helping to reveal other points of view. The only way for a future proposal to succeed is for all interested parties to take advantage of available opportunities to listen to each other and learn. isaacl (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've unwithdrew it (if that is even a word.) Let's see where it goes. --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: I've also proposed an advisory group. --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your flexibility! The next suggestion I have is a difficult one to implement (I have often failed miserably at it): try to get everyone thinking flexibly as well. Too often commenters get locked in on their initial interpretation of a proposal, and so filter all their responses in terms of their first thoughts. What is needed, though, is that participants think about what approaches they would find useful in improving the decision-making process. Good luck! isaacl (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the proposal for an advisory group: I suggest you explain how such a group would differ from Wikipedia:Mediation and where the group would fit into English Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures. I can envision an appropriate role, but it would useful for you to set out your thoughts to ensure a common understanding. Your enthusiasm is welcome! isaacl (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: Mediation focuses on article content, while this advisory group would focus on disputes that do not necessarily focus on article content, but on policies, procedures and guidelines, and seek to facilitate the building of consensus when other avenues have failed to do so. This group would build upon past consensus and create proposals that would be beneficial to the community at large, rather than just one article. Thoughts? --ceradon (talk • edits) 06:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, how would your proposal be preferable to extending the scope of the existing mediation process to mediate other types of disputes? isaacl (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: Perhaps for three reasons: First, mediators select and promote themselves without input from the broader community. This might bring accusations of a "clique" or a "cabal". Second, mediators were put in place specifically to handle content disputes between individual editors. All of a sudden, if we expand their remit to things that they were not put their for and may not be suited for, I can see people not liking that. Thirdly, the mediators themselves may not want the extra responsibility. However, with a new advisory group, we would know they want the responsibility. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This I think lies at the heart of the disagreement you are seeing with your proposal: it sounds like you are thinking of the advisory group as a team with additional powers, whereas I see it as a mediation team. Although disputes have different natures, the same mediation techniques can be brought to bear, whether the issue is content or policy.

The key issue is that consensus doesn't scale (I discuss it in a bit more detail in the essay I linked to above regarding consensus requiring patience). To continue with a consensus approach, ways to make it more manageable are necessary; for example, perhaps it means the different groups with different viewpoints pick a representative for their concerns to enter mediation, and the mediator tries to work out an agreement with the smaller team. Maybe it means limiting policy discussion to longer-standing members of the community (at the moment, I don't see this gaining favour, though). Eventually if a failure to reach consensus deadlocks the community on enough crucial issues, some change will happen. isaacl (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 09:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --ceradon (talk • edits) 09:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ceradon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 

  Hello, Ceradon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
  It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
  • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see and applaud your short block on User:Olowe2011 and I have noted they have an alternate account at User talk:Wiki-Impartial which they are not using to circumvent the block. This is good. But I also note that they have asked to be part of DRN. To me this is a challenge, because they lack experience here as the reason for the primary account's block shows in full measure. I am simply making you aware as the blocking admin. I have no idea how or whether to pursue this, so I am here for your advice. Fiddle Faddle 15:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, I truly do not believe Olowe2011 is suited for DRN. But, I think with a bit of tuning up, he would make a fine Wikipedian. Perhaps you should push him towards mentorship, or even mentor him yourself? It would be quite beneficial. --ceradon (talk • edits) 18:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will see how their attitude has mellowed on their return. Fine wikipedians are, in my view, 70% attitude and 30% aptitude. What I do not want to do is to pour fuel on their fire. I'm happy to take folk under my wing; I have often in the past. They have to be prepared to walk alongside me, though. Fiddle Faddle 20:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am unavailable tomorrow I have made this offer to them. I hope I've couched it in terms that do not inflame the situation. They just need to learn, somehow, that we are all very small fish in an enormous pond. I fear that they may react poorly. I wonder if you might look at that when they reply, if they reply, and offer calming advice if needed? I suggest the DRN issue for their other user name is best left to you or others. I concur that they are not currently ready for that role. They may well become so in time, though. Fiddle Faddle 20:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is potential for positive progress. I wonder if English is this editor's second language. It is possible that this may have caused and be causing a communications disconnect over things here. Fiddle Faddle 22:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drama? I tried to be polite. I posted two civil posts which came from old-timers. I asked for a week so things could cool down. You collapsed it, I did not know how to edit it, now I can not even find it. Is there any chance you could just give him a week, or am I missing something? A simple yes or no will work for me, I will end this here either way. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning your civility, Sammy D III, and meant no offense, but RfPP is not the correct venue for those types of things. I'm also not quite sure of what you mean by "give Lukeno94 a week". Could you clarify please? --ceradon (talk • edits) 18:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Luke wanted Andy and Springee to be blocked from editing his talk page for a short time, there is clearly bad blood between them. That was all I was talking about. Thank you for your answer. Sammy D III (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luke's welcome to edit or not, his talk page or elsewhere. However he is not welcome to continue with his sniping at other editors, myself included, when he is using "retirement" as a defence against the usual sanctions for such. "Give Luke a week" by all means, but Luke wasn't able to give it a week without attacking others.

No, I will not leave Luke's talk: page alone when he's using it as a protected space from which to attack others. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has only attacked with his edit summaries, answering posts from you people. If you had left him alone, he wouldn't have attacked you, would he? I just said about the same thing to your other post.

Ceradon, sorry I brought this to your page. Sammy D III (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Ceradon! Maybe you want to take a look at the IP's reaction [1] that followed their block. Cheers.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I'm looking for holes to fill in.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Probably, the biggest thing I couldn't find is details about his burial, cremation, etc. Got anything on that? --ceradon (talk • edits) 06:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look. I didn't borrow "And So It Goes" again, but looked for books of commentaries. It staggers me how much has been written about Vonnegut. If necessary, I can go back to GMU Sunday. I think possibly something should be said, perhaps under techniques, about the plot style, as exhibited most famously in Slaughterhouse-Five. We do say something in the bio section, but I think something under techniques would be good. I'm mining the books for nuggets that won't lengthen things too much but which hit good points. Sorry I was inactive so long, I was traveling and had very little time to do work and not much internet access.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, no problem. I was trying to find a preview of "And So It Goes" that gives info on Vonnegut's burial. No luck. Online sources don't seem to help either. --ceradon (talk • edits) 07:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it has much, I did look at the end looking for "Legacy" style stuff and it seemed to end abruptly with his death. But I'll have to double-check.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not coming up with a lot either, using my online resources through GMU. Will keep looking. We need a section with his views on war, I think. I'll take a shot at a first draft and see if you like it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing on funeral but I'll keep poking around. And So It Goes ends with his death, I checked. There's a couple of comments by Iridescent that I left for you. I would suggest waiting a few days after he is done and if no one else comments, close it and we can nominate at FAC. I am doing a slow copyedit of the article and will look for anything obvious missing. Do you know of any of Vonnegut's GE publications available online? They were almost certainly published without copyright notice and would be PD today, but we'd have to view the entire publication to be sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did the Dresden footnote. Unless there's some further concerns at the PR, I think we are in business. Why don't we notify Iridescent that we plan to close the PR, say, in a few days, and if all looks good, plow on to FAC?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wehwalt, left a note on Iridescent's talk page. I don't think we need to wait a few days, actually. If Iridescent is okay with the article, I think we can go forward to FAC. --ceradon (talk • edits) 12:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. I can get any needed books if there are questions from GMU.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we go ahead? People's schedules can be a bit uncertain in the summer. It sounds like anything he might have to add would be easily fixed, and he can make it at the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: done. Notified the editors that participated as well. --ceradon (talk • edits) 14:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the images: I think the yearbook is taken care of. The family one has an OTRS tag and I think that's good enough. The Army one I'm not sure on, and the 1972 one would be fine if someone had bothered to webarchive the eBay images, which are now gone. We can find another copy or use another image, I suppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, regarding the content of the article was discussed throughout the talk page [2]--151.46.75.231 (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Your proposals here are magnificently drafted, on point, and necessary. If anything, the general reaction to the proposals demonstrates the need for the alternatives you suggest. North of Eden (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, North of Eden. --ceradon (talk • edits) 02:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am making 3 new maps. Will take days, alas, as I am always busy with real-life shtuff. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool. --ceradon (talk • edits) 03:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Canister is irrelevant to the Confederate barrage. They used heavy ordnance. The anti-personnel canister is what ripped the Confederates into shreds (with grape and case as well).
    • Subheading makes it much more clear that the whole thing was staggered and had three separate waves (inadvertently). • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you wanna wait until the whole infantry section is completely finished and then add subheadings, that would be OK. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Lingzhi, I'm trying to keep the TOC clean and wieldy. I don't think subsections are needed there. In any event, we could reinforce to the reader that their were three waves of assaults in the lede and the body, rather than subsections. I mean, maybe we could do "First charge," "Second charge," etc. (And yes, I think we should until the entire infantry section is done before subsections). --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a tension between "clean and wieldy" and "too short and vague". It would be sorta OK to list three waves in the TOC by "First wave", "Second wave" etc. without mentioning the specific commander's names. That would kinda suck too, but would suck less. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi, notes e, h, and i need sources. Do you remember where you got them from? --ceradon (talk • edits) 05:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm using harvtxt without enclosing ref tags in the notes section, a practice which I recently opposed but have come to an evolved understanding. I now think a footnote inside a footnote does look odd (which another person said recently and I disagreed with). You're using harvnb inside ref tags. I just think it looks better (more logical way of presenting the stream of information), but will not take a strong stand on the issue. Thoughts? • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, I am giving strong consideration to your suggestion of avoiding new subheadings. I am not unwilling or unable to change. But my gut still leans toward adding them. We'll see how the section ends out... • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• {{ygm}}• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lingzhi, replied. --ceradon (talk • edits) 05:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• You have mail. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently reverted lots of vandalism on page Radhe Maa. I was wondering if it could be protected as there has been constant vandalism this morning. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --ceradon (talk • edits) 08:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BBC says that a transfer is a loan deal (Jak Alnwick) however I noticed in the history that a user claims that the BBC is wrong and that a local newspaper is correct. I'm unsure what to do, should I undo my edits of BBC being correct? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone back to the previous edit before mine because it seems that the club themselves confirm its a transfer and not a loan, in addition to numerous other sources so this is a mistake by the BBC. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds United FC fan, It's seems like a reporting error on BBC's part to me as well. --ceradon (talk • edits) 09:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A few days ago you protected the article because of an IP-hopper repeatedly adding "non-mainstream" material, i.e. a very fringe claim that the school was the first university in the world (see discussion on the talk page of the article). Well, the protection has expired and the IP-hopper is back, with the exact same edit, so would you mind protecting it again? Thomas.W ^talk 17:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Favonian fecit. Thomas.W ^talk 17:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - would you be able to clarify something regarding UAA? Are blatant promotional usernames which have made promotional edits to their own userspace also reportable? Samuel Tarling (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samtar, yes, they are reportable. --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceradon: Thanks :) Samuel Tarling (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ceradon I am utterly surprised for being topic ban from India Afghanistan and Pakistan. Reason number one: I have never edited any india / afghanistan page. Number two: I never voilated any WP rule except 3RR on Tank and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa pages for which maximum you shold have blocked me for 24 hours on first Offence. I question Blind following of volunteer comment of a DRN competitior user Cyphoidbomb on ANI. Now how will I able to comment on DRN. Actually by doing so user Cyphoidbomb has denied my right to speak on DRN to which I was party. Can I call this democracy ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmaghndstakun (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is run by masonic Zionist shills. you're wasting your time :) Doctor Eye 81.151.30.82 (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ceradon. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bradbury, replied. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ceradon. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. --ceradon (talk • edits) 05:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about how your Regulation Committee proposal went. Well, here's a kitten to cheer you up. Don't let what happened get to you. Happy editing.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I didn't take offense. It was an underdeveloped idea and a ill-guided, and thus ill-fated proposal. C'est la vie; life is a learning experience. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 05:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism resumed immediately. This will be a long-standing problem because of Cecil's popularity, so please make it for a longer time this time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangifer, I put PC-1 on it, but that's about the best I can do. The most recent edits don't seem to be vandalism, just good-faith errors. If actual vandalism picks up again, drop a line here, or at requests for page protection, and I'll up it to autoconfirmed. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 05:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ceradon have you seen User:Tony1/How to improve your writing? Possibly one of the most valuable things I've read here on the site. It'll help you write more crisply and engagingly. Helped me alot. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh! Nice. Right now, I'm working on improving Edwin Stanton to FA one day. This should help. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked the above user yesterday for 48 hours as a result of this AN3 report. The last of the reverts was made by the user logged out using an IP from Cologne (79.248.65.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). The same reverts on the same two articles have now been done by another Cologne IP: 84.151.243.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). WP:DUCK? DeCausa (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DeCausa: Sock blocked; pages locked. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! DeCausa (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an unblock request at User talk:Jermzc. You blocked the account for 1 week because of "Disruptive editing and edit warring", and Yunshui then increased the block to a month because of sockpuppetry. I agree with both those blocks, but the editor has now given what seem to me to be sincere undertakings not to do the same again. If those assurances are valid, the block is no longer necessary for prevention of disruption, and so I am in favour of unblocking. However, I would like to know if either you or Yunshui has any opinion to express on the matter. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson, no, I don't have any objections to Jermzc being unblocked. Given his assurances, maybe the block has served its purpose. In any other event, ROPE applies. Thank you for asking me. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 10:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have both move-protected Wikipedia:Give them enough rope (an admin action) and reverted my changes (an editorial action). That makes you WP:INVOLVED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: My protection was to prevent a move war. I got spooked when Alakzi was reverting JzG's edits, and thought he might move the page again, which would definitely have been unconstructive, thus the move protection. The protection was the first admin action. I believe that, at that point, I wasn't yet involved. With the reversion, yes, I'm now involved, so I won't be using my tools anymore in this regard. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You voted keep in the MfD [3] before move locking. But then again I guess someone was probably going to move lock eventually? Brustopher (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This while clearly a conclusion any other admin would come to, also comes across like an involved admin action. Brustopher (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a conclusion any administrator would have come to, why does it matter whether I am involved or not? INVOLVED is not a trump card for common sense. In any event, angry rants are better served in the userspace than in the project space. According to ESSAY: "Essays may be moved into userspace (or deleted) if they are found to be unhelpful" Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's inflammatory. From a policy point of view it's true that your involved actions are not something another admin would overturn, but in context they give they could give off the impression of hounding and targeting another editor. Based on this diff it seems like this is the exact impression that's been given off.[4] You blocked an editor, then unblocked them citing WP:ROPE (admin action). When they attempted to have the essay deleted in response to your actions, you voted keep in the MfD (non-admin action). Then when they attempted to rename the page (in response to something you did), you locked the page(admin action). Then you voted against the move on the talk page. Then you go and engage in a snark off with the editor in question at ANI(non-admin action). Then when their friend wrote an angry essay which seems to be in response to something you did, you closed a discussion and moved it into userspace(admin action). Even though the editor in question clearly wasn't exhibiting the most ideal behavior, that doesn't justify this mix of admin and involved actions. Do you not see how the targeted editors could take this pretty badly? Brustopher (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the move, I'll point you here. --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with everything you wrote there. That's exactly why I'm on your talk page discussing this with you right now instead of writing WP:Don't be an involved Ceradon. I'd like to clarify that I don't think you're doing anything bad here on purpose, and I don't mean to condone any insults that have been thrown your way. But just as you recommended to Webdrone, you should consider the human consequences of your actions, even if the humans in questions are behaving badly. Brustopher (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Our social policies are not a suicide pact. Why should I show good faith to individuals who have repeatedly shown me bad faith? Why? Why? Why? I'm at my wits end. I've tried the best I can with Alakzi. He has done some very good work, and we should definitely try to salvage editors who do good work. But now? I'm done. I no longer care keep Alakzi or his friends on Wikipedia. I have considered the human consequences of my actions. That's why I unblocked Alakzi. It's why I warned him before this whole thing blew up that he should leave it alone. His response? "Maybe there will come a day when you will acquire principles." You're questioning me on the human consequences of my actions when my detractors have repeatedly failed to consider the human consequences of their actions? Please, spare me. I know you're intentions are good, Brustopher, but you are defending the indefensible. I do not care to speak any further in this regard. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 17:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ceradon. For the last two days, I have been participating in a relatively heated AfD about an obscure competition swimmer from Palau (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirngulbai Misech). I know it's hard to imagine that this subject would generate any amount of interest or emotion, but the back story is the AfD is an outgrowth of this discussion at the WP:NSPORTS talk page: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Notability of individuals for swimming/aquatics. The editor in question, User:Lugnuts]], is a long-term productive editor who frequently contributes constructively to sports subjects. In the case of this AfD, however, he has accused other editors of being "deletionists" (contrary to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA), accused me of improper "canvassing" (contrary to "appropriate notification" per WP:CANVASS), and is now falsely accusing another editor of sock-puppetry (contrary to WP:Sock puppetry). This is making a mess of the AfD discussion, and generally turning it into an unpleasant atmosphere for new participants during the remaining four days of the AfD. I was tempted to file an ANI report, but that always leads to more drama and less constructive resolution. Can you take a look at Lugnuts' comments and issue any warnings you think appropriate? He's not responding to gentle warnings from me or anyone else, the AfD is going to be a complete mess, and most of the AfD thread already needs to be hatted as off-topic. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1: I'll look into it. Give me a little while though. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 21:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. The incivility and accusations will no doubt continue to percolate for the next four days as they have for the past three. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)

@Dirtlawyer1: To be honest, I really think you should just drop the stick and leave that page alone. It's not worthwhile to dig yourself a deeper hole, and maybe say somethings you didn't mean (or did mean, but will regret ;). I think that's in everyone's best interest. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 12:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Inform for guidance. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• see User:Lingzhi/sandbox• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good indeed! --ceradon (talk • edits) 01:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{ygm}}• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read; replied. --ceradon (talk • edits) 22:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you declined me as being a template editor, I thought I had a good explanation for becoming an editor, so could you please give me some tips on how to get approved? And also it doesn't say declined but instead "not done", what does that mean?