Your feedback is requested at Talk:Utada Hikaru on a "Biographies" 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 00:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kashmir on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 21:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Syed Ali Shah Geelani on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. 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 13:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jean Walton on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. 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, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove "rough" from the close at Talk:Utada Hikaru#Feminine pronouns should be used. There is nothing even fainly rough about the consensus. It is overwhelming and near-unanimous.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Really only one very loud and repetitive editor dissented so I'll remove rough SMcCandlish. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 05:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We get too much drama around this subject area, and said party has been involved in two AE filings just in the last week or so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @GreenC and Narky Blert:. As we agreed on the relevant ANI page, the fact that there is an offwiki group with hundreds of editors whose membership is not known to outsiders within Wikipedia is a massive problem. I think a strong case should be made to the community (in what forum I don't know) to see how to resolve this, and was wondering if y'all were willing to collaborate in preparing such a case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further pinging @Vaticidalprophet, David Fuchs, and ScottishFinnishRadish: based on their comments in an archived BLP thread in case they're also interested. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can collaborate, but I'm not sure how you'd want to proceed. I think our best plan is likely just keeping an eye on articles that would attract their attention and work to keep them neutral. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My experiences with the GSoW were not glowingly positive, as you can see there. I'm not sure there's 'a case' per se, but I do think there are serious questions about whether their operations are appropriate in a culture that gets upset about things much more transparent. I also share David's sourcing concerns pretty sharply, especially combined with my own experiences with GSoW members having very poor understandings of sourcing broadly (e.g. removing non-English or paywalled sources, assuming things are "press releases" without reading them to see they were actually criticisms). Vaticidalprophet 18:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it's the fact not the intention which is the problem. All Wikiprojects are advocacy groups of some sort, even the very gnomish one which I started. While I was drafting my comment at ANI, I was thinking of WP:Womeninred and WP:ARS. Both have admirable aims; even the recent criticism at WP:ANI#Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron is getting problematic was largely directed to the way it operates.

We see similar WP:MEAT problems from time to time when someone attempts to use platforms like Facebook and Twitter to flood an article, or discussion, or two. Existing procedures seem to handle those fairly well; they tend to be limited in time and scope.

I'm not sure what the best way forward might be here. One possibility could be a well-thought-through WP:ARBCOM case, with the aim of setting out guidance for admins as to when and how to intervene. Should such a ruling be made, WP:AE could be a suitable place for enforcement. Narky Blert (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Narky Blert I completely agree with the reference to Women in Red as an admirable aim that greatly improves the project. Perhaps a good start would be to create some sort of Draft Space evidence gathering to record instances of (I don't know what word to use here) coordination/problematic operation/overlap in editing? I don't know exactly what structure the evidence for an arbcom case would have, for one. Would it list editors? Or overall patterns? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 11:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you as an arbitrator that you're not likely to get an accepted case regarding Guerrilla Skeptics without a) copious amounts of evidence of them being disruptive, and b) evidence that ArbCom is the last resort and you've tried everything else in dispute resolution. Cases are slogs for everyone involved, so it definitely behooves people interested in making changes to try AN boards first anyhow. I think you would need to demonstrate that en masse the organization is effecting bad changes or editing patterns in violation of Wikipedia policies—enforcing or edit-warring to keep in BLP violations or habitual misuse of sources. My main concern that I brought up to RS/N with little result was that many of the sources used don't seem to meet reliability standards, and getting a firmer consensus on that in and of itself would probably be of great help to clarifying the issue (because there's lots of articles that basically only exist due to a "bubble" of these questionable sources, rather than evidence of notability from more mainstream publications.) I hadn't seen the BLP thread you linked before and Gerbic's poor attitude is probably not a good sign the project is interested in working through those issues, but you gotta' try (before she went SlimVirgin did do a decent job overhauling Gerbic's article, at least.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, Vaticidalprophet, Narky Blert, and David Fuchs: I think that the loosest thread to pull on to untie this knot is activity related to Skeptic Inquirer-associated BLPs. Pages like John Mashey and Peter Gleick are both Fellows or consultants to SI's parent company Center for Inquiry, while Wesley R. Elsberry presented at a conference associated with SI. Looking through relevant talk pages, finding attempts to breach SPS or notability principles to increase puffery in said articles and other similar avenues could provide a good way to start looking into the issue. Sgerbic described GSoW events to try to cite issues of SI as much as possible throughout Wikipedia, so starting from there seems like the best way forward. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 13:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from these issues, I have no experience bringing discussions to RS but if someone feels SI is unreliable when reporting on skeptics (I won't venture into saying that) there are many articles about skeptics that would fail the notability test.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 13:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey don't forget me, I wanna help! Sgerbic (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• DWF makes a very good point. The key issue - and it's not restricted to the topic of this thread - is misuse of sources. This can include (but is not limited to) reliance on WP:SPS or other unreliable sources to assert notability, cherrypicking, WP:REFBOMBING, and (IMO by far the worst) citations which don't support the fact(s) they're cited in favour of. Should a clique collaborate offwiki to raise an article from WP:STUB to WP:FA - well, I'd rather they were working together onwiki, but the result would be praiseworthy.

That suggests that the best place for investigation is misuse of sources - especially, for obvious reasons, in WP:BLPs. ({{BLP IMDb-only refimprove}} exists for a reason.) If a pattern emerges, I can see two likely main issues: (1) reliability of a particular source, which is a matter for WP:RS/N, and (2) persistent misuse of a source or sources by a particular editor, which is probably a behavioural matter first for WP:TPs and if necessary later for WP:ANI. Only if a larger pattern emerges is there an argument for escalating further.

Any investigation has to start from suspicion, somewhere, often as a fishing expedition - even with IP vandals. But an arguable case needs evidence not suspicion. As anecdotes, last week I decided to investigate a UK tabloid newspaper (which I detest) to see if it could be downgraded from "generally unreliable" to "deprecated". So, I bookmarked all their major news stories (ignoring WP:GOSSIP) over several days, then looked at them all together. Some or most of their interpretations were laughable, but I found no instance where they'd made stuff up. So, "generally unreliable" is right, and there's no justification for a new thread. On the other side of the coin, about the same time I researched the host of a YouTube channel I follow (he knows his stuff), in the hope of writing him up. Nope, not a chance - the sources just aren't there. Narky Blert (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How many articles would more or less be needed for a solid case for "a larger pattern" Narky Blert. The example of them going over 160 articles with just one issue of SI seemed like enough to me but the community did not seem to see it that way. The diffs in the conversation already showed that the articles of fellows/consultants/contributors to SI are quite heavily affected by SPS and partisan sources. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 23:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:

1. The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
3. Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
4. Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
5. Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
6. BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
7. Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
8. Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sudharmono on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. 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, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should add me to your list. VdSV9•♫ 03:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean add to which list? VdSV9 A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GSoW. BTW, I wasn't trying to be discouraging or menacing or anything. I just saw that my name wasn't in there and I have already stated elsewhere that I am with the group, so this information could be useful for you to figure out just how reliable whatever method you were using was. VdSV9•♫ 11:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated VdSV9 :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 12:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:GST distribution dispute on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. 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, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Forresters Manuscript at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re Special:Diff/1053659886 I appreciate the desire to help, but I would like to note my agreement with what Ritchie333 and Levivich said above. The verb "sealioning" is a very pointed description and unlikely to reduce the energy level. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, will append A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing your subsequent edits, I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to stop editing ANI unless you have something really urgent to share. It's really easy to make edits at ANI that seem helpful but don't move the conversation forward. The current conversation needs calmness, not escalation, and proposing a topic ban when nobody had been talking about one before counts as escalation in my book. Please feel free to ask if you have any questions. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprisey I thought that continuing the discussion would just continue increasing the tension. I had already been called stupid, a witch-hunter, etc. All types of accusations had been thrown around. By making a specific proposal where others would be forced to stop just lashing out, and hypothesize and say "considering the evidence, do I agree or disagree" people would stop making pointless arguments about Sgerbic being an expert or if wikiprojects are all evil or ... A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 21:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those are true about proposals in general, but targeting one user when the discussion is about the whole group doesn't seem like a good use of time. And I don't think the proposal is going to have the described effect on the discussion; it's possible for people to continue behaving the same way under the proposal. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprisey I don't necessarily disagree with your closing on the section. However, it had been established that GSoW would have to be taken to Arbcom for any real action on that side. However, Sgerbic's flagrant COI and promotion of SI within wikipedia had been argued at length by that point. I don't see what else in that discussion can be said that hasn't been said before. In fact, the arguments are starting to become ad hominems, arguments from authority, appeals to pity, etc. rather than actual discussion. I'll kinda stay on the sidelines for now as I feel I've said all I had to say, and will await for more experienced editors to lead the way w the whole arbcom thing. (Ngl arbcom is kind of scary to a newbie like me but I look forward to this learning opportunity ^u^) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 22:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santacruz, as a very long term IP editor who's seen this a thousand times before let me be blunt with you for a minute: If you continue to hang around the Administrator's noticeboard you are going to find yourself blocked for disruptive editing. Your comments there are not helpful and are simply turning discussions into massive trainwrecks, and your article space contributions related to them (like those prods, the speedy deletion tagging, and the deletion of reliably sourced content) are almost indistinguishable from vandalism. The administrator's noticeboard is full of highly experienced admins and editors, many of whom have been here for over a decade - this isn't the first time they'll have dealt with an off-wiki group and they'll be more than capable of dealing with this one. Focus on article editing until you have a lot more experience. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I've seen this happen dozens and dozens of times before - a newcomer gets involved in some administrative area of the project without having the proper experience and knowledge to contribute there properly, ends up being disruptive in their attempts to help and ultimately ends up blocked. Please don't let it happen to you. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah for sure, I appreciate the comment. Honestly after all the insults and everything I'm just going to go back to my Carlist-related editing for a while. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 23:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of 3 months for disruptive editing. Specifically, multiple WP:CIR lapses at ANI. A. C. Santacruz, at this point in time, you're a net negative at ANI. You need to better acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policy and conventions in order to contribute there effectively, which I feel now needs to be imposed. Similar problems in other editorial processes (for example, the poor close of late), so please take note. Thanks and good luck. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 23:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C that's a fair block I don't plan on contesting. I'll use the time to reflect and learn. Cheers :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 23:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. El_C 23:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I'd have gone for two weeks rather than three months personally, but as ACS is not contesting, this is a moot point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I stand by the duration the basis of which stems from multiple disparate incidents at Incidents. Two weeks would be too brief. El_C 14:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, since ANI is commonly used for situations needing prompt enough admin attention, if you cannot post a report there, it's possible to contact an administrator (like EL C) directly. You also still have access to administrators via WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, WP:AN3, WP:AN, WP:AE, WP:UAA. Sorry for stating the obvious if you already knew about those venues. —PaleoNeonate – 23:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PaleoNeonate, I didn't know about a few of those. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. C. Santacruz, see Wikipedia:Noticeboards for all of em. Needless to say, please tread lightly whenever posting to any of those, especially wrt novel proposals and so on. El_C 14:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C I was wondering why/how the block prevents me from thanking users for their edits. Not that its a really big deal but just some curiosity from my part. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I've never heard of such a thing happening before, A. C. Santacruz, so no idea. El_C 14:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not intentional, I'll ask in village pump to see if anyone knows why El C. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now vaguely recall something about it being designed to prevent 'thanks' spam... El_C 17:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checks out, thanks for answering El C :) Hope you had a nice weekend. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 17:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, same to you. Regards, El_C 17:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C just wanted to thank you for the length of the ban, I feel that anything shorter would probs not be enough for me to gain competence and in the meanwhile it's allowing me a lot of time to reflect on how and why I spend time on this project. I assume admins don't usually get much appreciation by the targets of their actions so thought I should say something if it's more valuable than silence. Hope the work isn't too heavy on you, and have a good week :D A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 19:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reports of my vandalism have been greatly exaggerated

@El C, PaleoNeonate, and Ritchie333: an IP has recently made threats to me in a discussion ("I have emailed your university about your Wikipedia vandalism.") and I wish to take that to ANI but cannot. What should I do in this case? Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of a weird situation where I have been reverted 3 times, have detailed in-depth reasoning for my edits in the article talk page, and neither the editor Rp2006 nor the two IPs (same range) have discussed the reasoning. I was instructed to follow the steps at WP:DISCFAIL but that approach failed as well, sadly. See discussion Talk:Sharon_A._Hill under "IP revert" section, and edit history for article here. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already raised it elsewhere, as I suspect I know who is behind the IP. I was going to leave it for a bit to see if it is handled that way, but if not I'll take it to ANI. As if I am correct I'm involved, I need to pass it to someone independent to make the decisions. - Bilby (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder how the BLP discretionary sanctions affects this, as well. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are needed. If this is block evasion, all of their edits as an IP need to be reverted. If it is not, it is still harassment, in which case this edit should be reverted and the IP blocked. - Bilby (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A. C. Santacruz. Just a quick note about WP:ACDS/WP:GS. Admin action invoking a sanction regime wrt to individual editors is intended to address disruption which is somewhat nuanced. For cases where the disruption is blatant (be it relatively mild or an WP:EMERGENCY outright), those are handled through normal admin action. HTH. El_C 16:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, El C. What should I do, then? As I understand it asking for normal admin action for a situation like this would be done via ANI, right? Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably too blatant even for it. Try WP:AIV. El_C 21:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C and Bilby: I'm sorry for pinging y'all so often related to this but the matter is quickly getting out of hand even through my best efforts to engage in constructive discussion with other editors in the talk page. Rp2006 seems to be canvassing (if my understanding of the term is correct) and has addressed me so negatively in the relevant talk page I'd consider it a personal attack. What steps can I even take here? I'd list the ip range on AIV, but am unsure what to do about Rp. They haven't engaged with the discussion deeply enough to go to WP:DRN I think. I'd appreciate any and all guidance in this topic, as I am completely paralyzed and don't know what to do next without opening myself up to harassment. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

talk page stalker here While notifying a relevant Wikiproject isn't usually canvassing, that particular one is very biased in its notification. My advice right now though is to step back for a short period (a few hours/overnight perhaps). Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ACS... I am one step away of bringing you up on libel charges (or the equivalent here at WP). You went to my Talk to harass me, making unsubstantiated claims regarding me posting to user talk pages about this. Apologize & withdraw the claim -- or provide proof. Rp2006 (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not only the wording, but selectively notifying some wp and not others (e.g. WikiProject Women Scientists) is also considered canvassing in some cases IIRC. I will step away for now while I await advice on how to proceed (and tackle some big deadlines this weekend). Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lyceum Theatre (Broadway) on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. 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 00:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Caroline Reboux on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. 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, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A. C. Santacruz! I'm not sure how to approach this, but I wanted to add some general support. It seems to me that you've been dragged through some pretty rough stuff lately - what I'm finding particularly frustrating is the CIR accusations, which border on personal attacks. Wikipedia is a strange place. You can edit for years and never run into a problem; or you can accidently run into an ongoing and insanely complex dispute and find yourself a target for reasons you don't understand. One of the first times I hit a major probem on Wikipedia was when I as editing an article about a koal and I became the subject of a surreal online campaign for reasons that I still don't understand. Sometimes we walk into them knowing what to expect, and sometimes we get blindsided by a dispute that makes no sense. It seems to me you may have had your fair share of being blindsided of late.

My one big rule is to trust the community. In every major dispute I've found, where the editors are intractable and the problems seemingly impossible to solve, the community has ultimatly come up with a solution or the problem has simply gone away. Sometimes with my involvement, sometimes without, but Wikipedia is a surprisingly resilant place. Patience and stepping back works more often than not. Eventually, either GSoW will change their practices, or the community will address them. In the meantime, step back and enjoy the good experiences Wikipedia provides. I'm impressed with your work in DYK, and it seems to me that Wikipedia needs editors like you, so I'd hate to see you discouraged. - Bilby (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bilby! I really appreciate your support. I am most definitely not discouraged: I adore this community and believe in it above everything else. The last week has been pretty rough but I overall had a lot of joy this month in my editing ^u^. What stays unmoving, in fact, is that eventually the community will deal with any important issues that arise. Meanwhile, I will continue editing and contributing here for a long, long time :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 11:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy to hear that. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

——Serial 15:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 I don't get what this means regarding me. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 17:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A. C. Santacruz:, was this ever explained to you adequately? If not, ping me, and I'll explain. Mathglot (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot from my understanding it's kind of a "this room is full of fine china" type of warning where admin actions and the like can be done quicker and with less procedure, but I don't have too good of an idea I think. Thanks for the offer! Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically it. It's also, as the notice says, not in any way a flag that you did anything wrong; in theory, these notices could (maybe even should?) be handed out to everybody who edits certain controversial topic areas and hasn't received one for that topic in the last 12 months. You're also free to archive or simply delete the notice at your discretion, which will be taken as proof that you read and understood it. If you want to see the complete list of topics considered controversial and subject to Discretionary sanctions, it is here. It's possible to stave off such warnings by means of Template:Ds/aware—you can see one in use in the header box at the top of my Talk page—but I probably wouldn't do that if I were you at this stage in your career, as you probably *want* the reminder, in case you wander into some controversial topic unawares. But if you're confident you won't forget, and don't need/don't want to receive them, you can use the 'aware' template, and you won't get the notices anymore. The flip side is, you could suddenly get blocked if you forget and inadvertently cross a line somewhere; so, it's up to you. Mathglot (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to apologize for misspelling your last name yesterday but I think it was part of one of the posts I ended up with a edit conflict and didn't make it. I know how frustrating it is to have someone misspell your name. It wasn't on purpose, I have always lived next door to Santa Cruz and my fingers just type that naturally. I hope if you have questions about GSoW you will reach out. My email is SusanGerbic@Yahoo.com Sgerbic (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed so Sgerbic, don't worry too much about the spelling mistake it happens from time to time :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 20:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my songspam was sort of close... And not even on purpose! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 14:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A. C. Santacruz, love your userpage and copied the "This user has access to the following sources: " to my own, hope you don't mind :D
About the discretionary sanction notice above, the notice is commonly given to editors editing in areas where there is a discretionary sanction involved, you probably have edited a few BLP articles recently and thus gotten the notice. Justiyaya 15:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I really liked it when I saw it on Epicgenius's userpage so I asked him how he did it. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 17:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:New York Marriott Marquis and Talk:Marquis Theatre on "Art and architecture" Good Article nominations. 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 02:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Revolt of the Fourteen on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. 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 19:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cort Theatre on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. 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, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article CSS Maurepas, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the original name of the sidewheel steamer CSS Maurepas, Grosse Tete, means "big head" in French? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/CSS Maurepas. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, CSS Maurepas), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alpha Phi Beta, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Filipino fraternity Alpha Phi Beta has been involved in instances of violence, including getting mauled by rival fraternities, such as Sigma Rho? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alpha Phi Beta. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Alpha Phi Beta), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Winsome Sears on a "Biographies" 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 00:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of WP:BEFORE's item D:

The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects

 ?

I want to understand whether Taner Edis had been nominated for deletion with awareness of what this minimum search shows. Alexbrn (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn A quick search resulted in blogs, CV-like descriptions, or COI sources. Google scholar shows his work is not cited widely. google news results in a single link to a source of doubtable notability. Hope this clarification helps :) Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 07:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand. Did you run these searches beforehand or not? Alexbrn (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, Alexbrn. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 07:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a note in relation to notifications: WP:DELSORT and the notification of relevant noticeboards or WikiProjects is common practice, plus the article creator. However, user talk page notifications of specific editors who have minimally or not contributed to the article could be considered WP:CANVASSing. I didn't check if it was your first nomination, but if so, I admit that I now consider my first AfD notifications to almost be "spam" (or at least overzealous, out of a concern for detail with my flawed understanding of the process at the time)... —PaleoNeonate – 10:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Julian Assange on a "Politics, government, and law" 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, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jack Posobiec on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" 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, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:J. K. Rowling on a "Biographies" 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 14:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of minority governors and lieutenant governors in the United States on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 00:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" 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, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. C. Santacruz, you are still a new user, so you can't be expected to know all the rules around here (of which there are many), but I see you've learned some of the rules about RFCs, in particular, how to create one, as you did here at Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on lead sentence; so bravo for that. On the other hand, you haven't yet learned about proper Rfc closure procedure. This closure by you was an invalid closure, even if the result would have turned out the same eventually. Normally, an Rfc runs for 30 days, although they can be closed earlier by agreement, or by the original poster *withdrawing* the Rfc. However, nobody can close an Rfc 26 hours after it started, and the original poster can never close an Rfc and also assess the result, no matter what the "score" is at that point, and no matter how many days have elapsed since it started. Also somewhat concerning, is the fact that within 7 hours of starting the Rfc, you were talking about its closure, and follow-up with a second based on a presupposed consensus, saying: "once consensus is reached (the RfC started yesterday so it'll wait for a bit) I will start a second RfC presenting various options for wording based on the result of this RfC". That statement was premature, and did not help the Rfc that was underway.

I say all this as someone who voted with you on that Rfc, but I believe the Rfc guideline takes precedence over my opinion, and the formalities of the Rfc process have to be respected, irrespective of anyone's personal point of view. Unfortunately, the damage to process by the invalid closure has been compounded, because you then opened another one, using as a premise of the second Rfc, the fact that the first one had been closed and properly assessed. In my opinion, this now makes the second Rfc tainted by the invalid closure of the first. I'm really not sure what to do about all this, and will leave it to an uninvolved closer to unscramble.

In any case, the reason I'm explaining all this, is just to say that if you decide to open another Rfc some day (on any topic), please ensure that you do not attempt to evaluate it or close it at any point; it's also a better look if someone else other than the OP calls for snow close, or requests closure and assessment after it expires. I hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following here from Talk:J. K. Rowling: FWIW, A. C. Santacruz got the opposite advice at WP:ANRFC. Firefangledfeathers 05:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; I'm surprised. Well, just goes to show you, if the experienced editors don't agree about such things, we certainly can't blame newer editors from getting confused. To A. C. Santacruz's credit, they went to the right place, got some advice there, and applied it; I certainly can't fault them for that; just the opposite. The fact that I don't happen to agree with that advice, is neither here nor there. Mathglot (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Firefangledfeathers. Could you perhaps provide the exact link showing that advice? -The Gnome (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome diff Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also have likely cautioned against closing your own RfC in all but the most exceptional cases. I think one ingredient here is the contentiousness of the topic area. Even with clear early support for one option, who knows what opinions might pop out of the woodwork? Conversely, who knows who might later question the solidity of the consensus without allowing enough time? Worth thinking/talking about, I think. Firefangledfeathers 06:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Firefangledfeathers and Mathglot: for coming to my talk page to give advice, I really appreciate it ^u^. To be perfectly honest I wasn't too keen on closing it (still believe it should've run at least the weekend) but the wording of the advice on WP:CR felt a bit authoritative. I wonder if its a good idea for me to reopen the discussion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reply at length now, but at this point, I would not reopen. Mathglot (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"So if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days; if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious" (WP:CR)

"When further responses are likely to result in little more than wasting everyone's time by repeating the same widely held view, then it should be closed sooner rather than later" (WP:WHENCLOSE)

"An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be.", "There is no required minimum or maximum duration" (WP:RFCCLOSE)

"If there is unanimous support for something uncontroversial, then a discussion can generally not be seen as contentious or heated, and WP:SNOW can be applied".

These were the basis for my reasoning. And if I might add, WP:CR stipulating "any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion" and WP:RFCCLOSE establishing that "any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion" is slightly confusing.

Regardless, I take full responsibility for this and apologize for my misguided counsel. Also, I intended in no way to convey my advice in an authoritative manner. I understand that the legitimacy of the close and thus the subsequent RfC are now in doubt as a result; so if needed, other RfC participants may be asked for their opinion on this or WP:AN may be consulted. I hope this helps, and again, I’m sorry. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonestarrice:, your comments here at A.C.S.'s talk page are very gracious, and I don't think you have anything to apologize for. Your reading of the guidelines is most certainly a defensible one, and you gave your advice, as I and others did, in good faith, and that's all anyone can ask for. Beyond that, anyone who is willing to reexamine their own behavior in a given situation epitomizes, in my opinion, the very highest standards of Wikipedia; you are exactly the kind of editor that Wikipedia needs more of. So, bravo, thanks for your comments, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.C. Santacruz, it seems you were in a similar situation before at Talk:Éric Zemmour, in which your recommendation to another editor to close an Rfc they started was rebuffed by JBchrch (here) and The Gnome (here). I can see you're getting some conflicting advice about this whole closure business, and if anything similar happens again regarding this, or any guideline or policy, that's probably a good sign that as a still relatively new user, you should probably take the most conservative approach and leave any iffy move to a more experienced editor, and let them take the heat if they try something that isn't clearly compliant. Sorry you've been mixed up with all this, to some extent it's collateral damage from having edited in controversial areas (Rowling: gender-related issues; Zemmour: right-wing politics) and if you want some peace and quiet for a while, just try and avoid such topics for a bit. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(since I was pinged): Two oft-forgotten components of WP:BOLD are 1. WP:CAREFUL and 2. the notion that Although editors are encouraged to be bold in updating articles, more caution is sometimes required when editing pages in non-article namespaces. A. C. Santacruz, be less bold and more careful in non-mainspace pages and you'll be fine. JBchrch talk 02:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opening an RfC

On a related note - was opening either of the RfCs on Rowling the wisest course of action? There are fairly frequent changes to the article and heated discussion on the talk page, but over the last yeart or so, rough consensus has emerged, following previous discussions and RfCs. It seems from some of your comments that you haven't read those or indeed, the article itself, in full, before jumping in with both feet to start the two RfCs. While I understand WP:BOLD and absolutely assume you started these RfCs with good faith, what we are seeing know was eminently predictable - in the majority of cases, people are !voting based on their personal opinion of the topic of transgender rights/activism/criticism, rather than on WP policy. E.g., claims of "too recent" or WP:DUE for the lead, ignoring what the MOS:LEAD already states. In particular, I have concerns about 'splitting the vote' in offering two different options about "if we keep this in the lead, what should we say". Actually, even more fundamentally, after snow-closing the previous RfC, it should have been made clear that only a tiny minority of those commenting in that RfC favoured removing from the lead. Now, suddenly, that's up for debate, even though it's been stable in the lead for months. I've been here quite a while, and I can tell you if I were to start an RfC on something so controversial, I'd likely be seeking advice on wording, options, format, or even appropriateness of doing so, before starting. Sorry, just my 2c. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^{( Buttinsky)} I am beginning to wonder if there's a yen for WP:DRAMA apparent from such actions, kind of like what caused problems at ANI a couple of weeks ago. Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that removing it from the lead as an option is not my fault, I merely gave an option for other rewordings of the lead. I didn't even consider there would be actual support for removal from the lead aside from one or two editors with transphobic opinions (who I recognized from other discussions). In any case, RfCs are not decided by votes, and if the closer sees there is widespread support for inclusion but disagreement on how exactly to word it (either A, B, or C) they will mention that in the close. A subsequent RfC can then be made between those option with clear mention that removal is against consensus. I sought the advice of Newimpartial in this discussion on their talk page. I strongly believe that the lead will be contentious for the following years, and having a consensus on the exact wording of the lead will help keep it stable. As you can see from the discussion there is a non-trivial number of editors that find it problematic in its current state (too much or too little mention of the trans views) and I continue to believe that RfCs guided by specific options helps make that debate more structured. Just looking at the discussion above my first RfC and how disorganized and battlegrounded that was, I don't think that me deciding to create those RfCs was wrong. In any case, Bastun I genuinely appreciate you coming to my talk page and letting me know of your concerns ^u^. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It won't keep it stable - and nor should it! - because new things will happen and editors old and new will come along and change the wording, for better or worse. This is as it should be. Wordings should never be set in stone by an RfC, and in fact they can't be. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been at least one case where an RfC did decide wording under the aegis of arbitration: WP:GMORFC. But otherwise there is a general growing problem on Wikipedia of editors (especially new ones) seeing RfCs as quasi-legal ways of "settling cases" - as decision-making-mechanisms rather than requests for comment. Editors are launching RfCs before doing proper WP:RFCBEFORE and a lot of community time is being wasted. There are plenty of hornets' nests on Wikipedia, and it's not a great use of time to go around kicking them. Alexbrn (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean stable as in unchangeable or set in stone, rather as a steady point of reference. Recent consensus is useful at guiding edits in contentious articles. Other editors had suggested changing the wording in the first RfC I made, and so I created a second one to discuss that. Alexbrn please use less idioms when talking with or about me, as I find them hard to understand in this context — just say what you mean. The idea I am seeking controversial articles to create more controversy and drama is an unreasonable accusation lacking both in diffs and proper process (there are noticeboards for that), especially when I have repeatedly mentioned I created the RfCs in order to bring some structure to the mess of a discussion previously held in the talk page. I'd appreciate you stop lurking my talk page if you don't wish to change your tone when addressing me as I find it insulting and patronizing (WP:NOBAN), but you are still welcome to message me here when necessary for the Wikipedia process. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: If you follow {{Talk header}}, it instructs users to "seek dispute resolution if needed", and links to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests, where launching a RfC looks like the most reasonable and straightforward option. Actually, I would argue that learning how to avoid RfCs is something that that is generally reserved to experienced editors who know their way around the project and its customs. JBchrch talk 16:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A new RFC (as you're aware of) is up & steamrolling ahead. So, your closure of the earlier-related RFC, shall have to remain. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion, your reply began with :* to a previous comment that began with an asterisk, but that was wrong; if you wanted to indent only, you should have used *:, and if you wanted an indented bullet, then **. I know this can be confusing, but the rule of thumb is, just copy whatever the comment you are replying to used, add one more metacharacter, depending what look you're going for, and don't skip any blank lines. (That said, the software compensates for some errors and sometimes does what you want, anyway, as I think it did in this case.) This is all explained in detail at WP:THREAD. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware there was any difference between :* and *:, thanks for telling me Mathglot :D. The main issue I find with doing multiple asterisks like *** is when the comment above (in a deeper thread) does not use an asterisk for some reason it displays like a double asterisk where the first one is at no indentation and the second one is at the intended indentation (yikes what a mouthful of a tongue twister). Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that double-asterisk thing is one of the downsides of the somewhat complex syntax of discussion threading; when people in good faith get the prefix metacharacters wrong, there can be weird, unintended results. The WMF (WikiMedia Foundation, the folks that create/maintain the software) have been looking at redoing the entire system of talk page replies, and have them installed at some mediawiki properties already, I think. Mathglot (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the stress of the JKR rfc is distracting, but when that settles down, please have another look at WP:THREAD. Several of your responses at that rfc have nonstandard bulleting or formatting, due to misfires in that regard. This is definitely not a big deal, but looking at your punctilious attention to and awareness of policies, guidelines and other help/info pages, sometimes pretty minor ones, this is kind of an outlier at this point in escaping your attention. When in doubt, follow the rule of thumb. Reemphasizing: nbd; but just thought you'd want to know. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes what happens to me is I see the editors above me used the wrong formatting (e.g. changed from bullet to indent when replying to a bulleted comment) and I get completely paralyzed as I don't know if I can fix their formatting, follow their mistake, or go ahead and use what they should have. Is it considered disruptive or an offensive move to fix others' formatting, Mathglot? If it isn't I'll just fix their formatting from now on. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's considered bad form to alter another editor's post, even to fix typos and so on; see WP:TPO. However, I do do it on rare occasions anyway, when all of the following are true:

• I feel that my change is a clear improvement in some way
• the change has *zero effect* on the other user's intended meaning (regardless whether I agree with it or not)
• there is very little chance the editor would object.

In those cases, I use the edit summary to state clearly what I'm doing, linking WP:TPO, and stating that I'm violating it, and sometimes inviting a revert of my edit. Some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

That said, if the editor in question and I were on opposite (or differing) sides of some substantive issue at a TP discussion or if I feel there's any chance that their feathers might be ruffled by my messing with any part of their comment, even as little as a colon or asterisk, then I steer clear of it, and just let it be. This procedure is my own, and is not codified in any guideline, or even essay, afaik; use at your own discretion. Mathglot (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might be a bit more willing to edit the indentation style than Mathglot. It is listed as an appropriate move at WP:TPO. I share their thoughts on avoiding any meaning changing edits. Firefangledfeathers 22:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been more active in fixing indents in the past, or trying to keep some sort of stability. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if it's because of editor personal preference, or perhaps the way some editors make their contributions (desktop vs mobile vs visual editor, etc.) I've seen some comments get really broken, so unless it's something particularly egregious like linebreaks futzing * lists I tend to leave it alone now. There's just too many ways it can go wrong to actually stay on top of it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, this is the sort of indenting I would fix.

• First level bullet
  • Second level bullet

• • • What should be third level bullet but isn't because of a blank line immediately above.

That sort of thing can impact readability. That said, I really dislike using * for indenting. Colon indenting is a lot more forgiving, and allows for line break gaps without breaking the indent level, which makes navigating the source a lot easier at least for me when editing on desktop. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Are good for when one posts a Support or Oppose, etc in any RFC, AFD, RM etc etc. Responding posts after that should not use them & merely use regular indenting. -- GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be yet another person piling into an overlong discussion, but if you want indenting your posts and all that jazz taken care of for you, go to Preferences → Beta features and enable "Discussion tools", then click "Save"; comments will now have a "Reply" button after them. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piling appreciated and encouraged! Thanks for the recommendation Enterprisey :D Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your point. As someone with as much experience here as you have, please be more civil.

Spare me. As someone with as little experience here as you have -- and who's been blocked from WP:ANI due to a lack of clue -- you don't get to give me -- or anyone else, really -- advice.

You've made your point is particularly rich coming from someone badgering other editors in order to own a page. You need to better acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policy and conventions -- including how consensus works -- in order to contribute here effectively instead.

Oh, and another thing you should learn: WP:DNTR. --Calton | Talk 11:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be this aggressive towards me, Calton. I had good intentions writing those messages and I'm sorry that you felt insulted by them. If you don't mind, I don't understand what WP:DNTR has to do in this instance. Is it me sending the kitten? In any case, the WP:ANI block was due to me not understanding non-admin closures and collapsing discussions so I don't see what that has to do with my competence here (you can just say I don't have much experience). I'm doing a good honest effort at improving how I contribute in this community. I'd rather you give me guidance than just tell me I suck. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, that template was entirely in order; your heated language at Talk:J. K. Rowling was not. Please stop throwing stones. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out @Calton: that WP:DNTR isn't policy, it's an essay. And explicitly states A very small number of templates, such as the Arbitration Committee's Alert template, are mandatory and must be "placed unmodified" for an alert to be valid. As a result, these templates are not covered by this essay. so Santacruz was entirely in the right here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out to @Calton: that the message "A kitten for you" placed on your talk page was not a template—and there is no possible way you could have misconstrued it as one given its content—so your raising the WP:DNTR issue is both laughably mistargeted, as well as completely gratuitous. As someone who's throwing around DNTR at newer editors and claiming "regular" status based on your 17 years experience here, you ought to reread DNTR and understand that it is *strictly* about templates, not about text custom-crafted for the occasion. If you're feeling piled-on here, I'm sorry about that, but I felt it necessary to show my support here for A.C.S., as well as to let you know how wildly off-base your comments were. In reality, you ought to feel grateful that this is on A.C.S.'s talk page and not on yours. Best, Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi....just to repeat what others said. Please be so kind to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's many nooks and crannies, called policies etc.... Sometimes doing less is getting more results...patience is helpful. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Lectonar Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cannabis in Japan on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. 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, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shirley Chisholm on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. 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 17:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ed Sullivan Theater on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination, and at Talk:Empathy gap (social psychology) on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. 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 18:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

Just letting you know about the stricter rules for gender and sexuality related topics on Wikipedia. Don't worry, it's just a standard notice that has to be given and you've not done anything wrong. It's just like the one Serial left above but for gender. P.S there's a handy ds/aware you can add to the top of your talk or user page to collate them all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the notice Sideswipe9th :D Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been playing round with your custom sig lately? In my previous edit on this page, I had to fix your sig because it was screwing up syntax highlighting for everything following. As this is your page, that doesn't really matter, but since you post on article Talk pages, it could affect those pages adversely. (Again: not a huge deal, because the only adverse effect is on those who rely on syntax highlighting in the wikicode, like, ahem, yours truly; but still...) The offending sig was:

• <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz]]</span>

which has a missing </span> before the ]]. It looks like you've fixed that already.

The latest sig of yours I see at 19:49 looks completely different from that one, so I assume you're continuing to experiment. You seem familiar enough with Html that you don't need advice on that score, but I'd just ask that you pass any complex changes through an Html validator before going live with it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it up a few times a week ago IIRC. At first because people were just referring to me as Santacruz anyways and then I was super annoyed that editors would reply to me without pinging me meaning I'd have to check my contributions to see if my edit was still the current version of the page etc. Thanks for the heads up Mathglot, I'll be more careful when editing my signature in the future. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Please note, due to a technical error you may not have been able to previously vote, or you may have received this message twice or after opting out. This is a one-time notification. If you are having any issues voting now, please contact the election coordinators for assistance. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Michelle Mone, Baroness Mone on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. 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 00:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:William Brattle on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. 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 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]