User talk:Dlthewave/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

GNIS

I saw the RfC and agree with it too. As far as notability, I wanted to make sure you're aware that the articles that I created that currently only cite GNIS are stub articles and have many other sources that havn't been added yet. -420Traveler (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

New message from Stifle

Hello, Dlthewave. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 16:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hounding

Dlthewave, you are welcome to come to my talk page to discuss how we can improve articles together or how we can do an opposing view OpEd together. However, your accusation of hounding is not helpful or welcome. Please do not post such accusations on my talk page. Springee (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I independently came here to say that the mention of hounding seemed uncalled for. The IP is a SPA; how would even be possible to hound an editor that's only contributed to one subject area? VQuakr (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft

For your kind information, all those articles will be moved back to main space. Please initiate an AfD, if you wish to delete them. Else we will meet at AN. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Dlthewave,
If an editor is reversing your efforts to move articles to Draft space and reverting your moves, it's best not to persist. If you believe an article should be deleted, you can nominate it for deletion but please do not focus in on a particular content creator and move a lot of their articles to Draft space when it is unwanted. Time to move on. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Liz. This user went beyond targeting articles created by me - even articles like Dev-Kesken created a decade ago by some (unknown to me) editor and only edited by me, was sent to drafts. This is obvious WP:STALKING. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Liz, point taken. I stopped draftifying after I saw the comment. –dlthewave ☎ 16:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable source?

What makes you characterise this source as unreliable? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not exactly unreliable, but this type of government table is not useable for establishing significant coverage (see WP:NGEO #Sources) nor is there any evidence that the places listed are legally recognized as required by WP:GEOLAND. We've been burned before when editors mass-created articles from such tables without fact checking and it turned out that the word translated as "village" could refer to anything from a farm to a cluster of homes to an actual village. That's exactly what I'm seeing here. –dlthewave ☎ 13:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Make an essay on legal recognition?

When I get some time I'll try to write an essay on what is/isn't legal-recognition. There's some truly off-the-wall ideas about what is/isn't legal recognition, including "has an address", "has a town sign", "is mentioned at all in any government document, ever", "has/had a post-office" and it's really doing my head in having to explain every single time that "legal recognition" actually requires some process of law. A lot of it is the fault of the term itself which is very vague, but it clearly requires that some law of some kind recognise the settlement because that's the literal meaning of the term. FOARP (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Turkish villages

This is certainly not cleanup, and I do not think you have a mandate of the community for such edits. If you want to continue please open a topic on a noticeboard.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

You're right, I meant to use a "redirect to district" edit summary. The Turkish geostub issue was discussed multiple times [1][2][3] with consensus to redirect and I received AWB approval for this work. Please note that these articles fail WP:GEOLAND which specifically excludes tables from establishing notability. I'm happy to discuss further if you have any concerns. –dlthewave ☎ 18:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
And thank you for catching Yeşilbaşköy. I was mistaken in redirecting that one. –dlthewave ☎ 18:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I see the AWB permission indeed. Note however that by redirecting the stubs you have lost the sourced population information, which needs to be added to the target.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Is it standard to include population figures for neighborhoods in district articles? I didn't think it was necessary. –dlthewave ☎ 18:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I do not know, but we had this information before your edits, and it disappeared after your edits. This is not how we usually build the encyclopedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The information continues to exist, just in a more accessible form. FOARP (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
No, the information on population is gone.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Already asked this user not to post on my talkpage once before

I've asked you once before not to post on my talkpage, so here's a reminder. Please do not bother me again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Sportsmen Lake

You moved the entire pages to "drafts" after editing the page and removing all contents of the page with the simple statement of "it's a lake not a settlement". It's more of a settlement than you know, and I'm aware of that since I live there. And if your argument is to be upheld then the same should be said for 'Pinedale Shores' in the same county. Since "it's a lake not a settlement". LDS20 (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page comments at CNN

Just wondering why you decided to delete that section by the IP editor? SmolBrane (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The CNN talk page has been plagued with disruptive comments that are basically just accusing Wikipedia of bias with no sourcing or policy-based reasoning to back it up. But if you feel that this one is different, I'm happy to let it stand. –dlthewave ☎ 18:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
You're supposed to close discussions then, not delete them. Remember AGF--applies to IP editors too. It is not your jurisdiction to "let it stand" or not. SmolBrane (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Glenn Spears

Thankyou for nominating Glenn Spears for deletion. It is nice to see people applyin the actual standards for notability and evaluating articles on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Gazetteer

The village pump discussion is disappointing, but frankly I think the long-term best response is simply to do with Geo articles what was done with Olympian articles - wait a few months for a case where just ridiculous articles are being kept due to the present standard (and we’re pretty close with some of the present AFDs) and then start a general discussion on that. People are making their !votes without looking at the kind of stuff that is being enabled by the present standards. FOARP (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and it seems like changes to guidelines (or a cherished essay, in this case) are more successful when there's already been a lengthy discussion that folks can look over. It's disappointing to see folks voting on whether the change was out-of-process instead of on the change itself.
Lponga would be a good example of one where people are clearly not looking at the sources since none of them even mentioned the place. –dlthewave ☎ 13:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I think the next step here is a discussion at WP:NOT. Not right now but a few months after the Village pump discussion closes. Something like "Is wikipedia a gazetteer?" since that's clearly a Faultline running through the Option A !votes (e.g., half of them are saying "Option A - of course this doesn't mean Wikipedia is a gazetteer" and the other half are saying the exact opposite whilst still !voting the same way). FOARP (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Bartın district

Hi Dlthewave. A week has elapsed since our conversation here and a month since Ymblanter's messages to you about this topic. The reliably sourced population information you removed about villages in Bartın district needs to be reinstated ASAP, and it is your responsibility to do so. You cannot mass redirect reliably sourced articles with a semi-automated tool and expect others to clean up. Do you intend to work on this? If not, I will have to revert all of your edits on that district and generally flag up my concerns about your use of AWB. Regards. --GGT (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'll go through and restore when I have the time. I can't commit to a certain time frame but hopefully I'll be able to get started within the next few days. –dlthewave ☎ 16:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Great to hear. Thank you very much! --GGT (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts canvassing

Thankyou for notifying Lugnuts against canvassing. He seems to have ignored your counsel. You may want to bring up an ANI about it. His total refusal to appreciate that significant coverage is needed is bad enough, and the fact that ke created huge percentages of the Olympic articles makes him almost get mass notified about them, but allowing him to canvass like minded obstructionists who are trying tooth and nail to avoid actually implementating gudidelines on minimum needed sourcing just should not be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  • He also removed my comment that seconded your view that his actions constituted convassing. He seems to be trying to remove any criticism of his actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
"allowing him to canvass like minded obstructionists" - Please look at WP:NPA, Lambert. And have either of you actually read WP:CANVASS? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Olympics

Hello. I've begun a deletion sorting page for articles about the Olympics which are nominated at AfD. Hope you find it useful. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Issues and concerns

I'm opening this discussion at your own talk page where it is, of course, your prerogative to ignore or delete it. By raising it here, I'm showing my willingness to give you the opportunity of taking voluntary responsibility to address the issues raised and rectify the problems.

On 12 December, you used AWB to redirect all the Bartin villages and called the exercise a "clean up" in the edit summary. I haven't checked them all, but it looks as if most if not all included population figures that have not been taken forward. These concerns were first raised by Ymblanter in this discussion later the same day. No commitment was made by you to restore the information despite Ymblanter rightly pointing out that we had this information before your edits, and it disappeared after your edits. This is not how we usually build the encyclopedia (my emphasis). You effectively ignored Ymblanter's concerns by making no attempt to rectify the loss of information. Instead, only two hours later, you simply ploughed ahead with the AWB redirects to Düzce.

On 11 January, GGT opened this discussion reminding you that you must restore the Bartin population figures. GGT was fully justified in adding: Do you intend to work on this? If not, I will have to revert all of your edits on that district and generally flag up my concerns about your use of AWB. You replied next day that you would go through and restore when I have the time. GGT accepted that answer and obviously expected you to fulfil the obligation.

While you claim limited availability, it is noticeable that you found plenty of time at the end of December to redirect many other Turkish villages. I would have thought that correction always takes priority over redirection.

On 23 March, Ingratis felt compelled to remind you of your commitment to restore the Bartin information and opened this discussion. The answer was: I've been busy in real life and haven't had the chance to sit down and take on that project. I intend to do it eventually when I have the time, but I can't tell you when that might be. Remember, we're volunteers, and we can't require other editors to make specific edits.

In fact, you have spent a lot of time on WP so far this year and are certainly not above "requiring other editors to make specific edits". I think it is reasonable to assume you have no intention of fulfilling obligation to the Bartin village info. Furthermore, while it is right that a sysop like Ymblanter should prioritise administration over editing, the prime responsibility of non-sysops like yourself (and me) is to build the encyclopaedia by useful editing, not to go around trying to do the sysops' job for them as you frequently do. Even a cursory glance at your contrib pages indicates you spend far more time voicing opinions at forums and telling other editors what they should be doing.

For reasons stated on the page itself, this is undeniably a bad RfC as emphasised by both A. C. Santacruz, who closed it, and Mhawk10, who intended to close and raised concerns afterwards. This RfC is relevant to the contentious actions taken by you in December and it raises a WP:CIR question. There have been other concerns and questions about your competence including [4], [5], [6] and [7].

As for the Turkish village redirects, I think the whole lot should be reverted, certainly the Bartin ones, to ensure that the job is done correctly by competent editors. I will volunteer to do the reverts if others are agreeable but I will not do the redirects. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: I was not a closer of that discussion. Per my comment on the page, I initially intended to close the discussion after seeing a post on WP:RFCLOSE. But I decided to leave a !vote instead because I had strong concerns about how the discussion would interact with WP:CONLEVEL even though no user in the discussion had mentioned it. I endorse A. C. Santacruz's close of that discussion; she correctly ascertained a consensus by evaluating the strength of the various arguments present through the lens of policy. However, I was not involved in writing the closing summary. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Mhawk10 is correct that they were not involved in writing the closing summary. It was a closure only by myself, and if anyone wishes to discuss it I am free and willing to do so. I agree with No Great Shaker at least to the point that I'm concerned about your understanding or use of AWB for controversial actions which should be done only after solid consensus at the proper venues. I would strongly recommend you lift the foot off the gas (if you'll pardon the metaphor) when it comes to redirecting villages en masse or geostub redirect/deletion proposals. I understand your concerns about them but I would urge you to take a break for a few months building content in other areas before returning to geostub discussions in order to cool off for a bit. I hope my message did not sound passive aggressive or dismissive, and I hope to see you around the wiki :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
A. C. Santacruz and Mhawk10. Apologies to you both for the misunderstanding about closure. I've corrected the closure sentence above. Thanks for your comments. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
With respect to the remainder of the stuff there, I don't think a WP:TBAN from starting RfCs is in order. If the user makes bad requests for comment, then editors can simply argue that; there is not such a high level of disruption by raising a single bad RfC that banning a user from making requests for comment is anywhere near justified. I'm not familiar with the interactions between this user and Lugnuts, so I don't feel apt to comment on the proposed IBAN. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
A. C. Santacruz, thank you for the advice. I've already taken my foot off the gas; you'll notice that although I was approved for AWB last year based on community consensus to redirect Turkish village stubs, I stopped using it several months ago after I started getting pushback. No Great Shaker I'm not quite sure what the ongoing concern is and I don't think I owe anyone an explanation of my editing habits, but you know where ANI is if you feel the need to pursue this further. Have a nice day. –dlthewave ☎ 18:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
TL/DR - whatever this is about, please can everyone refrain from pinging me. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
My apologies. I'll refrain from doing so. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
My apologies too, Lugnuts, and I've removed the sentences which concern you so that this is entirely about the Turkish village issue. Best wishes. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion discussing sanctions here is utterly pointless. No Great Shaker should either take it to ANI (which I would grossly not recommend) or not make allusions to such sanctions. Discussing them in the user's talk page does not do anything except threaten them or at least affect negatively their ability to contribute to the wiki. If there is disruptive behavior that warrants sanctions it is not the task of 4 non-admins in a user's talk page to find out. That can be done at ANI or not at all. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
A. C. Santacruz, you are probably correct that it is too soon to consider sanctions so I've removed that paragraph. I think in any case that it's too soon for ANI because the editor should be given one last chance to address the Bartin issue, having been challenged three times previously. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, No Great Shaker. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @No Great Shaker: If you have valid grounds (I don't think you do) and want to propose sanctions, you know where ANI is. If you aren't going to do that, please drastically cool your approach to defending Lugnuts (see also WP:CIVIL and WP:THREATEN). Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
See above. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Bartın district

Are you now at last able to revert your inappropriate edits here? It was pointed out to you at the end of last year by Ymblanter that you should do so, and you were reminded about this by GGT in January. Time passes. Ingratis (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been busy in real life and haven't had the chance to sit down and take on that project. I intend to do it eventually when I have the time, but I can't tell you when that might be. Remember, we're volunteers, and we can't require other editors to make specific edits. –dlthewave ☎ 22:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
...and for that reason we should not leave our mistakes for other volunteers to clear up, but it seems that this has now attracted more attention than mine, so I can withdraw into the shadows whence I came.Ingratis (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (sports)

People are trying to discuss notability on this. And making universal changes to Wikipedia:Notability (sports) without discussion has been done before and reverted. And the close for that was entirely unclear, and does not give people justification to remove everything. Please stop trying to impose your view, please collaborate with the discussion instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. Consensus has been reached. The close is clear. It was reviewed, and was not overturned. Please stop interfering. –dlthewave ☎ 22:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
The consensus was to collaboratively discuss, not to do what you're doing. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Per the closing statement: "I gave little weight to the "no replacement"-type arguments as they miss the point of the proposal and are procedural rather than substantive concerns. To be clear on how they miss the point: the replacement is the GNG which applies to all articles; the proposal was to eliminate certain special criteria, so of course no alternative criteria were specified." What more is there to discuss? –dlthewave ☎ 22:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
The page has been protected for the last 2 weeks to stop people from removing everything. That should make it very xlear that you have no super consensus to do this like you claim. If you WP:ANI me, I would exoect a bommerang. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
And calling me a "disruptive editor" because I support using a talkpage for discussion of changes rather than letting people do then unilaterally is a violation of WP:NPA. Let's see how long it is until you're reverted, I would say you're om seriously thin ice trying to enforce this way, especially if you want to continue abusing me for challenging you. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Please stop with your bullshit warnings. GiantSnowman 08:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I know you're unhappy with the way the RfC turned out but please, try to stay civil. –dlthewave ☎ 18:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
No, I'm trying to find productive ways forward. You're the one who keeps trying to wind people up. Leave me alone. GiantSnowman 19:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Don't ever ping me or post on my talkpage. I don't want anything to do with you and your fanatical deletionism. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

ANI

Thankyou for the comments on the ANI which has somehow turned into an ANI focused on me, even though that was not what it started out as.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou for your ANI proposal

Thankyou for your most recent ANI proposal. It is shocking to me that some editors are basically saying that I should avoid nominating the insanely large set of articles that was created by Lugnuts because he throws a fit whenever I nominate articles created by him. The fact that anyone is supporting his view that it is somehow unacceptable for me to nominate any articles for him, because someone opened an ANI on him getting on his case for making unfounded accusations against me over nominating articles created by him is just astounding. The two-way interaction ban would encourage Lugnuts to use the same sorts of unfounded accusations against the next editor who tries to bring our Wikipedia coverage into line with current Wikipedia policies. The ANI had only had about 1 edit in the last week until today. It is not clear why it was still even open. Over and over again this process is drawn out, and then the very process' existence is used to try and enforce results of the process that have not been implemented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Is there anyway for us to determine the number of articles Lugnuts created. I am very discouraged at how many editors do not seem to recognize the problem with the tone he is using. I am probably naively thinking they might change their tone if they could see the total of numbers of articles involved. I feel like some editors believe it is OK for others to say rude, cruel, and unkind things against me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Karel Přibyl is someone who our actual sources say his nationality was with Czechoslovakia. I edited the article to say this. Lugnuts reverted it without explanation. He did the same thing with František Marek (architect) an article that our only source connected to it opens with "Czechoslovakian architect František Marek received an Honorable Mention at the 1948 London Olympics in the Art Competitions". I am not seeing on what sources we would rely to call these individuals other than Czechslovak. I am trying to not make this bigger than what it is, but the sources we have clearly use terms like Czechoslovakian for these people, so I do not see on what grounds we would just call them Czech.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I just realized that Lugnuts puts right on his talk page how many articles he has created. It is 93,547. So my deletion nominations, in total, for the last 6 months, have affected less than 0.05% of the articles he has created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I am very frustrated with the couse of ANI. Evidetnly because I have not abided by a restirction that no one has actually even proposed (an outright ban on my nominating articles created by Lugnuts for deletion), I am now evidently headed towards being indefinetly blocked. The actual proposals are "interaction" bans. I am not sure that they have been spelled out. Would they mean that I cannot edit any articles that Lugnuts ever created. Does such a ban extend to articles Lugnuts edited. This makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I ask a serious question about on what grounds an interaction ban extends to not nominating any article created by the other user, and am met with a lot of attacks and cussing. I am really getting discouraged by the general allowence of all sorts of rude behavior allowed on ANI. Also the fact that a legitimate question leads to all sorts of attacks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • It looks like the assumption of many editors is the ANI made it unacceptable for me to nominate any articles created by Lugnuts for deletion for the duration of the ANI, and that Lugnuts has carte blanche to attack me for doing so as long as it exists, and every attempt I make to defend myself is grounds to punish me more. Now 2 editos have voiced support for an indefinte block.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I really do not like how so much of Wikipedia operates on assumptions like having good optics. If the ANI made a rule that I could not nominate articles created by Lugnuts for deletion without people threatening me with indefinete blocking my ability to edit, someone should have said it up front. No one even implied it the first time I did it. It was not until after the second time, 9 days later, and even then the suggestion came up Friday morning, when I did the second nomination on Wednesday afternoon. Basically Lugnuts gets to treat me any way he wants, but I get ever increasing punishments thrown at me even though there is no actual decision. I am very frustrated by all of this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I am trying to convince myself that I should be encoraged since a majority of votes are against both the interaction ban and the topic ban. I am not, especially since one non-account user was able to post something that was very rude. I guess I should also be encoraged that no one way interaction ban has actually been proposed against me. However some of the tone is clearly against me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Your evidence submission

The drafting arbitrators have decided that the NSPORT RfC and its implementation is not "Conduct in deletion-related editing" and thus evidence about it is not appropriate. Therefore we have removed the sections "GiantSnowman filibustered implementation of the NSPORTS RfC" and "GiantSnowman made uncivil remarks when called out" from your evidence. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: whilst you are here - Dlthewave did not actually notify me that they had raised issues with me at the Evidence page, meaning I stumbled upon it by pure luck, and of the four diffs they present in the 'GiantSnowman cited the the deprecated WP:NFOOTBALL guideline at AfD' section, in only one of them do I actually cite NFOOTBALL. That diff - dated 28 March - is before NFOOTBALL was actually removed from NSPORTS (which happened four days later on 1 April, see this), and when the RFC was subject to appeal/challenge. You will find that I was the one on 2 April - the very next day - to remind people that NFOOTBALL had been removed.
Dlthewave and I have had run-ins over NSPORTS multiple times following the RFC, they have a clear agenda against me, and their evidence is one-sided and inaccurate. GiantSnowman 07:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, consensus changed the moment the RfC was closed. Please don't pretend that it didn't exist on 28 March just because editors (including yourself) were edit warring and filibustering against edits to the guideline. Please don't pretend that RfC outcomes don't apply while they are under review. And in any case, on 28 March NFOOTY opened with "Significant coverage is likely to exist..." which you and I both know is not sufficient grounds to keep an article without actually demonstrating SIGCOV.
As for notification, you were notified here that someone had requested you be added as a party. If an arb agrees that subsequent editors presenting evidence need to notify as well then I will do so in the future. –dlthewave ☎ 12:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I note how you cannot justify the other diffs, very telling. And the notification (which I am still awaiting clarification on) was four days before you posted about me. You utterly lack courtesy. GiantSnowman 13:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman my thinking with the notifications, especially the one where we say "someone wants you to be a party to the case" is that this would serve as a general notification that you should pay attention to the case, in the same way that a notification that someone has filed a new case request about you or an arbitration enforcement action about you would. So I don't think subsequent evidence about someone already alerted to the case is necessary. It seems like you feel differently so I'd invite you to my user talk so we can discuss this more if you wish. This is the first time we've made any sort of rule about "if you mention someone who isn't a party you must notify them" so I'm sure we can do better, but also I'm interested in hearing how you (perhaps) feel it's different than the other two scenarios I named. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. GiantSnowman 07:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

NGS

Just saw what happened to NGS. Sad. Seeing sock puppet accounts everywhere is a symptom of paranoia, but I can't be the only one wondering whether this was just the tip of the iceberg. FOARP (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Evidence submission at an Arbitration case

An editor has submitted one or more edits that were made by you or relate to you as evidence in an ongoing arbitration case. Please note that the editor is not requesting that the Committee add you to the case as a party. You may review the evidence submission here. Thanks, firefly ( t · c ) 15:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Geostubs

Really frustrated at the kind of arguments being deployed against cleaning these up ("but if you look at the satellite view you can see a village!"). Where did the co-ords come from? An unreliable source. Is looking at a satellite picture and saying "that's a village!" OR? You betcha. I mean, AGF as always but it's amazing the lengths you have to go to to demonstrate the palpably obvious, when in reality the burden according to policy/guidelines is on them to show that the subject is notable. FOARP (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

AfD !votes

Hi. It's all good but please do not misconstrue my comments - the only reason I made that Wisden comment for example, is knowing that there will be people out there who will know more than I do and have greater access to materials that I don't. There are users who are able to pick information out from sources that I never even knew existed - which always impresses me. Sometimes an article can be expanded on while the AfD is going on - meaning that original !votes don't necessariliy match up with what is there.

Said with a cheery smile, I promise. Bobo. 16:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

IAR

I think you're forgetting that WP:IAR is Wikipedia policy. It is always "acceptable" to !vote "per IAR" at an AfD. Of course, the appeal might not be convincing, but it is never "against policy". StAnselm (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Friendly advice

I'm not certain, but what you're doing may be subject to DS or GS because of the recent arbcom case. You might want to look into it. I am asking that you please stop your mass deletion of articles that easily pass WP:GEO. FYI, years ago I was blocked for using the PROD approach in an effort to combine several species articles that were only one to two sentences long, with the intention of creating a list so they'd be in a single easy to find place. We llive and learn. While that is not quite what you are doing now, it does appear that you are on a mission of some sort based on a misunderstanding of WP:GEO. An admin has already respectfully requested that you stop the prodding and nomming for now. You are valuable to the project when you're acting appropriately so please consider my advice as it was intended, especially in light of the ArbCom proposed mass deletion RfC which is on the horizon. Atsme 💬 📧 13:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. We clearly have differing views on what passes NGEO and I'm happy to discuss it here. To give you an idea of my process, I typically nominate a batch of similar articles for PROD or AfD (in this case it was 18) and then wait to see what the outcome is before starting a new batch.
You mentioned that Bearpaw Lake (Teton County, Wyoming) and Coyote Lake (Teton County, Wyoming) pass WP:GEOLAND. Would you be willing to expand on that and explain exactly how they meet that requirement? My understanding is that maps and GNIS listings do not contribute to notability, and I don't believe that a passing mention in a hiking or climbing guide does either. I'd really like to better understand where you're coming from and what it is about these nominations that seems problematic to you. –dlthewave ☎ 16:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
See NEXIST, and WP:GNG#Subject-specific notability guidelines (my bold underline): Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. At NGEO it states in the banner: Places with nationally protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) and named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable. The fact that the mountain range and all the lakes in Grand Teton are protected are what meets the requirement. Stacked passing mentions are icing on the cake. I do wish you had first consulted with either MONGO or one of the editors who teaches at WP:NPPSCHOOL, and they would have gladly explained all of this to you, despite the articles being 10+ years in main space. N isn't temporary, and the fact that those articles have been around for a decade also speaks volumes. Another option would have been to simply tag those articles with more sources needed which would have started a discussion. CSD, PROD and AfD are a last resort. We all make mistakes from time to time – nobody's perfect – and we are always picking up little kernels of knowledge as we go along. Please, always remember that it is simply better to open the door to communication first. HTH Atsme 💬 📧 17:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this means each and every natural feature within a protected area is meant to have its own article, that's an interpretation that I've never heard before. Generally we assess each article on its own merits and don't presume notability just because it is part of some larger thing that is notable. But in any case you're better off making that argument at AfD instead of trying to convince me personally. I'm familiar with our notability guidelines for geographic features and frankly, these are no different from the many thousands of stubs we've deleted that are sourced to GNIS, a topo map and perhaps one or two other sources that mention the topic in passing. That said, let's see how these AfDs turn out (if you're right, they'll be kept) and proceed from there. –dlthewave ☎ 22:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

GNIS etc.

This is an aside so no need to put it in the AfD thread, but first, thanks for pointing out WP:GNIS - I clearly was not aware. This put me in mind of the UK’s database of postal codes and addresses that was created by the Royal Mail and is licensed all over the place. The Royal Mail does not use the county in the database and so does not update it. There are some old counties in there that no longer exist (e.g. Dyfed) and as those who license the database don’t realise that the county information is wrong, those of us living in affected areas have to choose “Dyfed” as our county of residence on online forms for no good reason at all :)

And now I wonder if I need to hunt out for places where Wikipedia may say places are in Dyfed for similar wrong headed reasons! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

have a look and take part in discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Dams_article nirmal (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Norton, Arizona

I found this when looking at the Growler, Arizona AFD. It is 1/2 mile south and looks equally unremarkable. Hard to search on because I keep finding people named Norton in Arizona. GNIS says it may have been named for the second postmaster. Postmaster of what? It's pretty desolate farmland today. There is one article of interest, but my Newspapers.com access expired last week and hasn't been reviewed yet. If you look at Yuma Arizona, Morning Sun, March 19, 1925, P.4. The snippet shows a George Charles Norton of Norton filed an application to enlarge his homestead. That might show there was no community here either that this one should be deleted too. MB 04:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I skipped over that one because it wasn't a straightforward PROD like the railroad sidings. Here is a clipping of the newspaper, it's literally just the real estate transaction and nothing else.
There's also a 1923 water supply report that mentions "Ranch buildings, old store and post office. Salty but drinkable water, but no supplies obtanable." Seems like it was just a ranch with a store, but I think there are just enough sources that someone would expand it and rally a Keep if it went to AfD. –dlthewave ☎ 05:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
OK, I used your source to "expand" it a bit so at least now it doesn't imply it is presently any kind of population center. I think it is not as misleading now.
On another subject, do you know anything about Barbados? Christ Church, Barbados has a long list of "populated places" there. Rockley, Barbados is a one-sentence stub. It had one ref and I tried a Prod. I found it on google maps, but I found nothing to say it was more than a named location (a neighborhood). The Prod was removed and two more sources added. But they just are mentions of things happening there. Still not a place worthy of a stand-alone article in my opinion, no evidence of being "legally recognized". MB 01:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Avra, Pima County, Arizona

While looking at Avra, Pinal County, Arizona, I did some investigation into Avra Valley, Arizona and Avra, Pima County, Arizona, which are both "populated places", 9 miles apart in the landform Avra Valley. GNIS withstanding, I'm not convinced they are different places. I searched pre-1950 newspaper articles and there is a lot of interchangable use of Avra and Avra Valley. Avra Valley, Arizona is a modern-CDP. Do you know how to determine its boundaries to see if the Avra, Pima County, Arizona is within and should be merged there to eliminate another sub-stub? MB 20:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Klines Mill, Virginia...

The USGS does call Klines Mill/Kline's Mill a "populated place" - here. Seems like that might fulfill Wikipedia's parameters of an "unincorporated community". And why can't Klines/Kline's Mill be both an unincorporated community and a historic site? Is it necessary to remove all mentions of the Mill's past or present community from the present Draft or future article?
I think it would have been collegial/considerate/respectful for you to bring up your concerns re: the Draft's "unincorporated community" status on the Draft's talk or on my user talk, before you edited the in-progress Draft that I clearly had and have been working on. And especially before you removed the term "unincorporated community" and instances of the words "community" & "populated place" from the article itself. It's what I would have done if the situation were reversed. Shearonink (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're aware, but USGS/GNIS is not a reliable source for "feature class" designations including the "populated place" label. This is a well-known widespread issue that was caused when "locales" marked on paper topo maps were improperly transcribed as "populated places" when the GNIS database was set up. Absent a reliable source that specifically describes this as a community, we really can't use the label, so it was appropriate to remove it. I boldly edited the draft and am happy to discuss on the talk page if you disagree with the changes. –dlthewave ☎ 15:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

New message from Shearonink

 You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:Klines Mill, Virginia § Continuing the discussion started at User talk:Dlthewave#Re: Draft:Klines Mill, Virginia.... Per your request. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Be sure to follow NOCON

Dlthewave, I find it interesting that you have largely ignored the Carlson topic until you seem me make edits. I think I've made similar observations in the past. Anyway, please follow NOCON. When new content is added and then removed with cause, please start talk page discussions and get consensus first instead of restoring. Springee (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by NOCON in this context; that policy only mentions what happens after the material has been discussed. The fact that it's been removed/challenged does not mean that it doesn't have consensus. In any case, I will continue to follow the WP:BRD process in cases like this. You've brought both of these things up to me before and I'm aware that this is a DS topic so feel free to open a complaint at AE if you have a problem. –dlthewave ☎ 18:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Following BRD is a good idea. When we are dealing with newly added content that is removed the next part of the process is discuss, not revert to restore. Springee (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Out of place artifact source removal

In this edit, you removed a source, calling it "questionable." Could you perhaps explain your reasoning for that evaluation? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out. It's being discussed on the article talk page, feel free to ask any questions there. –dlthewave ☎ 19:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
No need. I double-checked at RSN, and they confirmed what you had concluded; the source is garbage. Thanks for catching it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Please follow BRD

Dlthewave, you are an experienced editor. You know that when a contentious LABEL is added without justification then reverted the correct action is to start a talk page discussion, not revert. If you think the far-right label should be applied to the opening sentence of the Carlson BLP then make the case on the talk page. Springee (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Do not revert edits without giving appropriate justification. That is disruptive editing and I treated it as such by editing on sight. –dlthewave ☎ 04:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I did give an appropriate justification. The original addition had no edit summary so how much justification would be acceptable in your view? Springee (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you following me to article talk pages?

Dlthewave, given our history my impression is you are following me to various topics/articles with the intent to disagree or undermine things I say. You seem to come out of nowhere to disagree with me here [8] and now do something similar at an article that I don't believe you have had any previous involvement [9]. Perhaps I'm mistaken but I do get that sense. Springee (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Information icon Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. FMSky (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

--FMSky (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Respect consensus please

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sound_of_Freedom_(film)#RfC:_Ballard_and_Jordan_Peterson_discussing_the_film --FMSky (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

"Fox News is not a reliable source."?
CNN is? Either way, Ballard said this or not? Is CNN going to let him speak or Ballard response should be censored? Seem very partisan on your side. I do not understand why the Wikipedia entry should focus on personalities instead on the film itself.
I did not see the film (I reside in another country), but all this antipathy makes me curious, and probably millions of potential viewers around the world. The reaction of the reviewers is an event in itself. I suspect you delete this comment soon, but at least you will read it. 193.239.39.59 (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! These are great questions that we hear often from newcomers. Our reliable sources policy explains how we decide which sources are reliable, and the perennial sources page lists current concensus for a great many including Fox News and CNN. One cool thing about Wikipedia is that if you disagree with that consensus, you can open a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard to try to get it changed. The teahouse is a great resource if you have any further questions. Happy editing! –dlthewave ☎ 15:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Actually if I edit something (rarely), I avoid topics dominated by the combating parties. This film is clearly the case. Information about every film should be primarily based on the content and artistic value, without focusing on the personal faults or views of the actors and filmakers. Imagine Godfather or The Seventh Seal treated this way. I am not suggesting that Sound of Freedom is equal to them, they are just known examples.
Wikipedia is not what it used to be years ago. 193.239.39.59 (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Actually I checked the page you mentioned:
"Historically, there has been consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science"
In this case Fox News reported a fact, an actual event. "Ballard has said that the accusations regarding QAnon are not true and are being used to discredit him and the film."
You do not mean that Fox News could made it up and that Ballard do not say that?! I do not think that it is a political or scientic to report what he answered. (You could report what someone say even while having completely different views.)
It seems, that the sources on the other end of political spectrum are not willing to let Ballard to present his side of the story, then what we get is that Wikipedia editors are free to present Ballard in negative light but are not free to do the opposite.
I am not especially interested in him, or even I am not interested in actors. To tell the truth, I often enjoy films without paying attention to the names of actors or their lives, and even more to the figures that inspired the script.
Returning the the event in question. That Ballard in fact did make such statement can be verified by a video on YouTube. Yes the recording was done by Fox, but you are not suggesting that it was a deep fake made by AI?
OK, my practical conclusion. I lost trust in Wikepedia in matters that have some connection to politics or prevailing worldviews or current events. Even history is suspect. I use Wikipedia to have a quick overview but never rely on it. The credibility of Wikipedia is not better than Fox News or CNN, it became a partisan tool. 193.239.39.59 (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

FMSky, thanks for pointing out that discussion. I'll hold off on that section until the consensus is clear. –dlthewave ☎ 15:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of numerous Via Rail flag stops and associated "towns"

FYI if you haven't seen it already, see my analysis at:

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

A certain editor will instantly deprod any prods on train stations for some strange reason. Don't bother PRODing them, just go immediately to AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate it

Could use your input at this report I filed. Thanks. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. FMSky (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is about. Which edits are you referring to? –dlthewave ☎ 22:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol invitation

Hello, Dlthewave.
  • The new pages patrol team is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
  • I believe that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
  • If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Tim Ballard

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Ballard&oldid=prev&diff=1170569005 Hello, none such conviction (or even charge or anything related to it) ever took place. This talk page entry was made to paint him in a negative light --FMSky (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It looked like a good-faith misunderstanding to me, and I corrected them (which is arguably better than letting them think Ballard was convicted and we're trying to suppress it). No need to delete. –dlthewave ☎ 03:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:American people of Catawba descent

A tag has been placed on Category:American people of Catawba descent indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 17:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

About the CT alerts

Hi, Wave. I just noticed, belatedly, that you have added several "Introduction to contentious topics" to User talk:FMSky, and that you also commented on it here. The system is, however, more complicated than that (wouldn't you just know it). A user is only supposed to get the big, elaborate "Introduction" template once. When they need alerting to another topic, we should use the smaller and more discrete template {{alert}} or else a personal message. You can read about it here. So when "Discretionary sanctions" morphed into "Contentious topics", the red tape got more tangled for us who want to alert people. :-( But it's now hopefully a good deal less annoying for the template recipients. Bishonen | tålk 08:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC).

PRODs

Hello, Dlthewave,

I decided not to unlink mentions of your recently PROD'd articles for locations in Ontario. Perhaps you will prefer this arrangment better. I also deleted an Ontario location in an AFD deletion discussion and noticed that it had 58 links to unlink. I just don't have the time to check 58 links for every article I delete when I delete over 100 pages a day. And I'm just one admin. I also left a comment in the AN discussion you started. Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the notices of proposed deletions

Thanks for the many notices of proposed deletions for railway points in Canada. -- papageno (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

My pleasure, Qui1che. Would you like to continue receiving them or should I uncheck the "notify article creator" box? –dlthewave ☎ 03:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
If it doesn't cause you too much grief, I would appreciate continuing to receive them for now. Should that change, I will let you know. Thanks again, --papageno (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I gather railway points are not to be mentioned anywhere in articles in Canada, even in parent geographical entities? Might you be kind enough to point to a concluded discussion on the matter? If that proves to be the case, then you can stop providing me notifications of the proposed deletions of the articles. No malice intended. . --papageno (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Russian selo

Thanks for contributing to this discussion. I read your comment as an endorsement of adding selo to the GEOLAND blacklist, but it might be a good idea to make that explicit with a !vote. FOARP (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Ahaaha Rocks

You are out of order. And you are WP:Edit warring and up against WP:3RR. But you know that. Just a friendly reminder. Let the discussion develop in the normal course, and we will all follow consensus. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Request

I've started a revamp of Wikipedia:Tools/Optimum tool set.

Please take a look and let me know if there are any essential techniques or must have tools that you think should be included.

Thank you.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   06:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

List of populated places in Colorado

Please stop deleting places from the List of populated places in Colorado unless you know what you are doing. Most of the places you deleted had post offices at one time. The places you deleted may merely need to be relabeled as former post offices. Please check with the List of post offices in Colorado. I've verified all of the post offices against the references listed. I would appreciate your help in relabeling rather than deleting places. Thank you,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 13:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dlthewave/Archive_3&oldid=1221751662"