User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

February 2022

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Thank you for informing me. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPA at Trump talk

You're on thin ice. Take a step back and don't disparage your colleagues. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I have never personally attacked you or anyone on the Trump page. I really don’t even know what your talking about. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO, these types of warnings without context or diffs are not very helpful, and someone looking through the archives later on could have mistaken impressions about the truth of such accusations. Since you are accusing Iamreallygoodatcheckers of a personal attack, please provide the relevant diffs so there is no confusion. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Chekers, you have done it again at this post. No, the two links are not the same. That is simply false, and it also demonstrates you have not understood the content of the link I provided. I suggest you strike both the initial false WP:ASPERSION and your false equivocation to Valjean after he tried to help you undo the damage. You need to clean this up and step back from this kind of behavior. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I will change it to say “civil POV pushing” rather than “POV pushing”. Just for the clarification. You did claim I was civil POV pushing. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

No. You don't try to negotiate your way out of a lie. I said SEALIONING. And that's it. And if you're not willing to strike your ASPERSIONS (a link you should read very carefully), I am warning you that I may seek a block or ban for you. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Improve your behavior now SPECIFICO. Accusing someone of Sealioning is accusing them of civil POV pushing, and can be a personal attack. I note you still haven’t provided any diff of why you originally opened this thread. Evidence free aspersions against other editors could resort in another entry in your own extensive sanction log. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: there is no lie, you accused me of civil POV pushing. You cited that policy, not me. Do you disagree that SEALIONING is not the same thing as civil POV pushing? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Sealioning is not the same thing as "civil POV pushing. Strike the whole bit or I may propse a block or ban. You're sealioning even now with endless repetition of my generous and straightforward attempt to help you, as a somewhat recent arrival to WP editing, to collaborate constructively and successfully. If you relly do not understand that these two things are not the same thing, then there's a larger problem -- one of competence. I prefer to think it's just a bit of obstinance and inexperience, but I will await your removal of the smears and take it from there. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: How about this. You have not explained what you see as the difference between WP:SEALION and WP:Civil POV pushing. Would you please explain the difference? Mr. Ernie (an experienced editor) and I already have said they are the same, because the they literally link to the same article. I'm not trying to be stubborn are difficult with you, but I'm not gonna admit to a personal attack I feel I didn't commit. Even if it's all said and done, and this does constitute a personal attack under policy, I still didn't have the intention of hurting you. Also please don't question my "competence", that's not your place. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO doesn't seem interested to return here and accept they've been wrong about SEALION and Civil POV pushing, instead doubling down on it. And they are continuing to fail to substantiate any claim of personal attack with a diff. I don't expect them to return and apologize and admit any wrongdoing, but once this gets archived let this comment make it clear that nothing was substantiated and SPECIFICO was confused, at best. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, type WP:SEALIONING in your search bar and see where it takes you. Or click on the link provided above. You’ve yet to substantiate your original complaint with any diffs, amounting to aspersions. If you take this to a noticeboard I think a boomerang is more likely than anything else. At this point I strongly advise you to put the shovel away and stop digging. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

In case you are interesting in self-examination, Chex, you can read the page that describes the bad behavior sealioning for yourself. Much easier and better than expecting others to explain. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, March 8, 2022‎ (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, I have discovered the problem. In this comment, you mistakenly wrote WP:SEALION, which is a shortcut to Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, rather than the Sealioning article. They lead to two very different locations. Your wording all along has clearly referenced the article, not the WP "civil POV pushing" page. Shit happens. -- Valjean (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow. Good catch! Yes I see that redirect was added within the past couple of years. There's also a separate one from wp:sealioning to wp:bludgeon, which is closer but still not quite the same thing. Needless to say, the problem remains. Sealioning is not cool. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not any better. The Sealioning article defines it as "trolling or harassment," "while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity." Which of the two definitions, "civil POV pushing" or "trolling or harassment" would you like to accuse checkers of, still without any diffs? These aspersions are adding up. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: "good catch?", really? Ernie and I have been trying to explain to you that WP:SEALIONING and WP:CIVILPOVPUSH go to the same place for literally days. You need to strike your accusations against me and apologize. You should be much more cautious when threatening to have someone banned or blocked, this behavior is not helpful at all to this community. I'm going to assume good faith that you made a mistake here, but just be more careful next time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The behavior by Specifico and Valjean here, at the Trump talk page, and possibly other places, should be taken to ANI. Unfortunately, it would require a lot of effort and skill and probably meet a bias of administrators in favor of anti-Trump editors. Fair minded administrators may be fearful of getting involved, something like the McCarthy era, and if they did get involved would be outnumbered and on the out. In fact, for writing this I may become more of a target than I am, which by the way is of no concern for me. Just my impression. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Bob K31416...WTF? I only posted once to clear up what happened. Is that now a crime?

Otherwise, I agree with you. Any misuse of ANI by you would likely result in a boomerang where both of you would likely end up getting sanctioned and topic banned from AP2 for your wikilawyering and pushback against all attempts by many editors to explain how things work here. This crusade against the proper labeling of conspiracy theorists needs to stop. When RS describe how some people traffic in conspiracy theories all the time, we describe them as conspiracy theorists. -- Valjean (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It's more the unsubstantiated personal attacks and accusations by SPECIFICO. Accusing Checkers of a personal attack without ever providing a diff, accusing them of SEALIONING but being deeply confused about what it actually means, failure to read the links provided to see what the words they are using actually mean, refusal to acknowledge any corrections, insisting "the problem remains" without ever providing a diff to what "the problem" is, etc. Such behavior often gets a sanction because of how inherently difficult the AP space is to edit. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: You need to understand that you and editors with your viewpoint do not own these articles. It's not your job to dictate what policy means and explain it to other editors, that's what the consensus making process is. My viewpoint may never reach a consensus and neither may yours, we don't know yet, but you don't get to decide what viewpoints are worthy of discussion. Making an argument that you disagree with doesn't mean that I, or any other editor, needs to be topic banned to make your life a bit easier. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm certainly fearful of alleging SPECIFICO suggested removing Category:WWE Hall of Fame inductees to push my button in particular, but I don't see who else that was plausibly intended to goad into running wild, brother. Anyway, I took the high road, so eat my moral dust! As for Val, you do tend to soapbox, disparage the article subject personally and throw around barbs like "crusade" too loosely, but so what? You're allowed and encouraged. Seriously, have fun! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO strike the comments you've made against me and apologize. If you made a mistake in good faith that's what your supposed to do. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Iamreallygoodatcheckers. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! -- TNT (talk • she/her) 07:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

IMO bail reform is a slogan and violates NPOV.

Whatever the case, it is a movement and I would recommend that it be capitalized or italicized or quoted to indicate that it is a special concept distinct from the ordinary meaning of the words.

(Bail reform to me doesn't necessarily mean letting out violent felons on $1000 bail, for instance.)

I think the NYP is reputable on crime coverage (I understand the politics can be disputed, but their crime coverage is top-flight), and anyway the NYP article clearly shows primary sources. The killer had an extensive history of making violent anti-white comments. It's really not much of a debate at this point, I think. 96.59.126.42 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

NYP is not reliable at WP:RSP Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I have a PhD from an Ivy League. You are a high school student. Do not touch my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:CA02:F126:C230:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't perform personal attacks, and your contributions were reverted for failing to provide citations to reliable sources. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Hi; i´m a 17 years old boy that feels sometimes lonely and i want to talk with you because by your biography just think that you are so really like me! I love physics and artes specially draw! I start editing since a short time... Start with a question...When is your birthday? Me: 11th November 2004 Have a nice day :) Carletteyt (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Carletteyt: Welcome to Wikipedia, your contributions here are welcome! As a younger editor, it's always nice to see fellow young people joining. I understand that you want to get to know better, and that is fine. However, I don't feel comfortable sharing overtly personal things on here; I keep my identify private. If you have any questions about how Wikipedia works or how to successfully contribute, I would be happy to help you or you can ask questions at the teahouse. Happy editing, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

please don't use PROD on European bio stubs with "expand German" etc tags

at least without checking native language wikipedia, in this case German cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

RADM Crandall

Hello Iamreallygoodatcheckers. I noticed you deleted some text from the page of Rear Admiral Darse Crandall regarding his supposed execution and drawing/quartering of "enemies of the state", with the Clintons, John McCain, George Bush and others being listed among them specifically. Thank you for doing so. However there is even more false information on the page, claiming that he "has been in charge of executing high-profile enemies of the state such as Dick Cheney, Gavin Newsom, and Sonia Sotomayor." As this is blatantly false, I hope that an experienced editor like you can revise it properly - I would do it myself except I do not know how and I don't want to make the situation worse by messing up that process. I hope you can help me and the Wikipedia community as a whole by fixing this with your expertise. Thanks!

Jmanc2658 (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jmanc2658: It appears as though someone has already removed it. However, you don't have to request me or any other user to remove content. Next time, you should just remove it yourself. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Discretionary sanctions notice

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.

Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: thank you for the notice. I was under the impression that the sanctions only applied to select BLP'S. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! The whole DS system is pretty bonkers. If you're ever motivated, Template:Ds/talk notice can be added by any editor. I usually only see it added when there's active BLP-related dispute or disruption. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 01:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ketanji Brown Jackson edit

Original source is

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/14/1078086453/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court-biden

The reason I removed it was because she mentioned it in contrast to her upbringing. The information does not add anything new about her.

223.230.45.127 (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the NPR source it still is just a quote of her confirming her husbands upbringing. Nothing is out of context and it is relevant to the article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Her husband's upbringing is not relevant to her. That is unneccessary information. We may as well copy his entire biodata and upbringing into her article by the same logic (not to be rude sorry). 49.204.229.181 (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I think at this point our discussion should be brought to Talk:Ketanji Brown Jackson, so other editors can put input. I noticed you've already opened a section. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Terrorism in the United States into Timeline of terrorist attacks in the United States. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The Peace Barnstar

		The Peace Barnstar
		For continued handling of contentious areas in a helpful and civil manner, and especially for the ability to find and encourage solutions to disputes. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: Thank you so much for the kind words! :) Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Chris Hollins

Good afternoon - I noticed that you undid some of my good faith edits on Chris Hollins (politician) page, saying that they were not helpful. I returned them to what they were previously because what was there prior was grammatically incorrect and a poor description of his relevancy. However, I am interested in understanding why you said my edits were not helpful and why you believe your edits are somehow more helpful.

Specifically, you deleted the highlighted section below which is helpful given that it speaks to thoughts regarding the mayoral race which it appears you slated an additional title for:

Political analyst note that the race will be a "high-octane competition" given Hollins' rise to popularity during his time as Harris County Clerk during the 2020 Presidential Election. Political analyst note that the race will be a "high-octane competition" given Hollins' rise to popularity during his time as Harris County Clerk during the 2020 Presidential Election.

You also said these issues weren't cited which, as you can see, they were.

You also keep putting interim clerk back in, but he was not the interim clerk. While he is sometimes referred to that way, more credible sources do not cite him as such because an interim leader is only situated until a permanent option is elected. Thus an interim leader would be replaced by a special election. In this case, Mr. Hollins retained office until the next regular election such that he was not interim.

You deleted a tweet as a reference from a verified source and a quote from the current mayor of Houston which I also do not understand and you replace language regarding Phi Beta Kappa Honors which is incorrect because I am the one who initially drafted that language and had to revisit how that is actually supposed to be written.

Finally, Hollins is not a personal injury attorney because he does not only take personal injury cases. He practices a variety of legal areas.

ThanksChristaJwl (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@ChristaJwl: much of the information you added appears to be promotional material and citing Twitter is unreliable (see WP:RS). He was an interim county clerk because Hollins was never he was temporarily put on by the county commission to fill a vacancy. As soon as the actual county clerk was elected he left office. You said it yourself, sources describe him as interim county clerk. Wikipedia follow RS. Any changes to the page can be introduced at Talk:Chris Hollins (politician). I've noticed much of your contribution history surrounds Hollins, do you know him personally? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@iamreallygoodatcheckers actually I do not, but I was going to ask you the same thing because your edits seem political to from my perspective. As for me, I am focusing on one page at a time. Hollins was not temporarily appointed. He was permanently appointed and then there was a new election cycle. Some sources describe him as an interim county clerk, but they are incorrect given the above explained definition of interim. Other more credible sources do not. For example: https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/politics/inside-politics/former-harris-county-clerk-expects-worse-election-problems-november/287-07a82bab-d1e1-426d-b0ba-0a034e83c2c0 which clearly references him as the former county clerk, not the former interim county clerk. ChristaJwl (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@ChristaJwl: In the new election cycle Teneshia Hudspeth was elected and sworn in on January 1, 2021, Hollins left office the day before. This is fact and all cited to the day in the article. Hollins was appointed by the county commission and only served until the end of the year when his tenure expired. He served for like 6 months. He was county clerk of Harris County, but it's important that the reader understands he was only the interim clerk. You need to stop edit warring over this topic, especially if you refuse to provide citations to RS for his b-day, time of service (update: I was able to find a reliable source that he left in Nov. 2020), etc. I understand you've gotten in some trouble with this page in the past, I don't want to see that happen again. What are political about my edits? I don't even live in Houston, I couldn't careless who they elect mayor or county clerk. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. She was virtually sworn in in november. Please double check your source. Also, please double check the definition of an interim leader. I left the birthday as is since the tweet was actually on the ninth and I could not verify that his birthday was on the 8th.

I don't live in Houston either, nor Texas. I've just put a lot of work into researching this page and don't think its cool that you undo my work without credibly sourcing it.ChristaJwl (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@ChristaJwl: I agree she was sworn in, in November. I found out after digging a little deeper and finding a Houston Chronicle source that I've since cited in the article. At this point lets discuss at the article talk page. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kyle Rittenhouse (April 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kyle Rittenhouse and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Kyle Rittenhouse, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Iamreallygoodatcheckers! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! S0091 (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Conversation

Hi, if you could talk with me throught another platform, tell me some social network.

Thanks :)

My instagram: @CarlosMohedano_65

Can you show y last edits in pages for see if are correct or not? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carletteyt (talk • contribs) 08:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Carletteyt: I'm confused on what your asking me to check on. Can you please clarify? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

My last contributions... Carletteyt (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Or the article Death of Jeffrey Epstein Carletteyt (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Carletteyt: It appears as though someone has reverted the edit you made at Death of Jeffery Epstein. If you would like to discuss the changes you've made any further go to Talk:Death of Jeffery Epstein. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hollins

Nowhere in Talk did I see rationale for having his full name other than in the lede. David notMD (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD: You are correct; having full name in the body has not been discussed in the talk. I was trying to revert your removal of the twitter source. [1] I by mistake reverted the wrong edit, sorry. A brief discussion in the talk a few weeks ago concluded the twitter source is usable for a citation for his birthdate. (see Talk:Chris Hollins#New edits) Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

My thinking was do not need two refs to establish DOB, so delete the Twitter, which had a ref format problem. David notMD (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD: the problem is both references are needed to establish the birthdate. One gave his age and the other just the day of his birth (not year), so we can conclude the birthdate from the two together. You can't conclude his birthdate one without the other. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I abandon all interest in the article. David notMD (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of MOS:SEAOBLUE

A tag has been placed on MOS:SEAOBLUE requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 08:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@IAmChaos: what’s a little interesting about your speedy deletion is that you see it as an implausible typo, yet I made this after making the typo myself Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Iamreallygoodatcheckers! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How does a non-admin close an AfD with the result delete?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin RFA

As a heads up, the Tamzin RFA was scheduled to end about ten minutes ago and is awaiting a close. I don't think that posting new questions is going to be productive at this point, since the candidate is no longer expected to answer them. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC) — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: thank you for letting me know. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Confused, but good now

This unarchival to restore a February-dated Rfc to the end of WT:FILM was fine, but I freaked out momentarily, when I thought I'd added the previous section just above it out of chronological order. Poking around, I figured out what happened eventually, but if you need to do something similar, could you please add a hatnote at the top, or a post-closure statement pointing out the date of unarchival, so it doesn't appear to be out of order? (There really ought to be a hatnote template geared just for this situation; maybe we should create one.) In the end, I did notice the closure date in the resolution box top right, but not right away, and in a similar situation I can totally see myself moving that whole discussion in good faith up to wherever a 5 February comment ought to go, which would just make things worse. I'm glad I spotted the date, and just added a brief "Clarification" note at the end, instead. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I'm sorry for confusing you! I should have made it more clear what was going on. Thank you for adding the clarification note at the bottom of the discussion. Happy editing, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I do unarchivals (rarely), too. If you do as well, maybe we could collaborate on a little template that would make it easier to flag stuff like this. I'm a template writer and willing to do the grunt work part of it, if we can figure out what it should say, and whether there should be parameters or not. Lmk, Mathglot (talk) 04:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: This actually the first unarchical I've ever done on Wikipedia. A template would be a cool idea, but I'm notably uncreative, and I'm not sure how I could be much help. However, I would fully support you making such a template for situations like the one we've dealt with tonight. Seems like a pretty solid idea. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFD

Hello, Iamreallygoodatcheckers,

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dong-eui Medical Center, I don't have issues with your non-admin closure but please let an AFD run its full 7 days before closing a discussion unless the articles is deleted via speedy deletion or the nominator withdraws the nomination and there are no Delete votes. Closing discussions early can raise questions about the validity of the closure and most editors don't like the extra scrutiny on their work that this can bring. According to Wikipedia:Non-admin closure, "inappropriate early closures of deletion debates may either be reopened by an uninvolved administrator[c] or could result in a request to redo the process at Wikipedia:Deletion review".

I appreciate you helping out at AFD and assessing deletion discussions is a great way to improve your experience and knowledge as an editor so I don't mean to discourage you from expanding your activities. But even if the conclusion of a deletion discussion seems obvious, just let the AFD run for 7 full days so that it doesn't become a controversial closure. If you have questions about this that aren't answered in Wikipedia:Non-admin closure, just ask me or one of the admins who regularly patrols AFD or other deletion discussion areas. Thank you for all of your contributions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: thank you for letting me know. It's the 2nd AfD closure I've done. I'll be sure to let the full 7 days run next time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:TE at Donald Trump

You just added the exact wording that was not endorsed at the RfC and that was not endorsed by the closer of the RfC -- an RfC that was itself disruptive and unnecessary. Your behavior is way past what I would consider worthy of a topic ban, although just to let you know I am unlikely to do the work to document this and other overly-insistent and POV editing at AP and BLP articles. I really suggest you slow down, take a breather, and consider the feedback and other reactions you've been getting from many experienced editors on a variety of pages. Wishing you success, as always. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Your correct is saying the close did not endorse a specific wording, but it did say that there is a consensus to mention Trump's doubts "in some capacity." The current wording is not in line with what is now established consensus, and I made a BOLD edit, as recommended by the closer, to address the issue. I only chose that specific wording because it undeniably garnered some support, maybe not consensus, but support nonetheless. I don't have a problem with you reverting, but I would like to see text that is not in line with consensus be changed to conform with the consensus to mention Trumps doubt. This isn't the place to discuss content, but I think Space4Times proposal in that RfC was pretty good if you wanna go add it. Thank you for wishing me success, but you shouldn't accuse me of behavior "worthy of a topic ban" and editing with a POV, without any evidence. You and I both know that is WP:Casting aspersions and is certainly not assuming good faith, and saying you're not going to do the work to document it is not a valid excuse for casting aspersions. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• I would also like it to be noted that I believe the edit SPECIFICO is referring to is this one [2], and it's the first edit I believe I've ever made to the Russian section of the Trump article. I'm not sure how this could amount to WP:TE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Excellent deflection. That's exactly what you proposed in a needlessly repetitive RfC, then after it died with no consensus your "first edit" is exactly what did not get support in the RfC. Now maybe you can chew on that and reflect on "not sure: how that could amount to WP:TE. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO: That was the first time that sentence had ever been BOLDly added to the article space. Just because it doesn't have an established consensus doesn't mean its been rejected per say. I was just testing the waters with the edit, and you reverted which is fine. That's not TE. Also you desperately need to stop conflating what you reject with what the community rejects. Your continue to fight the change of a sentence that there has been consensus against for half a year, and then you attack me for making a good faith attempt to change that sentence after a close is made. Your conduct towards me in this discussion and this one are giving me stress and creating a toxic editing environment. I'm asking you to stop this behavior and especially stop casting aspersions against me, as you have in this very discussion. You are personally attacking me and my integrity. You are the only editor in the entire Trump page who is behaving in this manner towards me. I've always tried my best to be cordial and work with you on improving Wikipedia, but it's becoming increasingly hard with this behavior. I'm asking you to please stop, and calm down. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Checkers, I can’t even remember how I got here, but mate, I’m with you all the way. All the best to you in everything. Boscaswell talk 08:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

72 hour archival?

Hello @iamreallygoodatcheckers, I'm guessing that our arbitration was archived automatically due to 72 hours of inactivity, how do we get it back? We still fully agree on the necessity of a ban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#User:Tennisedu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 12:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Krosero: I'm not sure how it can be brought back. Maybe ask an admin, but honestly, if the user you had concern over is no longer breaking the rules or disrupting the tennis area just let it go for now. Thats the easiest thing to do imo. It can always be brought back up if the behavior persists. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, and that may in fact be the best way to go. But I remain uneasy because the discussion has simply disappeared, and so I don't think any of the users involved are clear about what's happened, or whether we've even come to an agreement. Which is why I expect the issue to come up again. As I say, I think your advice may be the best way to go, but I've asked an admin to take a quick look and to see if they can help us at least formally close the discussion, so everyone is clear about what to do.

And thank you again for looking at our petition.Krosero (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

So, the admin suggested maybe starting a new ANI thread, linking to the old one, but I think we can let this go for now. As you saw in the old thread, the user in question agreed not to further edit the proposed pages, and as you say, this can be resurrected if the need should arise.Krosero (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Move of 2022 abortion protests in the United States to 2022 abortion rights protests in the United States

Hey. Quick question, given that the article is still subject to an AfD request, and it's unclear to me right now from a brief glance as to whether keep or merge has consensus, was it really a good idea to move that article if consensus does wind up being merge? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I don't see why it would be an issue. Do you think it could be an issue? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it'll cause any technical issues, aside from maybe some confusion for the AfD closer as the article has a different name now than when the AfD opened. It just seems strange to me to move/rename an article that may not even exist once the AfD closes. Not saying you should undo it mind, just wondering if it was really the right thing to do when the article may no longer exist sometime in the next few days/week. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Yea when I did the move I thought it may be done in vain, but I suppose there's no harm in improving the article while readers have access to it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is SPECIFICO. Thank you. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, I am adding this here to notify you as you are directly mentioned. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Checkers. I got your ping at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SPECIFICO. I want to correct a misunderstanding you seem to have, IIRC, about that old Sealioning business. Specifico was correct that your behavior was WP:SEALIONING. Their error was not linking to the policy, but linking to the article. That led to confusion and misunderstandings, creating an acrid environment, which persisted until I explained what was going on. At that point they should have cleared the air by apologizing to you for their persistence, considering your responses were based on the confusion caused by their linking error. Nevertheless, the problem of your continual rehashing of a problem, ergo tendentious WP:SEALIONING, was still something you should not have been doing, so be careful how you push that old issue, as an examination of what was happening could reveal your bad behavior. Reviving that history could come back to bite you, and that would weaken your case against Specifico. You know the old adage about casting stone while living in a glass house. We all have faults. I admit they tend to be brash and a bit uncivil, but they are a mainstream editor who is usually right about the issues and policies. They just need to be more civil.

Since then, you have been less likely to push fringe POV or use unreliable sources, and I have watched you develop into a really good editor. You have learned quickly. Especially considering your young age, you handle even complex situations well. I don't know if I've ever told you this, but I once encountered an admin here who was 12 or 13 years old, and I doubt many people knew that. They handled dispute resolution, counseling of troubled editors, policy disputes, and other complex matters like a very experienced, wise, and much older editor. So age isn't always a big deal for some people. You are one such person. I am not recommending that you seek to become an admin, as it's a thankless job, but just relating that experience. Otherwise, keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: the thread the Specifico had started on my talk was not accusing me of SEALIONING, but accusing me of NPA. They did so twice, once without any evidence and once with faulty evidence. I'm concerned about their habit of casting aspersions, allegations that are often false, like the one this week accusing me of meatpuppetting with Mhawk10. I'm not so worried about them thinking I was SEALIONING. I will admit that I used to be more passionate about my views on content. Now, with some experience here, I just don't think it's beneficial anymore to push to hard for my perspective. I avoid heavy dispute now. However, IDK if it ever could have been considered WP:SEALION per say. I've never edited under a pretense of civility with a bad-faith agenda or purpose, which is what I have understand WP:SEALIONING to mean. On another note, I wish SPECIFICO could improve their civility since I agree with you that they make good contributions. While I sometimes disagree with them, I always have had respected and understood their perspective. The concern does not lie within their work but in their attitude.

To comment on that 12 year old admin, I'm amazed. It's hard to believe a 6th grader could have the maturity and ability to properly perform administrative duties on here. I've thought about requesting adminship before, but it's not a plan I have right now or even in the near future. I may consider it later in life. Thanks for stopping by Valjean and giving advice. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Chex, as you will recall I have given you encouraging advice in the past and I share Valjean's view above. Just a word about TE -- first and foremost, I did not expect you to take my note as a threat and made sure to tell you that (for various reasons) I do not file enforcement reports. So my message was only to you. TE is defined in part as "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content," and that was what I was pointing out. I believe that another editor in the RfC also noted the repetive nature of your advocacy. At any rate, if I didn't think you were interested in and capable of developing your editing skills, I would not have taken the effort to leave that comment. Our most scarce resource here is editor time and attention. Once an idea has been mooted and failed to gather support, it's almost always best to move on -- or at the least to take it to a site-wide board for fresh eyes (as I believe we discussed in the Jean Carroll BLP matter. No allegations of bad faith, just a personal suggestion (with no threat) to learn from feedback and experience. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Checkers, I just read your post at the AE thread. In light of the discussion above, does your post reflect your current view? I just tried to go back and see what remarks of mine you were referencing at the AE, and as you know there are long threads in which the talk page participants may all have known the context at the time but which is now unclear. If your intention is to support some sort of sanction, which is entirely your choice, I think it would be constructive for you to provide very specific contextualized narrative with diffs. Admins, like the rest of us, are sometimes unable to follow the ins an outs of these Politics articles discussions. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on what the proper remedy is for your conduct. I have little experience with the AE process and the general outcomes. I'm going to let the admins decide what you should be done on that since they have much more experience with these issues. I trust their ability to look at the relevant evidence I provided; most of the admins who've commented thus far are among the most experienced on this site. There are very few diffs to even look at and I've already linked the discussion as a whole. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Well your comment went far beyond the issue raised by OP, and you now have another editor affirming the substance of my concerns and advice about your sometimes overly insistent editing style as well as my copy of the text from TE that describes its applicability to that issue of repetiveness. My impression is that you have understood and accepted the points Valjean and I have offered here, and there is no way the AE Admins or commenting editors would know that without a tip of the hat from you. I do not believe you've linked to this thread as it currently stands, if I'm correct. Please consider. AE tends toward pile-ons just like ANI and everywhere else on this site these days. You seem like an editor who is trying to do the right thing, as Ive told you on several past occasions, so that is why I left these further remarks. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I linked this discussion in AE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Herschel Walker

Could you please explain why you blanked part of a section of Herschel Walker's article? Some of the contents seem notable. Nythar (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nythar: I removed two small paragraphs that are composed of 2 new stories that are relatively insignificant to Walkers campaign. Both paragraphs amount to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. If you'd like to dispute the removal, go to Talk:Herschel Walker. Thanks, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the third paragraph, which you brought back. Thanks! Nythar (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!!! 🙏🏼

Thank you for completing the merge of Trump family into Family of Donald Trump! I greatly appreciate it! I haven’t had enough spare time to actually do the work of merging, plus I’m not very familiar with the hands-on mechanics of merging. Maybe, just maybe you’re actually better at WP merging than you are at checkers! 😂 Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Naranjo Museum of Natural History for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Naranjo Museum of Natural History is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naranjo Museum of Natural History until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

MB 00:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Wrong thread

Your comment appears as if it was about Talk:Robb_Elementary_School_shooting#Texas_Attorney_General_Ken_Paxton's_comment_removed but it seems to have been posted at a thread below that. Please check and fix. Venkat TL (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: sorry about that. I’m on mobile right now and it’s hard to edit. If you’d like to I give you permission to move my comment; otherwise, I’ll move it when I get home, which could be several hours. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I moved it after your approval. Strangely the user who deleted Paxton's comment twice is yet to respond. Venkat TL (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting#Inclusion of conspiracy theories

I noticed you have offered an opinion but haven't "voted". 48Pills (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Undue weight

Checkers or whatever you're going by. Incorrect, you are generalizing. That's an error. There are numerous one time events which are notable. You are assessing this with a one-sided perception.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pictureperfect2: can you please tell me what your referring to? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve 2022 Hoover Dam explosion

Hello, Iamreallygoodatcheckers,

Thank you for creating 2022 Hoover Dam explosion.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

I'm glad someone is on this but a transformer once exploded outside my house in Queens and there's no Wikipedia article about that. This is a thing ONLY because somebody caught the resulting smoke and fire on youtube. No resonance, unlikely to pass NEVENT, IMHO.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|BusterD}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

BusterD (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@BusterD: With no injuries and a simple transformer malfunction, It's beginning to look like this may not be notable. I created the article thinking it may have been like an attempted terrorist attack or something. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

In fact, I've already nominated its deletion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

In the moment, I believe each of your choices was sound and based on policy. Somebody has to take the leap and I appreciate it was someone competent and reasonable. WP:BOLD sort of requires wikipedians to make choices which don't always pan out. We require each others' eyes to catch all the stuff which inevitably happens in a normal day. Thanks for your good work. BusterD (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of 2022 Hoover Dam explosion for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2022 Hoover Dam explosion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Hoover Dam explosion until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)