User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Your close at Talk:Technoblade#Rfc for source regarding ADHD

I'm confused by your closing comment here. You said that because two people objected to PinkNews that it shouldn't be used, but SMH is fine, even though two editors also objected to that? If there is "no consensus" for one, there cannot be consensus for the other with the same relative arguments for and against both. I disagree with your close, and there is no consensus for the change you are suggesting. If the best you can argue is that there is a "rough consensus" then per WP:NACD you should not have closed this discussion. Your closing argument's suggestion on what to do reads like an opinion, not an assessment of the discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to take a liberty and chime in. I beleive the critique by User:Aoidh has foundation. I'll agree especially with their last sentence. When closing such a process, it's wise to avoid making your own opinion part of the closing statement. Less is more in closing statements, generally. We've all seen terrible closes, and this is not that. But User:Aoidh's comments should help you make a better call next time. BusterD (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Aoidh, BusterD: PinkNews was ruled to have no consensus because there was legitimate concerns raised about it in discussion by 2 editors even though 3 editors were fine with its use (with one of those not caring if PinkNews or Sydney was used). I saw this split along with the concerns raised and decided that there was no consensus for it; note, this does not mean there is a consensus against it. 3 people also were explicitly in favor/fine with using the Sydney Morning Herald (one of those being the person who didn't care if it was PinkNews or Sydney). Additionally, the one person who only wanted a primary source only did say they believed the Sydney Morning Herald to be "relevant" for establishing weight and "reliable". Only one person in the whole discussion raised concerns of the SMH usability as a citation. With the 4 people speaking highly of the source, and little resistance to it, I decided there was a rough consensus for it. This is much different than the 3 support and 2 grounded opposes with PinkNews. My closing statement is a recommendation I reached based on the consensus. It's what I thought should go forward to make the most heads happy in the discussion. It's not my opinion on the question presented in the RfC; I don't have a formed opinion on that question. Now, that statement is not meant to bar anyone from adding PinkNews because there is certainly not a consensus against using it; I just think adding it could continue to inflame the situation, but I could be wrong. That's why the last paragraph in the close is merely a recommendation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That's where I'm confused, if as you say 2 editors disfavoring a source and 3 approving of it makes for no consensus for PinkNews, but there were 2 editors who also expressed disapproval and had legitimate concerns about SMH as a source, myself and Musashii1600 here, and 3 editors approving of it (I'm not counting the editor who didn't feel one way or the other about either source). How is one "no consensus" but the other (which has the same number of editors approving/disapproving it) is a "rough consensus" that should therefore replace the "no consensus" source? - Aoidh (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I also wanted to make clear that this isn't me coming in here in a "how DARE you close in a way I don't like" thing and I'm not accusing you of making a bad faith WP:SUPERVOTE close or anything, I just don't think it was a clear-cut consensus (which you seem to agree with) and therefore per WP:NACD shouldn't have been closed by a non-administrator. I also don't see how a 3:2 view on one source is a "no consensus" but a 3:2 view on a second source is a "rough consensus", and how that suddenly turns into a recommendation that the first source should be replaced with the second. - Aoidh (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

You are correct that there are 2 (you and Musahshii) who spoke poorly of the SMH; I originally overlooked Musashii's comment. However, I think you counting the tally wrong. I'm going to remove the person who didn't care from both talliess. PinkNews was favored by Aoidh and Musashii only. Aoih and Musashii were also the only one's to speak negatively about SMH. Now, Unnamed anon, Comatmebro, and Salpynx spoke in approval of SMH. Two of them (Unnamed anon and Comatmebro) expressly disapproved of the use of PinkNews. That makes the approval, disapproval of PinkNews to be 2-2. The approval, disapproval of SMH to be 3-2. That still shows favorability towards the SMH, which I reasonably viewed as rough consensus for it to be used.

When it comes to WP:NACD, it's not uncommon for non-admins to close even the most high profile and contentious of discussions. This discussion was a minor disagreement on what source should be used for a statement of fact on a relatively unknown YouTuber's article. I don't believe that guideline should be interpreted that strictly. I think you should see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE which says the outcome of a discussion is rarely changed because the closer was a non-admin.

If you really think PinkNews should be in the article, maybe try to add it in. Again, there's no prejudice against adding it in because there's not a consensus against it's use. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

If you believe that 2:2 is no consensus but that 3:2 is a consensus, then you need to stop closing discussions until you have more experience with what a consensus is, because that was not a good close, especially if you're not going to view the discussion closely enough that you completely overlook some comments when making the close. There was no consensus for anything in that RfC, but your comment frames it as if there was. Take BusterD's advice and learn from this. - Aoidh (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Challenging the NAC at Talk:Technoblade's RfC. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

gas prices

You added a statement to Biden's article about "natural gas" prices. I think you mean oil or petroleum prices. Natural gas is different. Andrevan@ 18:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan: thank you for pointing that out. I meant to put gasoline prices, but I think the POLITICO article that said natural gas tripped me up. If you added back the statement with gasoline than it would be accurate; I would do it myself, but I don't want to be accused of edit warring. The POLITICO article says gasoline prices were elevating and the Bloomberg one said they were at a 7 year high. That is my bad. Thank you, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This content is UNDUE for Biden's biography. You could just as well tell how many dogs and cats were adopted last year or how the price of chicken is doing. The president doesn't set commodity prices. And its not as if the prices of petroleum products are particuarly high. In fact, the inflation adjusted price is around where it was decades ago, I believe. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe we should move this to Talk:Joe Biden. Andrevan@ 19:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

US presidential BLPs

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, you know better then that? Trying to put anything 'negative' in Biden's BLP, is like trying to put anything 'positive' in Trump's BLP ;) GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Ars Technica

Regarding this edit [1] I wanted to let you know that Ars Technica is RS for Science and Technology. Not sure if you saw it hiding behind the Winnipeg Free press. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Morgan Luttrell (July 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bkissin 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Morgan Luttrell and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 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.

Bkissin (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bkissin: Is he not notable for having sustained coverage in multiple reliable sources? While being a congressional candidate doesn't guarantee notability, you are treating it as though it diminishes it. Not every congressional candidate has received the coverage he has. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Iamreallygoodatcheckers! Having an article draft 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! Bkissin (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"2022 Hoover Dam exposion" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2022 Hoover Dam exposion and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#2022 Hoover Dam exposion until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

"2022 Hoover Dam explosion" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2022 Hoover Dam explosion and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 14#2022 Hoover Dam explosion until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I really like your work, keep it going! Casint (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Casint: thank you so much! :)

Picture

Nice to see one of my pictures on someone's page. LOL :) wizzito | say hello! 23:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Iamreallygoodatcheckers

Thank you for creating Timeline of terrorist attacks in the United States.

User:JML1148, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Excellent list, but some of the earlier listings are not cited. Thanks for creating!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|JML1148}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

JML1148 (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Your ANI closure

Hello,

I don't normally wade into ANI too much myself, but re your closure over there... I do not think that non-admins should close discussions of potential bans that are not SNOWing, especially when copyright infringement is being alleged. (And if they do, they should certainly mark it as a non-admin closure.) Copyright infringement is a case where, hypothetically, consensus simply does not matter, and legal compliance does (see Commons deletion debates). I am not saying that the result is bad - I think the discussion is likely to close without consensus - but I do not think this is a good precedent. Can you consider reverting your close to allow an admin to close that discussion? SnowFire (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@SnowFire: Non-admins can close discussion, even contentious ones, but this one is not even really contentious, it's a pretty clear cut no consensus. Like it's almost evenly split, and the conversation was practically dead or almost dead in participation. There was no other reasonable result. If an admin finds a reason to indeff beyond the discussion, like the copyright allegations you mentioned, they certainly can. It's not a consensus to not block, merely a summarization that that particular discussion did not reach a community consensus for a block. I think it would be overly bureaucratic and a waste of time to reopen it just for an admin to put the same close, but nonetheless I'll reopen it because I'm busy right now and don't want to have to deal with a hassle on Wikipedia. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, again, my stance was "non-admins should not close discussions of potential bans that are not SNOWing", not that the close was presumptively unreasonable. And that was not a SNOW discussion, not even close. Per Wikipedia:Non-admin closure, "For practical purposes, non-administrators should not take formal action in discussions whose outcome would require the use of administrator tools." To me, banning discussions falls under this. Simply don't close them unless they're speedy-able. Banning or not is something reserved to admins. If it takes extra time to close it, oh well. (And what if you'd closed the discussion as "consensus to ban"? That would obviously be silly.)

I agree that the odds of a similar closure are high, but some matters are WP:YESBURO worthy. Banning discussions is one of them: it helps avoid discord and complaints that a close was unfair. (Edit: See you've edited in that you've changed your mind - thanks.) SnowFire (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Chex, when you get feedback from experienced editors, it's to help you develop your skills. "I'll reverse myself because I'm too busy to fight about this" doesn't suggest you've gotten the message. If you demonstrate that you're not ready to internalize this growing body of feedback, then after a while folks will stop investing their time to help you as a newer editor and you'll find your contributions ignored or suppressed. Immediate denial is not the best response, as I suspect you will realize upon reflection. SPECIFICO talk 13:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I closed a dead discussion that had an obvious result of no consensus. Closing it was just a formality for it to be archived pretty much. An admin had to go back and add literally the exact same close I did because of this overly bureaucratic complaint, wasting his time. I didn't sign up for Wikipedia to discuss this sort of petty stuff, and I reverted because I didn't want to waste my time or the time of any other editor who would have to review the close. I'm sure you understand the importance of editors time as much, if not more, than I do. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 21:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll keep it short since you don't want to "discuss petty stuff", but it was not a waste of time for an admin to close that discussion. That's just the proper procedure (and if anything was a waste of time, it was your earlier close). Closes are not strictly about the result; they are also about the process so that a close is seen as more final than just one editor's opinion. This is why "involved" editors cannot generally close discussions, even if their close is reasonable or the same as a later closer who is uninvolved. If you close a discussion, you need to be in a position where you could have closed it either way, which will never be true of non-admins in a banning discussion. SnowFire (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Warnock

You've reinstated BLP disparagement of Warnock that was not, as your edit summary claimed, "longstanding content". There was no evidence of a crime and there is no suggestion in the source that Warnock was being considered the target of a crime investigation. The mention of a crime that nobody seriously considered is undue and violates BLP. The offending text was less than 24 hours old when I reverted it. Please self-revert.. Further, I note you've made 2 edits to that page, each of them tenuous text that portrays Warnock in an undue and negative light. Furtheremore to that, it would not matter whether BLP disparagement is "longstanding" --it still needs to be fixed. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I could have sworn I had read that text before, but you are right it was added yesterday. “Long-standing” was an innapropriate descriptor. I apologize for that, and thank you for pointing it out. However, the AJC does mention him not being charged with a crime, and I don’t see how that is disparaging or a BLP violation. She accused him of a crime and he was not charged, seems relevant, but that could be further discussed at the talk page. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 19:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I would self revert, but I think someone has already changed the text. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 19:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

If you do not understand how inserting a negative possibility that did not occur and was only the allegation of an adversary and was briefly mentioned in a news story with lots of other unencyclopedic detail, you should not be editing BLP content. I'm particularly disappointed since you seem to follow quite a bit of politics subjects and I would have expected you'd recognize that such undue insinuations are a favorite propaganda technique of the contemporary Republican party and its media ecosystem to tag opponents with views and misconduct without directly stating the allegation. You could start by reading our page on Red herring, but when it's an insinuation of personal misconduct or criminality, the issue is quite a bit worse. See also our pages on the Framing effect and Propaganda techniques. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: If you think saying Warnock wasn't charged is a form of propaganda then maybe you should go voice your concerns with the Atlanta Journal Constitution (Warnock, the senior pastor of Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, was not charged with a crime by Atlanta police) and the New York Times (The police did not arrest Mr. Warnock, saying several times that they did not believe he had injured his wife, or that he had any intent to do so.) because the both seem to believe his lack of charges or arrest are significant to the story. If you think it's some sort of Republican talking point then name a single Republican whose going around chanting "Raphael Warnock wasn't charged with a crime!" Again, any further concerns about this issue need to be addressed at the Warnock talk. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 23:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I already addressed that straw man argument. I suggest you review this thread if you care. Your denials are not constructive, and you've completely deflected from the fact that you edit-warred challenged BLP content, which you should not have done even if you did not understand the issue. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't edit war with mens rea. We've already addressed that and I've apologized. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

References

H. Walker Badge

Hi,

Hope all is well.

Thought you might find these three links to be of interest:

1. https://www.ajc.com/politics/politics-blog/the-jolt-herschel-walker-claimed-to-be-in-law-enforcement-when-he-wasnt/R3JJJGEAEBCMFIXMVOFHYI4HJY/ (How Georgia handed out these badges were interesting. Not sure if it is a Georgia specific thing. Also curious on why Georgia gave him a badge when he was likely living in Texas)

2. https://www.thewrap.com/herschel-walker-police-badge-georgia-debate-warnock/ 3. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2022/10/15/herschel-walker-prop-badge-candidate-has-long-record-of-claiming-to-be-a-cop-hes-not/?sh=25f197fe11fa

^ Other sources specifically mentioning "prop" badge.

Best, Wozal (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Wozal: If you have concerns about the Walker page you can address it at Talk:Herschel Walker. When it comes to the badge itself, Forbes doesn't actually describe it as a "prop" in its own voice. While I can't identify you the source, I read earlier today that the moderator wasn't attempting to question the authenticity of the badge, merely saying the candidates couldn't brandish possessions, or props, per the rules of the debate. Furthermore, The New York Times has extensively written an article about the badge being from his honorary position at the Cobb Sheriff Office; that article is currently sourced on the Walker page. TheWrap has not been identified to be a reliable source in the area of politics, per WP:RSP. Thank you, Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 05:06, 16 October 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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I guess we're not taking a wikibreak when it comes to gatekeeping for Hunter Biden?

Are we here for collaboration or just gatekeeping and deleting with no explanation? 2601:46:C801:B1F0:1CC7:A3A6:73DA:9152 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Your comment wasn't going to lead to anything productive. That's why I removed it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Using a crystal ball and defining good as anything contradicting the current page?I've been editing here since you wore a diaper. How long are we figuring on suppressing the encyclopedic information? It is now voluminously factual that the FBI and DHS ran a misinformation campaign via WP RS and social media to protect Hunter Biden. Matt Tabbibi is cited at least 4986 times as RS, he has certainly been considered a RS here for a longer period of time than you have been editing. The only question is how long are we purposely suppressing encyclopedic information because we don't like it? 2601:46:C801:B1F0:1CC7:A3A6:73DA:9152 (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy to provide semi-protection on the userpage on request. BusterD (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@BusterD: thank you for the offer, but I think I'm okay at this point. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 23:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Trump diplomatic style

Per my edit summary, there have been bare "yes" votes, but no reasoned !votes for the inclusion of the opinion about Trump/diplomacy. Against ongoing talk page discussion, it appears to have been reinstated in a rather disappointing disregard of collaborative BRD. It would be a welcome sign of your collaborative good faith if you would remove it until the WP:ONUS has been met for inclusion -- either exactly as you phrased it, or possibly with other opinions added or more context given. SPECIFICO talk 23:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

No this is BRDCR. Boldly added, reverted by you, discussion opened, consensus to include, reverted again by you. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Patience is advised. There is no consensus to include for the reason I stated above. We do not count votes. It's rather disappointing to see you still as impatient as when you first began work on the difficult Contentious Topics articles. The same applies to your recent edit at Joe Biden, adding "gaffe". Not everyone is watching this website as closely as you or expects the a revert to immediately be reinstated. Hence it's important to give things quite a bit more time for broad discussion. As you'll recall from your edits to the E. Jean Carroll article, a long and arduous path to article improvement can easily be avoided by more patience that obviates the kind of escalation that was needed when you insisted on your view in that matter. Please consider removing the Biden text and awaiting further discussion on both pages. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The Trump article is back to the status quo. Any problems with Biden's article need to be addressed at Talk:Joe Biden. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to help you be a more collaborative editor. Blowing me off is your choice, but I doubt it is a good one. I stated the reason for reverting in my edit summary. The ONUS is on you, not me, to get consensus. SPECIFICO talk 00:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not blowing you off. I'm taking your advice. I should have waited a few more days to see if there were more participants on the Trump talk. I understand ONUS, but I'm not obligated to engage in edit warring about this. I'm just gonna sit it out now. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Here, I'll start the discussion at Talk:Biden to get input from others. Hopefully, that will please you. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit war

Whilst wp:3rr applies to a 24 hour period, a user can wp:editwar over a much longer period. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I'm aware, but why do you bring this up to my talk page? Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 17:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw you have reinstated the same content at least once. You need to get consenusus. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to provide links. I'm not understanding these vague referenced to my alleged edit war. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 17:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, it was in fact the repeated insertion of "disparaging wording" in a blp, I misunderstood the user's objection. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden

When content is under discussion on talk and you have no agreement on your preferred text or even that any improvement or changes are needed, you should not repeatedly add your "bold proposals" to the article itself. This forces others to revert you and needlessly disrupts the article that our readers may consult during talk page discussion. Given the high percentage of your politics "bold" edits that have been reverted by various editors, I hope you will consider a more moderate approach. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is a policy as you know. If you want to revert an edit and discuss, go ahead. That's the process. The truth is that I started discussion in the talk too early; the bold edit was novel and needed to be done. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 19:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to take feedback from experienced friends more to heart. Your so-called bold edits are most often reverted by longtime editors who appear to be more familiar than you with respect to the article text, the cited sources, and the subject matter. That may not be what you would like to hear, but it's the most on-point and valuable feedback I can give you. Denial is rarely constructive. SPECIFICO talk 20:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I posted a well-sourced proposal in the talk, where it garnered the support of GoodDay, and had no objections. The former text has no consensus beyond that fact that it's been there a while. The discussion sat open over 24 hours, and then I made bold edit to introduce it. I exercised an appropriate and reasonable amount of caution with this bold edit (more than policy and guideline requires), and it hasn't been reverted and there have been no arguments made against it, including by yourself, in the talk page. All you have said is that my edit has "no consensus" which is true only the extent that it doesn't have a rubber-stamp from a big talk discussion. Bold edits of new content don't need a talk page consensus to be made and they don't need to reverted unless they are objected too. If you have a problem with the content itself, you haven't voiced it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 21:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Mike Pence classified documents incident

It was really incorrect of you to turn this article into a redirect.

• In the hours before your move to redirect was reverted, you made no subsequent edit to Mike Pence's primary article that even remotely provided sufficient coverage of the content contained you removed by eliminating this page.
• Your talk page proposal to merge had already seen two users object to the idea. It was therefore clearly evidenced that this would be a controversial change, and therefore warranted discussion to build a consensus.
• The page was being regularly edited by a number of editors, none of whose opinions you sought out before making this change.

Judging from earlier threads here, there appears to be a pattern of you undertaking bold changes even after objections have been raised to them and no consensus has been built in your favor. Please halt this pattern of behavior. SecretName101 (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@SecretName101: I’ve addressed much of this at the Pence document talk, so I’ll be brief (well, I ended up not being that brief). I would disagree with your assertion that I undertake bold changes even after objections have been raised to them and no consensus has been built. In the thread immediately above I actually started a talk discussion with the exact proposal before making a BOLD edit, left it open over 24-hours, where it received no objections and one support before I added it. That’s pretty due dilligent when making a BOLD edit under Wikipedia standards. The content of that still has not received any objections or been reverted at the time of me writing this comment. As to the thread above that one, it was fluke where the discussion in the talk initially received much support with like one opposing I believe. Not unreasonable to assume their was rough agreement to reinclude, but consensus has since changed. About your complaint specifically, I refer you to the Pence document talk. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers involved parties are not the arbiters of when a discussion is at an appropriate point where a consensus can be drawn. They also are not the ones to draw a judgement of what consensus a discussion has brought about. So by simply assuming there was a rough agreement to reinclude you did not wait for a formal consensus to first be reached.

same problem there as here. You are demonstrating a lack of patience. SecretName101 (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• While I think all my edits have been in the realm of reasonability and within WP guideline/policy, I will try and be a bit more cautious with big changes like the merge. Consulting the talk for a merge of an article of that nature would have been a safer option. Safer in the sense that it wouldn't come across as brash. Thanks, Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"Porn lawyer" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Porn lawyer has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 8 § Porn lawyer until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

If at first you don't succeed ...

If you miss a ping when you first post a comment, you can't just add the ping template to the comment. See H:PINGFIX for methods that work. It's amazing how much work has been done on this collaborative project with such glaring issues in the communication code. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: thanks for letting me know. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 16:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Trump / Milley

There's no question that you are trying to contribute constructively. But you would do well to pace yourself as you learn about collaboration with others of vastly different backgrounds, information sets, and other factors than people you may interact with in real life. When you say that Milley volunteered to go on a walk with Trump, therefore the Milley bit doesn't belong in Trump's bio -- well, that shows such a misunderstanding of the most respected sources and the most fundamental realities of presidential and military roles in American history that you really should not be taking initiatives such as starting this misguided and malformed RfC. You may take comfort in the small number of insistent editors who back you on this, but I think that in due time you're capable of far exceeding that standard as you mature in your understanding, the breadth of your knowledge, and your experience as an editor here. This is not meant as criticism as blame, and you may not be happy to hear this, but in my opinion you are impeding your own development as an editor by needlessly and too often wading in the deep end. No response needed or expected. You may wish to consider, either now or sometime in the future. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

All Wikipedia editors should reconsider impeding their development as an editor by needlessly and too often wading into partisanship. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome

So I scrolled through userboxes recently and thought of making this:

This user is really good at checkers.

You're welcome. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader: thank you so much! It's is very kind of you to make this for me. :) Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 14:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I added it to my user page Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 14:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I saw; please go easy if you play me lol InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Re: AN

I am under no illusion of changing your mind, but I wanted to point out for you the clarification I offered here: if I were basing my request on what I wanted to do, not my perception of where my editing is all lift, no drag for the project, I would have requested a very different exception. My understanding of sanctions is that they are intended to prevent future disruption, and I have pointed to two small areas where I have caused no disruption, made positive contributions that have been well-received by the community, and where therefore the community doesn't face any downside risk if uninvolved admin were to grant the exception. I recognize - and welcome - the thin ICE that this request implies, and it will not be followed by any scope creep as you seem to apprehend. Newimpartial (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Charles Stanley

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Charles Stanley, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC - Reagan and AIDS in lede

How would you suggest I reword the proposed sentence? Jaydenwithay (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jaydenwithay: I don't know specifically what it should be. Perhaps as an add on the existing sentence: He also survived an assassination attempt, fought public sector labor unions, expanded the war on drugs, ordered the invasion of Grenada in 1983, and headed a delayed governmental response to the AIDS epidemic. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

E. Jean Carroll matters

Hello Chex. 'd just like to remind you that you've been aggressively advocating unfortunate narratives about this matter for quite some time now, and your views have consistently been rejected. Maybe you are really not understanding the core issues? Please consider. We will otherwise waste huge time and attention on an RfC and I'm pretty sure the outcome will be what's now in the article. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Morgan Luttrell

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Morgan Luttrell, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Richard M. Wynne

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Richard M. Wynne, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2025 San Antonio mayoral election

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2025 San Antonio mayoral election, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chris Hollins (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Houston Public Media.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

"D Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect D Trump has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § D Trump until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of 2025 San Antonio mayoral election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2025 San Antonio mayoral election 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/2025 San Antonio mayoral election 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.

SanAnMan (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on John Whitmire

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page John Whitmire, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:16, 13 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) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use File:Mayor Bob Lanier of Houston.png

Thanks for uploading File:Mayor Bob Lanier of Houston.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"Eepy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Eepy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 25 § Eepy until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)