Hello! I noticedyour contributions toTicket resale and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and hasseveral benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, thecontributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages ontalk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! ASUKITE20:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wondered who the highly competent but somewhat ill-tempered IP might be, and I guessnow I know. So a belated welcome back :). --JBL (talk)22:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mVictor Trevor. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one ofyour recent contributions—specificallythis edit toSquare root of 6—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use thesandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at theHelp desk. Thanks.Victor Trevor (talk)14:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest buildings in the United States.AndyTheGrump (talk)22:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've tagged two articles asWP:A7 without notifying the author of the articles. Stop doing that. If you do that again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk)23:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, will begin notifying.35.139.154.158 (talk)23:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, Further to that, can you explain why you've been declining these? These are blatant A7s.35.139.154.158 (talk)23:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, they are not "blatant A7s". Second, I declined them because of your failure to notify the author. Why areyou on such a tear to delete these articles, anyway? Indeed, your behavior as an IP is very suspicious. You are not a new user.--Bbb23 (talk)00:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing whatsoever in Wikipedia policy that states that IP contributors have to be 'new'.AndyTheGrump (talk)01:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I am not a new user. And you're right, I should have notified the article creator. Now that that's done, will you reconsider the tags? Thanks,35.139.154.158 (talk)01:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please tone it down in the edit summaries.Drmies (talk)00:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onLong pause. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article'stalk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate torequest temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, youmay beblocked from editing.Since you continue to edit war after the initial warning.Hey man im josh (talk)19:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was my bad, I misinterpreted the current standing of this issue, -FlightTime(open channel)17:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K, sorry if I snapped35.139.154.158 (talk)17:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we're good. Cheers, -FlightTime(open channel)17:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding yourreversal of my edit: itis true. ℤ is the free group on one generator, so the data of a group homomorphism${\displaystyle \mathbb{Z}\to \text{Aut}(X)}$ is equivalent to the data of a function${\displaystyle \{\ast \}\to \text{Aut}(X)}$, i.e. an automorphism of${\displaystyle X}$. The equivalence is given, in one direction, by evaluating the action at 1, and in the other direction by sending${\displaystyle f:\text{Aut}(X)}$ to${\displaystyle n:\mathbb{Z}\mapsto f^n:\text{Aut}(X)}$, using the inverse when${\displaystyle n}$ is negative.

It is also true that anyG-action and${\displaystyle g:G}$ determines an automorphism, but in general this automorphism does not suffice to reconstruct theentire action.

Please unrevert, and in the future refrain from hastily reverting edits you don't fully understand. —ncfavier15:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I very much do understand that, but that's not what was in the content of the edit. You simply said a Z action was an automorphism, which is nonsensical taken at face value. In any case, it doesn't belong in the examples section, because it's not an example of an action (or even a whole class of actions).35.139.154.158 (talk)17:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see how the phrasing might be confusing and I concede that "is" needs to be expanded a bit.

Where does it belong, if not in the examples section? It's a spelling-out of what it means to be a group action for a specific instantiation of the group. I also plan to add that${\displaystyle \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}}$-actions are involutions. —ncfavier19:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a new edit. If you still object, please improve it instead of reverting. —ncfavier13:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, makes much more sense now.35.139.154.158 (talk)20:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. My apologies.Edward-Woodrow (talk)20:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries.35.139.154.158 (talk)20:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... included "Original research", "Essay", and "Tone". I've trimmed down the two paragraphs following the list, and cited where I thought that necessary. (The first sentence of that second paragraph merely rephrases the concept of encryption or enciphering in plainer words for any unfamiliar with those terms – and "encoding secret messages" is blue-linked in the lede.) I'd appreciate learning specifically what else you think should be documented, de-essayed, or re/un-toned. As this is a topic which may be new to a reader, I've tried to err on the side of explaining, where for a more commonplace subject a plain list might suffice. Shall we take it toTalk:Magical alphabets? – .Raven  ^.talk23:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@35.139.154.158: There is now a section on this topic inTalk:Magickal alphabet[note singular title]. I pinged you from there. Please respond. – .Raven  ^.talk03:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue todelete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rainbow crossings, you may beblocked from editing.Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!}20:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you are well. I'd like to direct you to Wikipedia's policiesaround civility. The statements you made in reply to my contributions inWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been pied (5th nomination) could have been made in a way that didn't insult my contributions or my understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. All the best. —siroχo02:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Siroxo: Trust me, calling it "horse manure"was the toned-downed, civil version. Strong language is often effective for getting someone's true, visceral reaction to something across in a way that nothing else can. Don't mistake strong language for incivility. My disagreement with your interpretation of of PAG is just that, not a personal insult.35.139.154.158 (talk)18:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that it was disrespectful statement. Your stated intent to not personally insult me (via my contributions) did not come across in the phrasing. It was hurtful. I ask that you consider rephrasing or retracting parts as others will be reading it. —siroχo20:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've reverted your recent edit toJonathan Brandis, where you changed "die by suicide" to "commit suicide". Current best practices are to use the phrasing "die by suicide". —Moriwen (talk)14:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is youronly warning; if youvandalize Wikipedia again, as you did atTalk:Derivative, you may beblocked from editing without further notice.☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk)19:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have beenblocked from editing for a period of2 weeks for habitualedit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia'sguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk)19:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is ashared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit bylogging in.

Hello, I'mFenrisAureus. I wanted to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions toChaitin's constant have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use thesandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at theTeahouse or theHelp desk. Thanks. —FenrisAureus▲(she/they) (talk)18:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was silly. --JBL (talk)22:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not mass remove cited content without explanation, it might be seen aswp:disruptive.Slatersteven (talk)17:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also readwp:editwar, as doing it over something like mass content removal will not go well.Slatersteven (talk)17:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not removemaintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did toStandard deviation, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in theedit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has beenreverted. Thank you. —W.andrea (talk)19:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improveWikipedia:Lies Miss Snodgrass told you! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest youmake an account to gaina bunch of privileges. Happy editing!Clyde_{[trout needed]}16:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... for your contribution atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 deaths in the United States. What you said was obviously the best outcome, much better than deletion.JBW (talk)20:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mThaddeusSholto. I noticed that you recentlyremoved content fromCult without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurateedit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use thesandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thanks.ThaddeusSholto (talk)21:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaddeusSholto: The IP's edit summary is undoubtedly an accurate explanation. You should self-revert. --JBL (talk)21:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JayBeeEll: Done.ThaddeusSholto (talk)21:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made toWater memory, did not appear to be constructive and have beenreverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with ourpolicies and guidelines. You can find information about these at ourwelcome page which also provides further information aboutcontributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use thesandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message onmy talk page. Thank you.Ixocactus (talk)21:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mHeyallkatehere. I noticed that you recentlyremoved content fromMethylamine without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurateedit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use thesandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thanks.Heyallkatehere (talk)19:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're involved in a situation that resembles an edit conflict with me, as evidenced by the repeated reversals you've made on theString_art page. This indicates you are persistently modifying the content back to your preferred version, despite differing opinions from other contributors. Collaborative effort, avoiding disruptive edits, and striving for agreement are key expectations for users, especially when disagreements arise. Instead of continuously reverting others' contributions,please engage in discussions on the article's talk page to reach a mutually agreed-upon version. Additionally, you have the option to seek assistance at an appropriate noticeboard or pursue dispute resolution mechanisms— Precedingunsigned comment added by84.205.244.137 (talk)06:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a participant inWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (2 nomination), consider this a formal invitation to figure out some kind of proper list criteria forList of cult films. The discussion can be found atTalk:List of cult films#List criteria.TompaDompa (talk)23:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that it is normal to provide the nationality of an author for context, and that honorifics may be included for the first mention of a person who holds the honorific, but should not be repeated. Therefore I have reverted your edits which are the opposite of improvements to the article.Skyerise (talk)18:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was very confused by whomever wrote on the AfD about the pronouns and who did what. The use of proper nouns, especially last names, eliminates misgendering and confusion.Bearian (talk)12:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made toSam's Chicken, did not appear to be constructive and have beenreverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with ourpolicies and guidelines. You can find information about these at ourwelcome page which also provides further information aboutcontributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use thesandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message onmy talk page. Thank you.Wiiformii (talk)15:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did atSam's Chicken. Your edits appear to bedisruptive and have been or will bereverted.

• If you are engaged in an articlecontent dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or thearticle's talk page, and seekconsensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia'sdispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of therelevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia'sAdministrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia'spolicies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result inloss of editing privileges. Thank you.Wiiformii (talk)15:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have removed the portion you referenced on my talk page as I also agree that it did not bring anything to the article, although I reverted it due to the removal of properly cited controversy and the addition of confusing maintenance tags. I will not revert anything for now due to the WP:3RR rule but I hope you understand, with best regards :)Wiiformii (talk)16:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mDoclys. I noticed that you recentlyremoved content fromVolcanism on Venus without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurateedit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use thesandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thanks.—doclys(❀)05:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doclys: If you think that "refspam" is not adequate explanation for the removal then you may like to reconsider your own edit summaries, most of which give even less explanation than that. For example, a very large proportion of your edit summaries are of the form "Restoring revision [revision number] by [username]", withno explanation whatsoever of why you are restoring it, let alone merely "withoutadequatelyexplaining why" (my emphasis).JBW (talk)10:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your feedback. I understand that my edit summaries should be more detailed. I'll remember this for my future edits. Thank you.—doclys(❀)10:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onAREA (fashion label). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article'stalk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate torequest temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, youmay beblocked from editing.Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy)19:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... this time for your edit atTalk:Prime number.JBW (talk)09:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ07:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion thread atWikipedia talk:WikiProject NASCAR#Conversion to km/h regarding your recent reverts. --Beland (talk)05:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 35.139.154.158,

Thank you for reverting the edits of the IP account who had a fascination with numbers and the year 2024. It's appreciated! I'd thank you but Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to "thank" IP editors, just registered accounts.Liz^Read!Talk!02:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've started a discussion about your recent changes to Neal Stephenson novel leads atTalk:Snow Crash#American and wikilinking genre in the lead. Cheers!Woodroar (talk)22:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mSynorem. I noticed that inthis edit toBessel function, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with anedit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thank you.Synorem (talk)15:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How ridiculous! One second's reading shows what was removed has no place in an article on Bessel functions; examining the article's history would show that the same person has added the same irrelevant content a few months before.XabqEfdg (talk)01:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @XabqEfdg - I feel as if you have not read my comment, and have assumed I had reverted the edit for vandalism just because there is a blue icon. The edit was removed forremoving information without adequately explaining why. There was noedit summary nor talk-page comment. The user admits this inthis diff. While usingHuggle, I regret to inform you we do not have the time to browse the edit history of each article we come across.Synorem (talk)03:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries or comments, as you did toUser talk:35.139.154.158. Your edit summary or comment may have been removed. Please communicate withcivility and refrain from makingpersonal attacks. Thank you.Synorem (talk)04:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticedyour comment here makes reference to a past dispute with another user. While I understand your frustration, following another user around to comment on their past behavior is generally not allowed, and may violate our policies onhounding,atonement, oraspersion-casting. In general,we need to focus on content (which includes the content of a user's proposals) rather than their past misbehavior or motives. Would you be willing to move your commentary somewhere where it's more directly relevant? Usually, the correct places for conduct complaints are eitherWP:ANI (if you want an administrator to intervene) or, more likely, the user's talk page (if you think it could be resolved without administrator intervention).– Closed Limelike Curves (talk)04:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Closed Limelike Curves: I appreciate your desire to keep cool heads in the matter, but GreenC's proposal was made (in my view) in pretty bad faith, and the context and his behavior was inextricably linked with the proposal, and I think it needed to be brought up. And I find it especially ironic that you're taking me to task for casting aspersions, when that's precisely the problem with the (half-baked) proposal in the first place that I was pointing out.35.139.154.158 (talk)05:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to take you to task for it—I can totally understand your frustration with that comment, and it might fall under the aspersions policy. However, I'm not seeing what makes it relevant to the policy discussion where you brought it up. Outside ofvery rare circumstances, it's usually best to avoid bringing up disputes from one place elsewhere. If you think this is one of those rare exceptions, maybe you could edit your reply to focus on explaining only the most relevant details? Right now I'm mostly just confused as to why it was brought up.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk)14:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you foryour contribution(s). However, as ageneral rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such asTalk:Imaginary unit are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They arenot a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at theTeahouse. The text you posted was off-topic and has been removed. —Anita5192 (talk)00:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with and understand your point that you’re trying to make here, but if you’re being uncivil like this, your point is not going to be taken seriously.Plant🌱man (talk)15:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made toList of national fruits, did not appear to be constructive and have beenreverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with ourpolicies and guidelines. You can find information about these at ourwelcome page which also provides further information aboutcontributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use thesandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message onmy talk page.Please discuss edits like this on the talk page before adding them, and also please don't start anedit war.Gommeh (talk/contribs)17:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. The thread isWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:35.139.154.158 reported by User:GommehGaming101 (Result: ). Thank you.Gommeh (talk/contribs)18:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have beenblocked from editing for a period of1 month foredit warring and violating thethree-revert rule, as done atList of national fruits.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia'sguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk)18:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is ashared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit bylogging in.

Stuff on Arguments subpages does not need a closure at all, and personally criticizing a user in a bad closure notice - which is also trying to shut down discussion so they cannot respond - is inappropriate. Kindly stop.MrOllie (talk)13:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie Stuff on arguments subpages can be closed just like stuff on other pages. I closed this because it was pure spillover from the previously closed section between the same 3 people, no longer about the original comment posted.You please stop and put the good-faith closure back. See also the formatting problems it was causing.35.139.154.158 (talk)14:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And now you have seen that I have objected to your improper close, so stop. Perhaps it was 'good-faith', but it wasn't a good idea.MrOllie (talk)14:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you and I have different ideas about the scope of the encyclopedia, but you have also done some good work in areas that are beyond my discipline, and I hold no grudge over our disputes. I think that your disengagement from our last exchange was the wise course of action, and would counsel you that your work here will be inestimably more productive and ultimately more satisfying to you if you take the path of always moving towards diffusing conflict and building an organic consensus in favor of your preferred outcomes. Cheers!BD2412T19:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping clean up LLM-generated text in articles. Have you consideredcreating an account? If you do, I think you might be interested inWikiProject AI Cleanup. Thanks again, and happy editing!SuperPianoMan9167 (talk)20:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about @OwenX "trying to put his thumb on the scales by devaluing those comments of ours" strikes me as at the very least notassuming good faith and possibly an aspersion. OwenX is a hardworking admin who takes on difficult closes, and although I sometimes disagree with them (as do others) I have never suspected them of anything but good intentions for the smooth functioning of English Wikipedia.

I considered replying to this on the (already too long) AfD discussion but thought it was better to raise it here. I suggest you strike those words.Oblivy (talk)05:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see your point, but I'm more concerned with the effect of the comment rather than the good-faithedness that it was written with. And I think it did have a potential effect of putting his thumb on the scales, even if that wasn't the intent...and seeing apparent disregard for a common deletion rationale in this and other AFDs from a closer is pretty concerning. I almost missed this, not because I didn't read it (I did, like twice), but because the full ramifications of it didn't really sink in right away. I wanted to put it out there and highlight it for whoever does wind up closing this so that their view isn't quite so subtly swayed. If they want to actively disregard appeals to NOTDIRECTORY, then there's nothing I can really do about that, but at least I can point it out if they (and others) don't quite realize it like I did.

I appreciate you taking you concerns here, but I think this was an important comment to make. I can clarify that I'm not trying to assume bad intent, but I don't want to really strike it, because I think the main point is still valid.35.139.154.158 (talk)05:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but you didn't say "have the effect". You said "trying" which imputes motive. "Actively disregard" kind of crosses a line as well....

I'm sorry if it comes across as patrolling your tone -- I wrote because IMHO your language is beyond community standards. AfD's are stressful enough without making it personal.Oblivy (talk)05:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair; I'll at least try to tone it down.35.139.154.158 (talk)05:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging the error at Rfd forROYGBIV, I've now corrected it.Suonii180 (talk)18:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I know you'll see this, but I'll try to slow down on the redirects, and I'll try to only do given name and surname redirects. Thank you!

FaroeFO (talk)16:58, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was an entirely unnecessary amount of antagonism for someone suggesting someone keep a redirect you think should be deleted. Even if you think someone's obviously being stupid this kind of thing just gets their back up and is not particularly effective at persuading anyone, and Tavix was making a perfectly normal argument which we get frequently at RfD.Rusalkii (talk)21:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.35.139.154.158 (talk)21:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]