This user is aware of the designation of the following ascontentious topics: discussions aboutinfoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes Theyshouldnot be givenalerts for those areas.

User talk:Dronebogus/Archive 1

I made aWP:RFCL for the RfC.[1] Thanks!Nemov (talk)14:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dronebogus,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyableNew Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—Sundostundmppria^{(talk /contribs)}06:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

—Sundostundmppria^{(talk /contribs)}06:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you just welcomed a mentee of mine who hadn't yet edited; I actually have a custom welcome template for my mentees. If you're going to welcome people who haven't edited, you may as well join thementorship program; that way, you can have of list of mentees to yourself that you can welcome to your hearts content.I dream of horses(Contribs)(Talk)16:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW, the template I use is{{mentor welcome}})I dream of horses(Contribs)(Talk)16:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dronebogus, there isn't any mention of policy or guideline in your edit summaries and the removal appears to be prohibited byWP:TALK. You're going to need to explain your actions, specifically where you acquired the right to decide what is a real response and what isn't...Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’mWikipedia:Ignoring all rules here. Yes, there’s content beyond the initial bad faith request, but it consists of a canned answer and an insult. There is no intelligent discussion here worth preserving and the “request” was impossible to do anyway. In other words, what is the net positive of keeping this section?Dronebogus (talk)19:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That content had no justification for existence. Glad it's gone. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)19:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You edit warred on the basis of IAR? That is bold. Why are only the intelligent discussions worth preserving? Why delete rather than hat in this instance?Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A waste of bytes and effort. There was nothing worth preserving or defending. Simple common sense. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)19:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing it takes more effort than letting it be archived automatically. I disagree that there is nothing worth preserving.Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An insult is worth preserving? Let alone arguing for?Dronebogus (talk)20:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the comments could be perceived as an insult and even then its not the sort of personal attack whose removal is justified.Horse Eye's Back (talk)21:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there were such a thing as aDarwin Award for stupid threads, I'd nominate this one. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)21:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the wikipedia equivalent of procreation?Horse Eye's Back (talk)21:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was odd that you went to my talk page, after never having interacted with me before, and removed one of the sections. It's in keeping with BLP, arguably, but still odd. Can I ask how you stumbled across this and why you felt it was necessary? I get BLP, and I'm not going to argue about whether or not the IP's comments were in violation or not, but showing up on random talk pages and removing archived conversations because someone implied something bad about Joe Biden seems a bit extreme.

Also, I do not appreciate the tag you added to my section on the Joe Biden talk page. The discussion would have played out and ultimately ended without you hiding it. A more honest and honorable way to handle this would have been to simply comment on the discussion and share your perspective. Instead, you implied that I'm a "civil POV pusher". Which heavily insinuates that my edits and actions are undertaken in bad faith. Could you expand on why you feel entitled to throw out the accusation that I'm operating in bad faith, and what "POV" you think I'm pushing?Philomathes2357 (talk)05:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The comments about Biden on your talk page were so bad they were removed from public archives. I’m pretty sure nobody in the discussions I hatted agreed with you, and I’ve been thanked at least twice for hatting the Biden one. I think this is a you problem here.Dronebogus (talk)05:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I appreciate the fact that potentially defamatory claims made about living people could open the platform to legal liability. As for the discussion, you didn't address my questions. You assumed bad faith on my part, which is frowned upon, and something I've been talked to about - rightly - in the past, when it's been made clear that assuming bad faith is absolutely unacceptable. You also said that I am pushing a "POV". Why do you assume that you know what my intentions are, and what POV am I pushing?Philomathes2357 (talk)06:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are pushing the POV that Biden’s dishonesty and Santos’s dishonesty are somehow equivalent and should be covered ad such when reliable sources (and common sense) say they are not. Biden has lied (of course he has), but not to the ridiculous extent of Santos. Nobody else sees things your way and you’ve provided no hard evidence to convince them otherwise.Dronebogus (talk)06:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The{{hat}} template is meant for closing conversations, notwinning them. If you find a thread on a talk page that's compelling enough that you want to respond to it, please just comment in the thread; don't enclose the entire thing in a template whose header is a derisive comment about the content inside it.jp×g09:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this wouldn’t be controversial on a SPA pushing political conspiracy theories but I’ve changed it nonetheless.Dronebogus (talk)09:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop doing this. There is no reason to close talk page sections by insulting the participants in the{{cot}} template. If you cannot stop yourself from getting emotionally involved in the discussion, you should not be applying close templates to it: seeWP:INVOLVED andWP:BADNAC.jp×g09:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpxg: I’ve removed the only part that could be considered insulting. Btw please start a new thread instead of replying to one from the beginning of this year.Dronebogus (talk)09:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually can't believe you stumbled upon something likethis andthis. How on earth that happened? It looks like one must dive deeply into a garbage dump, in order to dig up something on this "level" of nonsense. You certainly should be thanked for bringing crap like this to the sunlight, and helping Wikipedia to get rid of it! —Sundostundmppria^{(talk /contribs)}20:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It involved following a paper trail of twoother blocked users (since they all commiserated at the same talk page) and subsequently falling down an absolute black (rabbit) hole of fossilized wikidrama.Dronebogus (talk)21:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This[2] is a personal attack. Comment on the discussion, not insult other editors by dismissing their opinions as invalid because you don't like their voting history.DreamFocus16:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry,@Dream Focus:. It was a lousy ad hominem argument, I know.Dronebogus (talk)14:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as can be seen, this "masterpiece" is still with us, this time due to "no consensus"... I can say that, if it ends up at MfD ever again, I'll participate in that nomination only as a voter, and that's it. —Sundostundmppria^{(talk /contribs)}02:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus Hi, I have seen that you have edited Portaro article and I want to ask you why you have removed the Portaro logo, the photo of Portaro at International Showroom and the photo of Portaro headquarters? These photos makes the article look better and the visitors have more information about the company. ThanksFLORIKRUJA (talk)15:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It screwed up the article tagsDronebogus (talk)01:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus I saw you added Portaro logo but I added again the photo of Portaro at International Showroom and the photo of Portaro headquarters. Please don't remove them as they make the article look better. ThanksFLORIKRUJA (talk)07:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered this new article. It needs some work, especially the notability of each item. Mention in one source isn't enough for adding to a list article as each item must be notable, unlike content in regular articles.

My wondering is related to its original creation as a user space sandbox and how it finally ended up as a list article. I see it went through some(?) deletions(?) and restorations, and then a Deletion Review:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_December_27#User:.usarnamechoice/sandbox

Then on to an MfD:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:.usarnamechoice/sandbox

That ended with a Keep (as the sandbox it was). Nothing about becoming an article. Yet it ended up being moved by the creator to mainspace. What do you know about this? Please ping me. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)23:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but that was overzealous. I wasn't repeating the same things over -- I made different suggestions each time. There was no need to collapse discussions, and when I tried to make one more post, you nuked my whole topic? No offense, but did you even read it, or jump to conclusions? The first time, I suggested documenting their version of reality while calling it false. The second time, I suggested describing their politics and relation to the larger culture war (not the same thing). In the latest post, I was saying that more info could be provided on the history of that movement, and mentioned a handful of topics to work from; it wasn't a direct continuation and I acknowledged the consensus. I think you just saw a post with my name on it and presumed the worst. Really, I appreciate that it's one of the most contentious topics, right up there with abortion, but if you had just let discussion play out, it would've been fine. I wasn't being excessive or unreasonable at all.Xcalibur (talk)01:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dronebogus. For some time, I am thinking about somehow includingthesethreepics intoWP:NOCONFED, but I am not sure how and where to put them, or whether they should be included at all. Any ideas would be valuable, really. —Sundostundmppria^{(talk /contribs)}08:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t find them necessary. I don’t understand the gay confederate one, and the other two are a little…unsubtle.Dronebogus (talk)08:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood it, the gay confederate flag suggests that there are gays among neo-confederates (which, I suppose, sounds appalling to the majority of them). And the other two flags are quite direct in a way, but I still like them. They may be out of place in the essay tho. —Sundostundmppria^{(talk /contribs)}08:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of a random search, I came across these, apparently, problematic userpages –Dixielee,ConfederateLord,Birdman1014,Wōdenhelm andErlo1783. The first four are obviously pro-Confederate (with a noticeable userbox at Wōdenhelm's userpage), while the content at Erlo1783's userpage can be classified as nothing more than nonsense. I am not sure if these userpages are MfD-worthy, tho. —Sundostundmppria^{(talk /contribs)}08:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m more curious how your even found those. Nominating all except wodenboyface, since that appears to be a single userboxDronebogus (talk)08:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You would be surprised at all the stuff that can be found here, if you just type something simple into the search engine. In this case, I typed just the word "Confederate", and it was enough. As for the Erlo1783's userpage, finding it was a pure chance really... Thank you for nominating them! And, yes – in the case of Wōdenhelm, only the CSA "citizenship" userbox was really problematic. —Sundostundmppria^{(talk /contribs)}10:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, I almost forgot aboutthis, a "great" creation of ConfederateLord. —Sundostundmppria^{(talk /contribs)}11:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its meanWidget-Policy Thy Editor (talk)18:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why doesUser:Dronebogus/True facts about Wikipe-tan have a link toWikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:WeaponizingArchitecture/Trivia in it

WeaponizingArchitecture |scream at me04:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t remember, that was ages ago.Dronebogus (talk)14:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipe-tan came up in the discussionDronebogus (talk)14:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i see.WeaponizingArchitecture |scream at me03:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope you won't mind, I renominated this article for deletion. You were quite right to close the previous nomination procedurally as it had been nominated by a blocked sock-account and the justification wasn't appropriate at all. Nevertheless, I had a look at the article, and was unimpressed. The sock and IP's might have a valid point, I don't know. I think this article is basically one guy's PhD, as retrieved from some conference proceedings, referred to in one of his own paper, which makes me wonder whether it was produced by someone closely related to the work, and also makes me wonder just how mainstream it is. I think it's worth a proper deletion debate based on properly Wikipedian principles, which is why I chucked it back into the arena for round two, with no intent to reflect badly on your closure of round one.Elemimele (talk)22:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FairDronebogus (talk)23:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle rollback should only be used against obvious vandalism. It should not be used to revert good faith edits (such asthis one) even if they are erroneous.Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk)14:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look atthis section and determine whether it's useful?Wes sideman (talk)14:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just appears to be one KoN running their mouth. It’s tedious but I’m not sure if it rises to disruption level…yetDronebogus (talk)02:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

This is not a big deal, but in response to your close ofWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonfire (Dark Souls), you probably should not have invokedWP:SNOW. First, SNOW is generally used to justify early closes, and the usual 7 day listing period had expired, so there was no need to justify an early close anyway. Second, SNOW generally implies that the consensus is one-sidedly overwhelming or that there's a very clear rule in play. While consensus was certainly strong for a merge, there were 3 good faith !votes for something else by editors in good standing. I would gently suggest reserving SNOW for cases where there is essentially at most one person swimming the other direction, as it is generally only invoked for extremely clear-cut cases rather than normal closes.

(As noted before, I'm not contesting the result, consensus clearly was merge, just the reasoning - this was just a normal AFD, not a SNOW case.)SnowFire (talk)20:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report atWikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia andall users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged invandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriatelywarned. Please note there is a difference betweenvandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made ingood faith. If the user continues to vandalise after arecent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?15:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know you and I do not agree on a lot of things. That said, I was sure that you said you were going to stop closingMfDs you were involved in. Why not wait for an uninvolved admin to close? Yes, I realize the discussion is trending a certain direction, but that decision should be left up to someone whose job it is to assess consensus.⛵WaltClipper-(talk)12:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll disagree with Walt that it doesn't take an admin to close an MfD. However,Wikipedia:Non-admin closure also says a person doing the closing shouldn't be involved. This isn't a matter of bureaucracy, but rather a needed element of the process to help ensure needless problems don't arise. Note that Iagree with the close; that isn't the issue. The MfD wasn't going anywhere but to no consensus. --Hammersoft (talk)12:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, to be clear, there are times whereWP:NACs are perfectly valid. I've seen plenty of appropriate ones to know. Hell, I've closed a few discussions myself, but I always try to step away when it comes to a discussion that I've !voted on, even if it's something I don't feel particularly strongly about. It's a matter of preserving the integrity of the discussion (and yeah, avoiding a needless DRV on procedural grounds). --⛵WaltClipper-(talk)12:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do not use my talk page as a general discussion page.Dronebogus (talk)12:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

? We're discussing your close. That's the whole point of this thread. We are talking to you. Unsurprisingly, your close of that MfD has been reverted[3]. --Hammersoft (talk)14:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The notice is atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dronebogus and involved NAC closures.BusterD (talk)19:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dronebogus, I just saw that you appear to be feeling a bit stressed over that ANI thing, and that's entirely understandable. And I just want to offer you a bit of support. ANI exaggerates minor issues into major drama, and blows things out of all proportion. I think all you're really guilty of is a bit of over-enthusiasm. Please don't let it drive you away, and I hope you carry on with your seriously net positive contributions.Boing! said Zebedee (talk)11:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say try to maintain positive thoughts. To paraphrase Joseph Campbell, sometimes the best that we can do is to participate joyfully in the sorrows of Wikipedia. Sincere well wishes.Dumuzid (talk)21:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And see that this is one of the many ways Wikipedia can drain things out of us :(. The hyper-bureacratic attitude of this site can so often drain us of our love for the project, especially when every "gotcha" is brought to bear at times like this. Just wanted to say I definitely support you continuing to contribute in a zillion different ways on this site, and I think your activities in general have been a positive force. Keep up the good work, truly. In the grand scheme of things, this is a blip. — Shibbolethink^(♔♕)21:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dronebogus. I've closed the ANI thread (permalink) with consensus for the following sanctions:

• Dronebogus is indefinitely topic-banned from closing any XfD discussion.
• Dronebogus is indefinitely topic-banned frommiscellany for deletion, broadly construed.

I have logged these sanctions atWikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community#Dronebogus. You are expected to comply with them, and violations can result in blocks. Please readWikipedia:Banning policy for more information about topic bans, exceptions, appeals, etc., and let me know (here or on my talk page) if anything is unclear. Thank you.Extraordinary Writ (talk)08:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: so in regards to closing I amonly restricted from closing XfDs?Dronebogus (talk)19:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, yes.Extraordinary Writ (talk)19:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry to find out about your TBAN (I didn't even know there was discussion about it, until today). Whatever you do, please stay within the limits of that TBAN, until its eventually lifted (and that will surely happen). You are a valuable and productive editor, and divert your energy and time eslewhere, until this unjust measure is lifted. —Sundostundmppria^{(talk /contribs)}21:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stay cautious, I feel like you might be next.Dronebogus (talk)22:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How come? —Sundostundmppria^{(talk /contribs)}22:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re pretty aggressive at MfD, might want to dial it back.Dronebogus (talk)22:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, kinda, but honestly – I already dialed it back, by rarely posting MfD nominations of my own for some time now. Since recently, I basically just vote there, as I rarely find material that is really MfD-worthy. Also, so far I've never made a non-admin closure, and I don't plan to do that at all. Once your TBAN is lifted, you really should abstain from doing such closures in the future. Don't give any excuses for future TBANs and/or blocks. —Sundostundmppria^{(talk /contribs)}22:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dronebogus,

Your User page is tagged for deletion. It looks like it has something to do with transcluded userboxes but you have such a full User page, I don't want to hunt around to figure out what the problem is. I suggest you do so so that your User page isn't inadvertently deleted. Thank you.Liz^Read!Talk!23:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: G8’d ubox. Kind of annoying that someone deleted something in use by a non-disruptive user (me) but I’m not fighting over something in my “junk userbox” section.Dronebogus (talk)23:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that WP:DENY applies to the comment you removed from the Hunter Biden Laptop Controversy page. WP:DENY is about vandalism, which it wasn't. Yeah, it was a troll like comment, but it wasn't vandalismper se.

It's generally a bad idea to remove comments from Talk pages because it can make the discussion hard to read. The standard is to strike out a comment that you want to retract. It's also considered bad form to remove or edit a comment made by somebody else. I added a note explaining the missing comment without restoring it or naming the now-banned editor.

RoyLeban (talk)10:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just let people vote on that policy thing. Arguing with people who have been entrenched for years isn't going to help anything except making it more contentious.Nemov (talk)19:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. It was a knee-jerk response out of annoyance to “never hearing that one before”.Dronebogus (talk)19:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey—if you want to keep engaging, I'm not going to officially say you shouldn't, but, while I definitely don't think you've crossed this line, I'd be careful about nearingWP:BLUDGEON. So far, you have responded to every single oppose voter, which looks a bit intense. I might suggest, if you want, going back and adding point to your own vote if someone raises a point you'd like to respond to, unless you really think a back and forth will be productive.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk)20:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but the second two were more just comments/requests for reconsideration than “BTW YOU ARE WRONG”. I’ll lay off the commenting for now.Dronebogus (talk)20:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this point. It ends up driving people away from your position. You've said your piece on this and it's time to see where it goes.Nemov (talk)02:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm begging you to stop commenting. I agree with you and if I think you'rebludgeoning the process, certainly others will as well.Nemov (talk)16:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay okay I’m not allowed to say anything now fineDronebogus (talk)16:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the pageBlack Aria II, I thought it was vandalism and I was gonna self revert the revert myself. I won't do it again (if possible) since I've might or might not have broken Wikipedia's good faith rules.64andtim (talk)15:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fineDronebogus (talk)15:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:ImJustThere/sandbox (WP:FAKEARTICLE)

• User:EricAllums11/sandbox
• User:Ericallu1115/sandbox

WP:FAKEARTICLE,WP:G5

118.149.85.1 (talk)21:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks good IP person but I can’t legally participate in MfD anymore. Please ask somebody else.Dronebogus (talk)22:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not legally obstructed from CSD tagging :P—Alalch E.21:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	Janitor (cool) Award
	Yo I noticed some of your efforts in my recent browsing. Thanks!Zorblin (talk)22:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert this editor's removal of material from their talk page? With some specific exceptions, users are allowed to remove mayterial from their user pages, and the stuff they removed isn't of the sort that needs to remain.Beyond My Ken (talk)00:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I bumped something by accident, I should have reverted it.Dronebogus (talk)00:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but yes, you should have. NP, we all make mistakes.Beyond My Ken (talk)00:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of cool stuff in there but it should best be compartmentalized further so that it's more navigable.Synotia (moan)07:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually going to transfer it into favorites on commons since it nearly crashes the pageDronebogus (talk)11:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop engaging. You're well past the point of productively contributing.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)16:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone should just close as indef ban at this point.Dronebogus (talk)16:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has to stay open for 72 hours perWP:CBAN. –bradv16:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knockthis off. I suggest you disengage from this entirely.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)22:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on your talk pageDronebogus (talk)22:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you see them marching towards a site ban,don't knit beside the guillotine. It's almost like gravedancing before they're even banned. I don't know if it's a twitter/internet thing but have some compassion for Roxy and the other editors in this dispute and let the issue fall silently. —Ixtal^{(T /C )} ⁂Non nobis solum.00:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I haven’t commented in hours and am not about to. I don’t know why some people are still defending Roxy, or why Roxy is so intent on dying on this hill, but I know I’m not going to change that.Can’t be helped.Dronebogus (talk)01:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't log on Wikipedia in a long time. I noticed that nearly a year ago one of my userboxes was up for deletion and has since been deleted. I tried to make userboxes for all views on the bathroom issue, even ones that I did not agree with.Pink Fae (talk)13:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted by consensus as transphobic (not a comment on you) a long time ago.Dronebogus (talk)18:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. The userbox has been up since 2016 and never challenged on these grounds until you did so five years later. Is transphobia a recent grounds for deletion of material? Is there other type of prescribed phobias that are not permissible on Wikipedia? Is this just restricted to userboxes or does it also apply to articles? I'm just curious. I haven't been active on Wikipedia in a long time. --Pink Fae (talk)15:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes transphobia is now considered as highly unacceptable as racism, homophobia and misogyny. A long-term user was actually just banned for repeated transphobic remarks (as well as general incivility)Dronebogus (talk)18:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you are confusing transphobia for genderism or gender binarism. It is like the difference between gynophobia vs sexism. Gynophobia is the fear of women, while sexism is discriminatory beliefs towards women. Transphobia is the fear of transgender people, while genderism is the discrimination of those outside of the traditional gender roles. There is nothing really essentially immoral or unethical about fears, but there is when you talk about discrimination. Also, transphobia is a non-clinical phobia, while gynophobia is a DSM-5 clinical phobia. Yet, You never did answer my question, is this limited to userboxes or are we including articles as well? --Pink Fae (talk)23:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing transphobia under the assumption we are referring to its use to refer to anti-trans sentimentDronebogus (talk)02:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, because you recently participated inWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries, which also led to the deletion ofComparison of the Turkic states, I would like to invite you to participate in the partial follow-upWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of the Baltic states. The situation of these three pages is not exactly the same (because language family plays no role in these cases), but because many issues are similar, I've nominated them as well, and am curious what you think. Cheers,Nederlandse Leeuw (talk)08:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:

• User:Valjean/Wikipedia's credibility

Valjean (talk) (PING me)23:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're very fast in drawing conclusions (WP:BLUDGEON and WP:SEALION,) and putting labels on people. (talk page Denialism)

If you check my quite long history in Wikipedia, you won't find anything near to this behaviour you have suggested in your edit. Better yet, I have never participated in any “heated discussions” or tried to win an argument (any argument).Entropy1963 (talk)02:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were trying to win the argument that something you don’t like in the denialism article needs to be removed because it’s offensive to you. Multiple users didn’t agree or talked “around” you. You persisted anyway with repetitive arguments.QEDDronebogus (talk)13:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, this is a new one to me. It's pretty batshit... BestAlexandermcnabb (talk)15:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report aboutTsteves1234 (talk ·contribs ·block log) atWikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia andall users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged invandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriatelywarned. Please note there is a difference betweenvandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made ingood faith. If the user continues to vandalise after arecent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you.IanDBeacon (talk)15:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to discussions aboutinfoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. This is a standard message to inform you that discussions aboutinfoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes is a designated contentious topic. This messagedoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please seeWikipedia:Contentious topics.

Rethis and numerous other occurrences. Please stop throwing out accusations of ownership just because other editors disagree with you. The continual personalisation in discussions and insult throwing is a continual problem that you are exacerbating. Please stop. -SchroCat (talk)05:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An infoboxwas added in 2020 byUser:Ben Novotny who had worked on the article. It was reverted by a now banned user, but brought back by a friend of mine, and tolerated by Smerus. Much later, Smerus worked on the article towards GA andtook it away. The GA reviewer supported that (no surprise.) It's all in the article history and talk page archive. I had no time nor energy for the case then, nor today, sorry. We have a discussion going on Classical music, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk)06:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you say “reverted by a now banned user”, do you meanOmnipaedista, who removed it withthis edit? As far as I can see, Omnipaedista has never been blocked, let alone banned, and they were editing less than 20 minutes ago. Was there another removal and addition in between? -SchroCat (talk)07:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meantthis edit. I think I unwatched at some time and am not aware of all ups and downs, as said above. - I happen to see this question only now, accidentally, when I came to tell Dronebogus something. --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't stop posting on the talk page, I'm not complaining about your posts at all and am enjoying your good defense of your position. Hopefully we can work on the same side at some point, you'd be better to have as an ally than not. Have you seen either film? I sawOppenheimer but notBarbie (looking forward to it), and the use of the nickname "Oppie" is evident throughout (but that's neither here nor there, mostly there).Randy Kryn (talk)13:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you foryour contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text fromReview bomb intoList of review-bombing incidents. 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 anedit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying andlinking 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 atWikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you.Charcoal feather (talk)20:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI has been closedhere with evident consensus by the community to ban you from the area ofXFDs. Please review the closure and details written within for your benefit. Thank you,Lourdes05:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank godDronebogus (talk)18:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done is draw attention to disruption and invited additional disruption. There was no forthcoming disruption until you hopped ina month after the last comment and needlessly stirred the pot. Don't do that.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)17:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September songs

my story today

Today's story is about a great pianist with an unusual career, taking off when he was 50. It's the wedding anniversary ofClara andRobert Schumann, but I was too late withour gift. When do you think did Mrs. and Mr. Schumann get their infoboxes, and by whom? (Of course not by me.) --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello,

I’m not getting any responses but genuinely trying to understand why the article picture keeps coming down. Do you personally prefer this picture? Or is it something with the one I uploaded? I won’t bother again if you can please offer some insight. I followed the suggestion of the user ‘Edwardx’ and made the ‘COI’ declaration for page help/suggestions in both the talk page of the article and in the edit itself. What else am I missing here? Thanks for your help!

Happy2Be100 (talk)00:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting without leaving an edit summary. It is not helpful in a collaborative environment. If you would like to help edit this article, then do come to the talk page and discuss the issues rather than just reverting. Thank you — Martin(MSGJ · talk)17:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erasingthis kind of thing could make an unblock request easier. Sometimes I think it might be best to let people say bad things so that there is a record of their bad behavior. Won't revert you, but just my two cents. –Novem Linguae(talk)07:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "reporters" (such as they are, it's likely Philomathes is someones sockpuppet, their page edits even admit they sockpuppeted) are bullshit but they are required to notify you and they haven't done so, be aware that[4] exists.

Here's hoping you are cleared and Philomathes's sockpuppet farm is exposed.76.143.193.135 (talk)01:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i love you wikipe-tan!!!!1!1!!!!!!!!1Lumidaze (talk)16:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dronebogus! I hope that you've been doing well, since our last contact some months ago. Your absence is surely visible atWP:MFD, in terms of both votes and nominations. Are you still under that topic ban? In any case, you deserve all the possible respect IMHO, as a fellow fighter against neo-Confederate trash around here. Stay strong! Cheers! —Sundostundmppria^{(talk /contribs)}18:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I’m still under topic banDronebogus (talk)20:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm def sorry to hear that... —Sundostundmppria^{(talk /contribs)}20:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the topic ban? Also, why is Philomath out to get you? WTF is that all about? You should enable your email. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)20:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m under a general XfD topic ban, this isn’t relatedDronebogus (talk)04:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's XfD? --Valjean (talk) (PING me)14:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[x] for deletionDronebogus (talk)14:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, You may want to be aware that the largest and most active thread on a Wikipedia criticism site is about you and coordinating to get you banned. Three users of that forum, Philomath, Bbb23sucks, and Ericbarbour are working together on your SPI and attempting to recruit others.

The post is in a members only section of the forum, but the site is set up to enable specially configured browsers to read the members only area while logged out. If you are unsure how to configure your browser for access, just google "Dronebogus raxythecat" and you will get a few excerpts.

[5]

Malibu Sapphire (talk)18:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectGet Woke - go Broke has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 13 § Get Woke - go Broke until a consensus is reached.Qwerfjkltalk15:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October songs

my story today

Thank you for efforts towards accessibility, just take it easy, please ;) - Towards the end of the month, Ithought of Brian Bouldton, andhis ways to compromise, - with musings about peace there, - feel free to join.Hevenu shalom aleichem. Today is Reformation Day, and I believe that reformation is a work in progress. Over the last five days, three stories were about classical composers, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk)16:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added my comment on the RfC for theGeorges Feydeau RfC but I am on mobile and I do not think it was posted in the proper area. It was not my intention to purposefully post it in the wrong area. If it is possible for someone to move my comment to the right place, I would greatly appreciate the assistance.Barbarbarty (talk)21:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I’ve moved it to the bottom as it should be.Dronebogus (talk)22:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word of advice if you're going to create infobox RFCs. Separate the sections for support and oppose. Also, don't argue with the oppose bloc. Large walls of text between entrenched parties discourages comment. These discussions are slam dunks if a lot of editors comment.Nemov (talk)03:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dronebogus,

I've been meaning to do this for a while, but I keep forgetting. As you know, I accused you of being tied up with Vizorblaze/Raxythecat based on circumstantial and behavioral evidence. I found circumstantial behavioral similarities that I observed to be compelling, and I'm so sick and tired of being harassed by LTAs that I just wanted to do something proactive to make it stop.

However, it appears that I was wrong. There is an LTA troll (Vizorblaze/Raxy) who became fixated on me last January. You were accused of being Raxy, and you invoked my name in the process of defending yourself. I think Raxy saw the drama, latched onto it, and thought it would be funny to stir the pot by imitating you while harassing me. I fell for it, but (allegedly, it's a bit unclear), a CU was performed that cleared your name.

Therefore, I must say to you: I am sorry. I hope the LTA has not started targeting you as a result of that SPI. The SPI I opened did not lead to any clarity on the LTA's identity, but the SPI could potentially have caused harm to your reputation, and could have also caused you personal distress, and genuinely I regret that. I apologize. I would like to make amends if possible, and I hope we can have a non-contentious and collegial relationship in the future, should our paths cross again. Take care.Philomathes2357 (talk)21:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding your behavior in infobox discussions. The thread isBreak: "Manage the conflict". Thank you. —SandyGeorgia (Talk)22:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional seaplanes has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)11:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wanted to be the first to wish you the very best during the holidays. Thank you for open dialogue and frank discussion. I hope that we find ourselves working together in the new year.Lightburst (talk)15:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December:story ·music ·places

Thank you for your work for accessibility! - Today, I havea special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. - I wish you a good festive season and a peaceful New Year! --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrateChristmas,Hanukkah,Kwanzaa,Hogmanay,Festivus or your hemisphere'sSolstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here.Dantus21 (talk)21:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Dantus21 (talk)21:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on social media this morning a death announcement from a family member ofKeith Fowler, the account holder ofUser:KFFOWLER. An ip address added a death date to the article last night and I've reverted it and made a new thread on the talk page about that edit. I happen to know the family member on social media and have dm'd them to ask them for an obit or notice when they post one in RS. Could you prevent me from stepping on a rake here?BusterD (talk)16:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not surely exactly what you’re askingDronebogus (talk)22:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your name onWikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Members so I thought your experience might be useful in that regard. So far I'm still looking for an actual obituary or official notice.BusterD (talk)22:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll see what I can doDronebogus (talk)19:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY is not applicable in this situation. It's also just an essay, whereasWP:TPO is not. Just because the comments are getting under your skin and the users aren't reading the FAQs. Keep on doing it, and you're going to get blocked.Jauerback^dude?/_dude.01:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be vandalism, but “Disgusting he’s even on Wikipedia” “Remove "Sir" he is dead. If he were alive he would be relieved of this title, he was not worthy of in the first place.” “Correct. Wikipedia should be ashamed.” “Remove all sir and any glowing act [sic] he did they where all deceitful and planned to help with his predatory ways” directly beneath a very straightforward message saying “no” screams both trolling and assuming bad faith. This is not a content dispute or a legitimate edit request, it’s people using the talk page as aWP:FORUM first and former and secondly to uncivilly demand content changes based onWP:GREATWRONGS andWP:IDONTLIKEITDronebogus (talk)07:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People have asked umpteen times to remove Savile's knighthood, but this is withinWP:TALK guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦^{(talk to me)}08:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it’s page-protection worthy andsome (not all, mea culpa) of the commentswere borderline trolling or just purely insulting to Wikipedians in general.Dronebogus (talk)08:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "One example does not a section make". There is no rule that an editor cannot add one entry to the section, and it was not right to delete the entry for that reason. You can edit it if you think that it can be better, or anyone else can. Please stop it. I'm considering starting an arbitration.Tkorrovi (talk)17:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A civil content dispute is not trolling. You are being more disruptive than me here by insisting that a single uncited pop culture example is necessary for the integrity of the article.Dronebogus (talk)02:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You change the topic, whatever is by your interpretation integrity of the article or pop culture, this was not what i was talking about. I don't think that there is more integrity in that section than examples from the science fiction, and i think that it is only important that the examples are relevant, but this is another topic.Tkorrovi (talk)03:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute is also not anywhere near a stage where it needs to be sent to a dispute resolution notice board, let aloneWP:ARBCOM. You should have pinged me on the article talk as part ofWP:BRD instead of coming to my userpage, which in general is reserved for “need to know” messages.Dronebogus (talk)02:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

HappyNewYear

2024

--Gerda Arendt (talk)22:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Main page:the person whomade the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story ·music ·places

Yesterday wasa friend's birthday, with related music. - I'm on vacation - see places. --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dronebogus

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the usernameKnowledgegatherer23, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I'veproposed an article that you started,Ribbits!, for deletion because it meets one or more of ourdeletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top ofthe article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this:{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click thePublish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember toexplain why you think the article should be kept onthe article's talk page andimprove the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later byother means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with{{Re|Knowledgegatherer23}}. And remember to sign your reply with~~~~. Thanks!

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

Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello)17:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story ·music ·places

Music and flowers onRossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yourvillage pump comment is a really terrible ad hominem (seeWP:NPA#WHATIS) -- a person's spelling and edit count has no bearing on the legitimacy of their request for help in editing, which is what this fundamentally is. I strongly ask that you remove it.SamuelRiv (talk)20:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SamuelRiv: doneDronebogus (talk)20:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheWikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real page has been renominated for deletion. You are being notified because of your participation in the previous MFD. Should you desire, any comments to the discussion are welcome atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real (2nd nomination). Thank you —CactusWriter^(talk)02:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to email you a few questions (nothing super juicy, the only reason I'd do it offwiki is because there's some personal info I don't usually share publicly) but I noticed you don't have an "email this user" option. Are you willing to emailme? Let me know! ThanksAnnierau (talk)07:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Annierau: What’s it about?Dronebogus (talk)12:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story ·music ·places

Do you happen to knowany admin who can seriously claim to be uninvolved in the matter of infoboxes,and who'd be willing to give up that independence, by closing a discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk)13:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today is the Feast of the Ascension for which Bach composed his Ascension Oratorio, - perhapswatch a bit how the closing movement was performed in Bach's church. --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Hinterdobler is on the Main pagetoday, together with an opera that reviewers deemed not interesting and too obscure for our general readers. The soprano thought differently, -listen and see. - Also on the Main page: a TFA by sadly missed Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk)10:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

did you listen and see? - today's story has a pic of a woman holding her cat, a DYK of 5 years ago - the recent pics show 2 orange tip butterflies --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

29 May 1913:The Rite of Spring -today's story, actually something I saw at that place in a revival. - Do you rememberthe infobox discussion 100 years after the premiere, often mentioned in the arbcase? - Today a user who returned after several yearssaid that nothing changed. Would you agree? I wouldn't ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow ended up in a rabbit hole on the whole transphobia ban saga you were involved in, and your comment of "calling someone who expresses transphobic views a transphobe is calling a spade a spade, [and] “wackadoodle” is barely an insult" made me laugh ridiculously hard. Really needed that, thank you, even if your intention I'm sure was just to get your (obviously correct) point across.🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk •contribs)02:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is at best unproductive and at worstuncivil.FortunateSons (talk)23:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons: I don’t see anything uncivil there. You made a bad (or at least incoherent) argument and I called it out as such. I’m not implying you’re stupid or anything, and if you read it that way I’m sorry. But I’m at no fault there.Dronebogus (talk)23:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think we are likely to agree what an AGF interpretation of your comment looks like, but it’s also not something that I’m deeply offended by. I am mostly hoping to reduce the likelihood of that discussion becoming worse than “the next dumpster currently catching fire” it was already called. Thank you for being reasonable :)

Just to clarify: In this case, nobody is claiming thatAmazon (company) is an RS. My link is just used in the context of the comment I’m responding to. The goal is to show that Amazons failure to remove the book can’t beindicative of the book not being antisemitic because they also don’t remove more blatant antisemitism (or only when pressured by media).FortunateSons (talk)00:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I think that’s a meaningless argument in the context of the broader discussion. Amazon and its actions towards cannot reasonably be used to proveanything about the book. Really the whole sidetrack about this issue is pointless and irrelevant to the actual question at hand and I’d be more than happy to let it drop.Dronebogus (talk)00:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m happy to let it drop too. I just responded to the comment that brought it up, I wasn’t the person who introduced it as a factor. ;)FortunateSons (talk)00:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was reading a404 Media article from January and saw a familiar name -- it's a passing mention and not a SIGCOV, but hey, we gotta takesies what we can getsies :^)jp×g🗯️00:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely deserve a cute fox after the mean message you had on here. I'll monitor that IP; let me know if there's anything I can do :).

Cocobb8 (💬talk • ✏️contribs)20:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were blocked :)Cocobb8 (💬talk • ✏️contribs)20:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dronebogus. Thank you for your work onPol (4chan). Another editor,Voorts, has reviewed it as part ofnew pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please remember to tag redirects that you create perWP:REDCAT.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with{{Re|Voorts}}.(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions)00:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YorkshireExpat (talk)17:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really don’t want to let that poor horse be do ya?Dronebogus (talk)18:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they shut the discussion. What was I meant to do??YorkshireExpat (talk)19:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link above explains it pretty well I think.Dronebogus (talk)19:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a coward be attacking you now? Activate your email and contact me. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)18:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m afraid I don’t know what you’re talking aboutDronebogus (talk)05:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why to use email. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)05:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t say I really care what smack people are talking about meDronebogus (talk)12:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)16:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should review what Valjean wants to show you. Though all evidence points to an old grievance being reopened by a particular fan.12.129.159.197 (talk)16:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it’s notyouDronebogus (talk)17:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you ease up on the ANI comments? You have more than made your point, and your further participation is not helping your cause. If I came upon this as an uninvolved admin (I'm not; this is not a warning of something I'm going to do. I might propose it, though), I would consider blocking you from ANI while that thread is open. Didn't you have this same problem a while ago with some other ANI threads?Floquenbeam (talk)19:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: I already stated to someone else I would be stopping comments. Your concerns are understandable, I just feel very strongly about the issues at hand (ATG/WPO/Lightburst) since they have all personally affected me and might’ve gotten carried away in the heat of the moment.Dronebogus (talk)19:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see that you'd said that. I wouldn't have mentioned anything if I had.Floquenbeam (talk)19:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s okayDronebogus (talk)19:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DroneBogus,this does not look like stopping comments. I can't see how it is at all relevant to the proposed sanction against Lightburst. I fear that comments like this are more incendiary than enlightening. I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but I want to echo @Floquenbeam's statements that it's not helping your cause, and is making things worse for Lightburst by dragging out the proceedings. If you have new information or a new interpretation of policy not already discussed, by all means, present it. If, upon rereading your comment before clicking "submit", it seems to be a rehashing of already discussed points or opining about things outside the scope of the proposal, please consider not posting in that thread so the it does not become even more cluttered.EducatedRedneck (talk)01:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EducatedRedneck: I am fine with completely ceasing commenting, the thread is clearly drawing to a close anyway. But I still feel like I’m being singled out in comparison to every other user who posts a lot in the thread, including in an arguably “incendiary” manner.Dronebogus (talk)01:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the thread I started immediately above a few days ago, your posting at ANI after saying above you planned to stop, and approximately 3 other admins warning you about the same thing (but you still doing it): I plan to block you from AN/ANI for several months fordisruption without further warning, if, after this message, you make:

1. any comment on any thread there that does not directly involve you, or
2. any comment there that is disruptive, inflammatory, badgering, or bludgeoning.

You can still make alimited number of commentsnon-disruptively on any thread someone else has opened that directly involves you, if it does not do any of the things I list in item #2. You can still create a new AN/ANI thread, and make alimited number of comments in it, if you have exhausted the other steps atWP:DR, and if it does not do any of the things I list in item #2.

An actual block from AN/ANI is an imperfect solution, which is why I am giving you this last warning. But it is the next logical step. I understand this warning is phrased almost as a pre-emptive block, and probably feels like asword of Damocles. That is intentional.

You can appeal this final warning at AN or ANI. However - I say this not as bravado, but with 100% honesty - I am extremely confident such a warning will get very strong consensus, and could (knowing the blood-thirsty nature of AN/ANI) result in you getting such a block right away, or even a sitewide block, so do so extraordinarily carefully. You may or may not think of me as an enemy, I don't know, but I have never lied to you. A knee-jerk appeal will boomerang, I'm near certain. I don't want you to think I'm goading you into such an appeal.

I'm hoping that up to now you have simply not understood how much of the community's patience you've used up, how thin the ice is, and that this finally gets that message across. You are welcome to ask for clarification here if needed.

If any of your perceived enemies come here to gloat about or support this warning, I will block them from your talk page indefinitely. However, this doesn't insulate you from people coming here with legitimate disputes. Just prevents grave dancing.Floquenbeam (talk)21:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: disappointed but unsurprised. Given I realistically cannot post at ANIat all without risking an immediate block that will almost certainly be inordinately harsh I’d genuinely just prefer to accept whatever block you’re planning and be done with it. Btw whatprecisely triggered this message?Dronebogus (talk)21:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can block you from AN/ANI right now, if you prefer, but since that would also be the result if you disrupt ANI (not a different "inordinately harsh block"), I want to make sure that's what you want. Also, the "trigger" is the 75 posts you have made to ANI in the last 5 days. --Floquenbeam (talk)21:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: how long is your proposed block?Dronebogus (talk)21:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking 3 months.Floquenbeam (talk)21:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that you are not the only person whose noticeboard comments play a role in creating an unpleasant atmosphere, but I really wish you would try to tone it down a bit; it not only creates issues for others, but over-the-top aggression also tends to actively hinder the odds of success for whatever argument/option/etc you are commenting in support of.jp×g🗯️07:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story ·music ·places

(This is a bit related to the posts above but not enough to put in the thread, as I haven't looked at ANI all year so don't know exactly what it is about.) Mystory today is - because of the anniversary of the premiere OTD - aboutDie Entführung aus dem Serail, opera byMozart, whileyesterday's was - because of the TFA - aboutLes contes d'Hoffmann, opera byOffenbach. - Once upon a time, when infoboxesfor operas (imagine!) where still debated, Isuggested to limit comments in a given discussion to 2. You could do that, Dronebogus, instead of a block. It was made a formal restriction for me then, but it proved a blessing: make your two comments and walk away and do something more constructive. --Gerda Arendt (talk)08:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especiallyView from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11, yesterday's wasa great mezzo, and on Thursdaywe watched a sublime ballerina. If that's not enough my talk offers the chamber music from two amazing concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk)10:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that youoften edit without using anedit summary. Please do your best toalways fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box inyour preferences. Thanks!~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)22:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you. I am happy that we have both signed anon-aggression pact some time ago. Don't let the Richards wear you down. You are needed and valued.Lightburst (talk)03:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dronebogus. I didn't hear from you for some time now; I hope that you are fine – both on-wiki, and in real life. Also, I wanted to hear your opinion about certain Soviet-related pieces of... work (1,2,3 and4). Do they justify MfD nominations? I myself am not sure, to be honest. —Sundostundmppria^{(talk /contribs)}19:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundostund:nostalgia for the Soviet Union is pretty common in Russia (and a lot of other places). A lot of older Russians grew up during the USSR. Plus in 50-odd years the Soviet Union had s complex history and went through a lot of reforms. I’d say it’s within theOverton Window enough to not count as extremism.Dronebogus (talk)18:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedThem (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageHorror.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)19:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

some ideas for it from my experience:

• TheWP:LUGSTUBS ordeal
• The Neelix X1 mass deletion shitshow
• The “is a tin can a tin container” arbitration thing
• the ridiculously long and drawn out move requests forTwitter and2024 crowdstrike incident

Those were all pretty funny. I love lurking wikipedia talk pages since people get really passionate about the craziest things. Keeps me sane during statistics class.-1ctinus📝🗨00:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1ctinus: interesting. Could you provide some further links?Dronebogus (talk)03:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1.WP:LUGSTUBS andWP:LUGSTUBS2

2.WP:NEELIXUser talk:Anomie/Neelix listWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/NeelixWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/CXT#SuggestionWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive297#X1_Cleanup_complete

3.Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 83#Tin Box

4. (readily found on the talk page of the articles)

@Dronebogus cheers! I would recommend not to mention the users by name on the page for privacy, all though they are pretty well known in Wikipedia circles.-1ctinus📝🗨14:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, here’s another idea: the complete death of the books namespace. Rare for an entire namespace to be completely expunged off of wikipedia.-1ctinus📝🗨19:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Propose to create page of block discussion in noticeboards.JPPEDRA2^{why not?}21:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story ·music ·places

Thank you for helping an editor new to the surprise that infoboxes can be regarded as not helpful! - I uploaded pics of a trip that was a 10-day celebration of a 16 November event, but the day was also when a dear friend died. We sangHevenu shalom aleichem at his funeral yesterday, and it was good. --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[6] You noted an RfC in your edit summary here. Which RfC did you mean? I probably missed it.My very best wishes (talk)23:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: it’s somewhere on the article talk page, I think at the top of the current oneDronebogus (talk)23:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was a brief discussion, but not an RfC, and there were some objections to include. There was no an consensus for inclusion. Hence, there were numerous reverts, such as[7].My very best wishes (talk)23:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Found itTalk:List of genocides/Archive 15 right at the top. Consensus is clearly stated as “include”. Additionally there is also a scholarly consensus that Israel’s actions are some description of “genocidal”.Dronebogus (talk)23:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I did not see it.My very best wishes (talk)23:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story ·music ·places

On the Main page todayJean Sibelius on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven'sFifth from theopening of Notre-Dame de Paris. Wesang in choirs today. --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen today to the (new)Perplexities after Escher. --Gerda Arendt (talk)10:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen today toBeethoven's 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - it was a hook in the2020 DYK set when his 250th birthday was remembered. I picked a recording withAntônio Meneses, because he was on mysad list this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. --Gerda Arendt (talk)16:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I come to fix the cellist's name, witha 10-years-old DYK and new pics - look for red birds --Gerda Arendt (talk)18:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gerda, I am but a lonely wikitraveler and have stumbled across you here! I must say your infoboxes are beautiful and as someone trying to get into classical music with no idea where to start, your suggestions are lovely. Cheers, and happy new year.JungleEntity (talk)06:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I love your Atlas of Wikimedia. So funny! 😆זיו「Ziv」 •For love letters and other notes05:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story ·music ·places

Happy new year 2025! Today,pictured on the Main page,Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal authorBrian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk)20:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today I hada composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely withanother who just became GA, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)09:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today isSchubert's birthday. I added a pic to his article (andmy story) and raised a question on the talk, regarding the lead image. --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

@Dronebogus,

You’ve been removing the external links sections from several hobby articles, includingPitman Shorthand,Knitting andOrigami. While I understand your concern aboutWP:LINKFARM, Wikipedia’s external links guidelines explicitly allow certain types of links, including learning resources that may not meet reliable source standards but are still useful to readers.

Removing these sections entirely goes against how similar hobby articles are usually handled. Since this has become a recurring issue, I’ll be opening a discussion at the Administrators’ Noticeboard to get broader input and ensure these actions align with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.JD Gale (talk)15:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story ·music ·places

On the main page today, 300 years after its first performance, Bach's cantataBWV 125, - a lovely very intimate piece, with peace and joy in the title.Enjoy listening with score - I discovered that only now! - Today is also the birthday ofJames Joyce, who has an article by many authors. --Gerda Arendt (talk)23:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mystory torday is about an actor who played in almost every German TV series and in internal cinema. --Gerda Arendt (talk)17:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your initiative on Classical music, and I'm with you, in spirit. To my observation, there are new users whonever heard of the guideline nor any conflict, so please provide a link to the current version, to let them know what we are talking about. Examples for how it has been understood:Vivaldi (why no link to the list of compositions),Haydn (reverted again and again, and a "discussion"), andMahler ("discussion"). --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: examples of where the community stands can be seen atMozart (2023, last RfC talk archive 16) andJames Joyce (2022, last RfC talk archive 4), both - with concise infoboxes - stable since the discussions. --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look at places also for Valentine's food and flowers ;) - witha story, and more music there --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)You might also want to link not just to wp:opera but the precise diff of the change of the guideline (on my userpage, under remembered). I findtoday's birthday child particularly inspiring, by enthusiasm and determination. That was - believe it or not - a pictured DYK in 2021, without the last line though. --Gerda Arendt (talk)19:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story is aboutEdith Mathis, who portrayed young women byMozart. The video of a 1993 interview has videos of her performances. - I saw my brother on stage, - see places. - Several composers are mentioned in the soprano's lead, and more in the article. I know of two without infobox in the article, one in the infobox. A few editor's follow a guideline, and most others follow the MoS. --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked closer, and there are two more in the article, in the recordings section. --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I point ata composer today, as the main page does. --Gerda Arendt (talk)23:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has become common (Bach, Mozart ...) to point at their Works. --Gerda Arendt (talk)16:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like the proposal, looking like "my" 2013Beethoven ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)17:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't uncap your personalisation of the thread again. No-one else has personalised the discussion, but you took it upon yourself to do that, show that you have been stalking my edits and double down on your over-personalisation of the thread. Just leave it closed and focus on the issue, not on other editors. -SchroCat (talk)11:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: I am very disappointed that you think you have a right to edit my comments to benefit yourself. If you don’t want to be characterized as rude, don’t be rude. Stonewalling and edit warring are rude. Your behavior on talk pages is rude. I was criticizing your behavior and pointing out a double standard, not personalizing the argument.Dronebogus (talk)11:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's dangerous to go alone, take this kitten!

Yoshiman5551 (talk)01:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story ·music ·places

New month: today is the birthday of Chopin andRicardo Kanji, see my stories oftoday and yesterday, withdream music by the first andBach played by the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today:Carmen turns 150, as the main page andmy story tell you. I chose a 1962 concert of the Habanera, - enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk)17:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OnRavel'sbirthday, we also think of a conductor and five more composers ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)18:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today I could have written five storiesoff the main page, and choseSofia Gubaidulina. I find the TFA also interesting, and two DYK, and a birthday OTD. How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today: an opera, 100 years old OTD, on Bach's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk)23:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today, 300 years ofWie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1!We sang works for (mostly) double choir byPachelbel,Johann Christoph Bach,Kuhnau/Bach,Gounod andRheinberger! --Gerda Arendt (talk)13:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satie: why do you even respond (= grant respect) to an editor who arrived with a red-link talk page and made fewer than 10 edits? --Gerda Arendt (talk)09:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t notice at the time.Dronebogus (talk)13:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understand. I work onAlan Cuckston right now, giving all (many) connected composers an infobox, - most of them had one anyway. It's so pleasant and easy when you don't deal with the FAs from a decade ago, and today's FA ;) (I had asked in the 2023 FAC but no.Goehr andChopin didn't change it.) --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I began a discussion with the closer. Non-admin is no problem, but being biased is. Nobody whovoted in theMozart RfC should close an infobox discussion, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior, as discussed atTalk:London Monster#Recent reverts (pl) is not acceptable. Please reviewWP:HOUNDING: following someone's contributions to find pages to edit after they've asked you to leave them alone is disruptive, even if the edits you end up making are fine. To be clear, yes, you can still edit the same pages as them, but it's not acceptable to intentionally seek out pages they have edited.Elli (talk |contribs)19:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) HiElli, yeah, similar behavior ("You're almost always needlessly aggressive") wasalso highlighted byScottishFinnishRadish recently.Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi19:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you surely have seen by now,Extraterrestrials in fiction is not an abandoned article, there is a user actively working on it. That means that, regardless of reasons and who's "right" or "wrong", insisting to remove an image that has been restored to it counts as a content dispute. Please restore the image to the article for the time being (seeWP:STATUSQUO) and start a discussion at the article talk page, explaining your reasons against the image you want to remove; as you have done the first time the image was restored. I have reasons to keep it, but a discussion in edit summaries in a restore/remove cycle will not do. Neither of us want this to turn into an edit war, right?Cambalachero (talk)00:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DB, please don't do stuff like this:"...my personal experience with this user...". It "worked" for you in this case, in the sense that the other editor got a warning for replying in kind, but it incrementally helps break down WP's "society" (which is already quite a bit of the way to being broken). SFR's comment, which was thrown back at you, is actually at least a little tiny bit appropriate in this case, right? Like, that wasn't a useful thing to add, right? Nor was initially calling the thread "Supervote close...". It just makes it harder for uninvolved editors to solve the underlying issue. This isnot a "warning", really, as I'm losing whatever faith I used to have in warnings to good-faith editors. It's just a request; a plaintive one. --Floquenbeam (talk)17:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FIM has madeinsulting remarks towards me multiple times. I couldn’t find the other remark but it was just them bringing up old crap as a snarky “no you” on some user talk page discussion they weren’t even involved in. I simply haven’t found this user to be pleasant to interact with.Dronebogus (talk)17:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess this didn't work. it was a long shot anyway.Floquenbeam (talk)17:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to assume good faith where I have previously been let down. I don’t knowwhy FIM even decided to pick on me in the first place, or at least I don’t remember, which pushed it beyond “I personally dislike working with this person” to “this person goes out of their way to pick fights”. That’s all I meant by my remark, impolite as it may have sounded.Dronebogus (talk)19:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You asked SFR "AITA?" and the specifics Floq highlighted would serve for me as examples of why SFR responded with the comment that got thrown at you in that review. The fact that you have found this user unpleasant is all the more reason to do a double check before replying to make sure you are living the expectations in a contentious topic. Do better.Barkeep49 (talk)19:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I really don’t get why this blew up. It was a remark expressing my disappointment with FIM’s conduct and using that to reinforce my argument that waiting around for a fix that might never happen was pointless. It was not meant as snarky. Yes, I probably should not have made the remark. I admit that. FIM actually did revert it and left a lame, snarky reply which I expected but had no intention of responding to. And now it’s all over like five different talk pages.Dronebogus (talk)20:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story ·music ·places

Tout est lumière --Gerda Arendt (talk)13:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adolphe Adam - perhaps the "clutter" question should be raised for Composers, or Classical music (instead of individual composers): "please do not add an infobox, perWikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Lead section" - really? Thesection for operas has none of this, and he wrote mostly operas. --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my talk: for a great woman's Johannes-Passion (listen!), our music in detail, and three people who recently died and are on the main page (where she isn't). My call for collaboration has the first "no", and the second - for the Easter Oratorio - seems inevitable. --Gerda Arendt (talk)18:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My story is about music that Bach and Picander gave the world 300 years (and 19 days) ago, - listen (on the conductor's birthday) --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I finally managed to upload the pics I meant for Easter, see places. - Also finally, I managed a FAC,Easter Oratorio. I wanted that on the main page for Easter Sunday, but no, twice. You are invited to joina discussion about what "On this day" means, day or date. --Gerda Arendt (talk)13:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in the MAFIA page. I reverted the edit to the mission statement so that it once again states "fisting or handball," to align with the wording on the organization's website, even though the terms are generally regarded as synonymous. Wanted to provide context on why I made the change.OiYoiYoink (talk)20:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t matter what their website says unless it’s a direct quoteDronebogus (talk)20:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the statement is summarizing their mission statement, I think deference should be paid to the distinction that they are making in their own words.OiYoiYoink (talk)20:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it’s just repeating vaguely defined jargon that is meaningless to the average reader.Dronebogus (talk)20:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think published authors like the one cited on the fisting Wikipedia page for the distinction between 'handball' and 'fisting' are more authoritative arbiters than you for what constitutes 'vaguely defined jargon,' but I don't feel strongly enough to continue this war of words.OiYoiYoink (talk)14:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you contributed tometa:VRCommons.

I have recently become interested in virtual reality events, and I am imagining a future where Wikimedians will attend virtual reality events.

Do you know of other documentation or proposals for virtual reality content development in the Wikimedia platform? Bluerasberry(talk)20:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. Was literally watchingBarbie for the first time since its theater run and checked my watchlist during one of its ads. I miss the original Barbie/Oppie photo and language, which had a good run and lives on in cellphoneland. One nice thing about the current Ruth Handler photo: it has probably brought many people to her article (Barbenheimer is still getting over 450 daily views!). Thanks for reminding me about a very enjoyable several months of talk page banter.Randy Kryn (talk)02:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just reread theAfDeletion discussion, had forgotten about that wonderful page! It went on for five days of nonstop snow untilRockstone35 took the snowblower to it (EEng later adding a second closing comment, pointing out that it was an avalanche). We're coming up on the second anniversary of the film's opening, so thanks again for reminding me of the whole package. Someone should publish the Afd and the article's talk page discussions as a book (that just popped into my head - Ruth, is that you?).Randy Kryn (talk)03:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, publish that AfD and RfC as a book, call itThe Great Wikipedia Barbenheimer Debate, and you've got something(both worth rereading in full after two years! that RfC should have been "no consensus", for several reasons, but because of the RfC,conviently presented here on one archive page, the good stuff was up long enough to be read and seen by about 1.2 million readers). I came back today for a different reason - to thank Dronebogus for creating one of the funniest and most interesting Wikipedia user pages to either browse through or spend a great deal of time in. Not surprisingly,EEng's is another. Thanks to you both, for all of the above.Randy Kryn (talk)03:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for a week perthis and your follow-up behavior atSchroCat andTim riley's talk pages. I was hoping my previous warning about this would be sufficient; it evidently wasn't, so I encourage you to take the next week to review our policy here.Elli (talk |contribs)14:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: the first time you warned me, I can at least see a good reason why SchroCat might have felt harassed beyond me simply editing on the same page: I was needlessly edit-warring over something frivolous that would have been overwritten anyway. This time it literally was just editing the same page, once, in an extremely minor and unobjectionable way.Wp:own explicitly statesAn editor disput[ing] minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article,An editor revert[ing] a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental andAn editor revert[ing] any edit with a personal attack in the edit summary are ownership behaviors. I only asked Tim to review and restore my edit if possible because he’s friends with SchroCat and could act as a less hostile intermediary. Finally, SchroCat has very recently engaged in objectionable behavior of his own, includingpersonal attacks andunsolicited non-neutral pseudo-clerking. I will admit I should have respected their wish for me not to post on their talk page, but I didn’t remember them explicitly saying that at the time I posted there; I was just following basic dispute resolution guidelines by discussing the disputed edits with the user. Simply put, I was not acting in bad faith here and SchroCat needlessly raised the temperature on the situation by treating a tiny, harmless edit as an act of hostility just because it was on “his” page, something he wasalready doing long before the dispute back in March.Dronebogus (talk)21:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still aren't getting it: the issue isn't with the content of your edit, but in making it shortly after disagreeing with Schro elsewhere. And no, while they don't own the article, it strains credulity that you would come across that page for any reasonother than having looked at their contributions. Schro's poor behavior elsewhere is not relevant to this. They've asked you to leave them alone where possible, you've been warned to do so, and yet you haven't.Elli (talk |contribs)02:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting an objectively fine, two-word edit just because it’s from someone you are in a dispute with and it’s on a page where you made most of the edits with a hostile remark irrelevant to the edit itself seems a lot more aggressive and disruptive than making it in the first place. It’s true, I should probably not interact with them if possible and would like a formal interaction ban; but there’s a double standard here when SchroCat both made an innocuous edit into an act of warand continues to be uncivil and disruptive elsewhere, yet is treated as a totally innocent victim.Dronebogus (talk)02:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you don’t want to interact with me (and I don’t want to interact with someone like you either, with all due respect), then don’t edit pages I’ve created or recently edited. It should be obvious, but I’m reiterating it here! I’ll do the same. Your silence will be enough to show your consent! Thank you and hopefully goodbye,RodRabelo7 (talk)16:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Auto-antisemitism has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you.PARAKANYAA (talk)02:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history atTalossa shows that you are currently engaged in anedit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read abouthow this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.2804:388:507B:D73A:0:59:37D:D701 (talk)16:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about a couple of your comments that I happened to read atWP:MRV. I didn't want to post it over there because it may go too deep in the weeds of the specific RM, as opposed to the process review. Also, people have accused me of bludgeoning already, so I didn't want to burden the discussion with more information that may be tangential to everyone else.

I would appreciate if you could hear me out, because I can't seem to reconcile this.

• "... both topics could credibility claim primary status. Both are obviously very notable, and both of interest to laypeople. ... one is not only more notable (it’s discussed in scholarly and popular literature rather than just scholarly) but also clearly of far more interest to laypeople based on pageview statistics and common sense ... making the page with the most pageviews the primary topic actually sounds a lot better ... arguments based on personal preference, insular nerd bias, perceived subject worthiness, and maintaining status quo ...
• obvious primary topic

The case of Mario sounds to me like what you describe in the first comment. The biographies are obviously very notable, are of interest to a wider scope of laypeople than the articles about the franchise, because these other topics named Mario seem to come from various areas of endeavor, both historically and in the present, and are likewise discussed in all sorts of literature far more than the franchise. The page views comparisons also favor the Mario biographies over the Mario franchise articles.

Some of the arguments in favor of the character staying the primary topic could easily be described as based on personal preference (big fan base), insular nerd bias (video games), perceived subject worthiness (huge commercial brand), and maintaining status quo.

I'm not really saying I would agree with all of these being so negative - I myself have known about the Mario video games basically since I can remember, and loved to play the platformers, for example, so maybe a layperson could easily describe me as a franchise fan, too.

So my question is - why does the same sort of logic not apply in both cases, at least to some extent?

TIA --Joy (talk)09:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is atWP:ANI#Incivility and Potential Ownership concerns on the Mackenzie Ziegler Infobox RFC.InvadingInvader (userpage,talk)15:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story ·music ·places

Congratulations to no action. - Sharing flowers with you onBach's day of death, - I decorated my user pages in memory, with his music, andmy story ends on "peace". --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that I proposed an infobox for himon his birthday in 2013? Causing almost a riot as we say inSacre du Printemps ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jahrhundertringremembered, with the picture of a woman who can't believe what she has to see - I used the pic in an infobox discussion, forGötterdämmerung--Gerda Arendt (talk)15:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story ·music ·places

Today's story - short version: ten years ago we had a DYK about a soprano who sang in concerts with me in the choir, - longer: I foundtoday a youtube ofan aria she sang with us then, recorded the same year, - if you still have time: our performances were the weekend before the Iraq war ultimatum, and we sangDona nobis pacem (and the drummer drummed!) as if they could hear us in Washington. - What do you think about the discussion onTalk:Wolfgang Meyer? --Gerda Arendt (talk)16:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my talk for an Independence day, or: the pic of Oksana Lyniv was taken on 24 August. There's listening and reading intoday's story, and I like both. --Gerda Arendt (talk)19:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On top of my talk: birthday ofa great violinist and Requiem for a great friend. --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dronebogus,this deletion was inappropriate, as was your edit summary (don’t respond to IPs on this talk page, exactly 0% of them have any interest in contributing constructively). Regardless of what you may believe about IP editors in general, or this one in particular, the comment was related to article content, as was the reply by TFD. Until such time as the page becomes protected, IPs are welcome to contribute. If you can't figure out when it's appropriate to remove aWP:FORUM post, please refrain from removing comments at all.Generalrelative (talk)23:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story ·music ·places

My story today is about a composer and his ballerina wife, pictured as I saw them in 2009. --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today another giant's music:Canto General. Listen if you like it really big and emotional, with the composer as the conductor, in Chile, after years of suppression. (... and never an infobox problem with composers like this) --Gerda Arendt (talk)20:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A soprano pictured on DYK, a soprano and a composer and a bassoonist on RD, and a composer with the pic of the day:a good day for classical music! --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoya DYK that pictures a person together with achievements in art. --Gerda Arendt (talk)09:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you will know,Arvo Pärt is 90 today. Did you know that it tool me some trouble to get him to the main page?Listen! --Gerda Arendt (talk)12:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today is the birthday of the 16th Thomaskantor after Bach, remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My 100th biography to the Main page in 2025 isSiegmund Nimsgern. --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Rutter 80 today! Isang his major choral works with four choirs, and many of his uplifting anthems,13 DYK? I watched him explain hisMagnificat in person in 1998, and nowsee it on Youtube: he wore the same outfit. --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dronebogus/Userboxes/NoTankies, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated fordeletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dronebogus/Userboxes/NoTankies and please be sure tosign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content ofUser:Dronebogus/Userboxes/NoTankies during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits13:53, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: I don’t know if I’m even allowed to comment given by XfD topic ban but I didn’t think saying Idislike (not even hate) people who support Stalinism andJuche was “divisive”, especially given I think literally no-one would object to an anti-fascism userbox.Dronebogus (talk)14:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that ban, I'll mention it with a link back here.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits14:15, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Solaire the knight: I once again don’t know if this violates my topic banper se, but I am not the sort of person who uses terms like “woke” (which as appropriated by the right is absolutelyloaded with implicit racism, sexism and queerphobia) or “neo-Marxism” (by which I’m sure you mean something more likeCultural Marxism, an antisemitic conspiracy theory that has nothing to do with actual Marxism,Neo or otherwise). I am a (libertarian) leftist; I also oppose apologetics for left-wing authoritarian regimes, and I also oppose apologetics for right-wing authoritarian regimes. Both have killed millions of people, crushed free speech, and oppressed or exterminated minorities. If I said I opposed “warmongers” or “Jihadists”, would anyone complain? Or would that somehow be offensive towardsall people who support/are in the military andall Muslims?Dronebogus (talk)09:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you consider the concept of jihad offensive by default in any context, then you really have a negative attitude towards Muslims as such. It's not about you in general, but rather that the use of some derogatory terms opens the door to the use of others. Not to mention that these terms remain derogatory regardless of whether you personally are comfortable using this or that particular term. The double standards you propose, depending on whether we personally consider certain derogatory terms to be justified or not, are clearly unacceptable. And if you're leftist yourself, you're effectively creating the opportunity for abuse against your own supporters: userbox you created is included in the "anticommunism" category and is, in fact, used primarily by users with anti-communist and anti-leftist views. In other words, the word "tankies" is already generalized to all users with communist or strongly leftist views.Solaire the knight (talk)12:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) 99% of the time “jihadi” refers toJihadism, a militant extremist ideology championed by terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and authoritarian regimes like the Taliban. 2) I don’t particularly like communism either. All communist states have been authoritarian failures in practice (with the exception of anarcho-communism which both cannot have “states” by its very nature and has never progressed beyond a few “autonomous communities” with no international recognition as legitimate governments, but I digress) My “communist” userboxes are largely silly/ironic; I’ve also got a silly/ironic anarcho-capitalist one. 3) I don’t like conservatism but I don’t think this viewpoint is problematic just because it’s more popular among conservatives to express it. 4) totalitarian communist regimes are inherently and uncontroversially bad. Even (nominally) leftist regimes that are “just” authoritarian like the PRC are well known for their human rights abuses.Supporting them is far more offensive than saying something slightly offensiveabout said supporters. 5) I see alot of different beliefs expressed by users who transclude this userbox. Some I agree with, others I don’t. But it’s not just a bunch of ardent right-wingers.Dronebogus (talk)13:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, these days, the primary use of the word "tankies" is to label people who oppose any anti-communist critique. Just as any leftist defender can be labeled a "woke" or a "neo-Marxist propagandist." It's a double-edged sword, whether you like it or not. Wikipedia is not a place to fight your political opponents. You can easily write that you're a leftist who dislikes the right, or vice versa, to facilitate internal communication. But using derogatory terms as labels that could directly or indirectly be perceived as biased generalizations by other users not only doesn't facilitate this, but also exacerbates antagonism between users. This is especially true when you openly attempt to determine the acceptability of derogatory terms based on whether they are directed at your supporters or opponents. Wikipedia is a place for creating an encyclopedia, not for resolving relations between opposing ideological movements.Solaire the knight (talk)13:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was not mainly about politics, it was mainly about mass killings and other atrocities that are beyond the Wikipedia community’sOverton Window of acceptability. The definition provided byTankie is literally…authoritarian communists, especially those who support or defend acts of repression by such regimes, their allies, or deny the occurrence of the events thereof. Why is it okay to take the piss out of Nazis, genocide denialists, contemporary Russian militarists etc, but not totalitarian communists?Dronebogus (talk)08:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of brain-dead partisan zealotry — whereexpressing disapproval for authoritarianism is itself censured on the grounds that the authoritarians' fan clubs may prove helpful allies against "the other guys" — is at best deranged, and at worst an endorsement of their evil.

Be a leftist or a rightist, if you like, but Stalinites and Hitlerites and Mussolinites are fanboys of mass murder, and their baleful ignorance cannot be welcomed in any community attempting to work towards an intellectual project of equality and truth, as ours is.Hate is disruptive.

There is no violence in the mere act of disapproval. Being a "tankie" is not an inborn characteristic. They aren't a protected class; they are people who seek to remove the liberty of others. There should be no collateral damage to decrying the slaughter of innocents; if there is any offense, it is to cruel and monstrous people who shouldn't be on Wikipedia to begin with.jp×g🗯️02:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: if anything itdoes prove that, at least internally, thereis some truth to the constant accusations of “left-wing bias” on Wikipedia from the right. Along with the attempted deletion ofMass killings under communist regimes, it’s aterrible look.Dronebogus (talk)23:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Knowledge Pirate: I strongly question your ability to decide what is “inflammatory or divisive” given your userpage contains things like the highly controversialthin blue line symbol and, ironically, a userbox statingright not to be offended is fundamentally incompatible with freedom of speech. So which is it? Your views expressed in the MfD or the ones you express and practice on your userpage?Dronebogus (talk)09:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the law enforcement userbox from my userpage. Believe it or not, I did not know who thethin blue line was popular with until I read your comment. I have not changed my !vote yet.The Knowledge Pirate (talk)18:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Knowledge Pirate: The thin blue line was the most glaring (even if it was a misunderstanding), but if you are saying the word “tankie” is too edgy and divisive for Wikipedia you should also remove all your userboxes on hot-button political issues like abortion, euthanasia, cannabis, affirmative action, GMOs, taxes, the death penalty, corporate welfare, political correctness (once again, kind of ironic given you are seemingly votingin favor of political correctness here), tariffs, pornography, confederate monuments and memorials, the notion thatWikipedia pages relating to political topics suffer from a significant left-wing bias (again, kind of ironic), and the separation of church and state beingheresy. Either that or I tolerate all your political userboxes (because I have no choice anyway, being banned from MfD) and you strike or amend your !vote and tolerate mine.Dronebogus (talk)00:02, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EuanHolewicz432: 1) your main argument is an ad hominem, pure and simple; 2) your userpage is littered with far more divisive userboxes than “totalitarian communism bad”, includingthis user supports the armed struggle of the Basque people (pro-ETA) and multiple boxes describing things that are not objectively fascist asfascist (in other words, using the term as an insult, the thing you object to me doing).Dronebogus (talk)23:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you are participating in an XfD discussion by proxy despite a ban.EuanHolewicz432 (talk)04:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It directly involves me, I think it’s reasonable to do so.Dronebogus (talk)13:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't "directly involve you". It involves a userbox that you have created, yes, but it's not "your userbox", in the same vein as an article you have written is not "your article". I thought that part of Wiki policy was quite clear. Your topic ban doesn't feature any exceptions anyhow.EuanHolewicz432 (talk)19:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have edited this MfD and another MfD for a now-deleted pro-Stalinistuserbox more than any other Wikipedia namespace page besidesWikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (see1). All your userboxes are either anti-American using the most divisive language possible or in support of some controversial far-left militant group. The pages you’ve edited the most overall are talk pages for controversial topics like Xi Jinping, Radio Free Asia, and Azov Battalion; your second-most edited article isMemorial (society), an anti-Stalinist organization. You also rarely evenedit Wikipedia or Wikimedia in general. It seems to me your accusation that mywiki-political activism […] approaches not-there levels (by which I assume you meanWikipedia:Nothere) is actually a projection of your own behavior.Dronebogus (talk)02:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Daniel Brandt/FAQ, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated fordeletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Daniel Brandt/FAQ and please be sure tosign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content ofTalk:Daniel Brandt/FAQ during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.Liz^Read!Talk!16:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the need to remove the swahili headline at the top of the page on the swahili language, it adds a bit of context on swahili in most peoples lives?Schlawgclart (talk)10:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Schlawgclart: It’s not standard in any other article to have a banner above the lead. Add images somewhere else in the article.Dronebogus (talk)13:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enoughSchlawgclart (talk)14:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect🫦 has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 27 § Lip biting until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk19:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread isDronebogus still arbitrarily reverting IP comments. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)20:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this[8]. It was a uniquely below the belt and unhelpful comment. FFS.Ceoil (talk)20:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story ·music ·places

TodaySequenza III onLuciano Berio's centenary. You can listen with the score or to the first performer,Cathy Berberian (link in the work's article), - I couldn't decide ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your edits!!!2550 69 11hne(talk)12:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Structured literacy

[edit]

Good day. I see that you removed the image from this article, saying it is irrelevant. The article is about a method to teach children to read, so I thought it is relevant to have a picture of a child reading.

The redirectEx Unitate Virtes has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 4 § Ex Unitate Virtes until a consensus is reached.Casablanca 🪨^(T)04:11, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. If my memory serves me correctly. I have opposed attempts to have you indeffed, for the same reason - i.e no vandalism.GoodDay (talk)20:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay…? 👍Dronebogus (talk)20:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, I oppose such proposals.GoodDay (talk)20:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to thank Dronebogus for withdrawing and to encourage him to ignore the town curmudgeon... but I don't understand your rational at all. Only vandals can be blocked, but it a free for all other behavioral issues? Just a weird line to draw.Nemov (talk)21:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is just friendly advice, offered for whatever it's worth. I strongly advise you to find something useful to do and to stay away from projectspace, ANI in particular, and patrolling for a while. Not least because I think it would make you happier. Your userpage says you're interested in ships and old cars; I know there are lots of ship articles, and probably lots of car articles, that are in dire need of attention and a motivated editor could happily spend a lot of time there and make the encyclopaedia better. The reason I'm giving you this advice is because you're following a pattern I've seen many times in my 17 years here and, unless the editor decides to do something else, they almost always end up indefinitely blocked, but editors who find a niche where they can contribute productively to the encyclopaedia usually enjoy long and happy editing careers.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?21:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus I agree and I would recommend just ignoring the conflict. It's not worth the hassle. You can leave a comment on RFCs or whatever, but just say your piece and move on... at the end of the day it's not worth it. The back and forth isn't producing any fruit. Happy editing!Nemov (talk)18:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread isInteraction Ban to end a long-standing conflict. I am marginally unclear on whether this notice is necessitated, considering you are or were an active participant in the thread, but I will post it regardless. I am not seeking the block you feared, but it is clear that you need to be prevented from furthering this conflict with SchroCat.Mr rnddude (talk)14:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

story ·music ·places

happy new year! - inviting you to check out "my" story (fun listen today, full of surprises), music (and memory), and places (pictured by me: the latest uploads) any day! --Gerda Arendt (talk)14:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

20 January is the 100th birthday ofDavid Tudor (see my story) and the 300th birthday of Bach's cantataMeine Seufzer, meine Tränen, BWV 13, if we go by date instead of occasion as he would have thought, so see my story for last Sunday, and celebrate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects you have created have been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 14 § a lot of touhou project redirects, mostly characters (round 2?) until a consensus is reached.consarn_{(talck)(contirbuton s)}16:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mFantasticWikiUser. I noticed that you recentlyremoved content fromSuperFabric 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 useyour sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thanks.FantasticWikiUser (talk)16:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FantasticWikiUser: The article in question (like far too many articles inCategory:Technical fabrics in general) is excruciatingly obvious spam. I was going to remove irrelevant categories (for example it is not an article of protective clothing, being a material) then I saw the spammy material in the body and deleted it too, and then after I published the edit I just realized it was all spam and was trying to figure out what to do when you reverted me. I am topic banned from XfD so I can’t nominate it for deletion, and there’s no plausible redirect target, but it and a ton of other oddly specific brands and products in the aforementioned category need to be reviewed for notability.Dronebogus (talk)16:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I might nominate it to AfD myself as it doesn't look notable.FantasticWikiUser (talk)16:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time be sure and check out the other entries in the category. It seems to be a spam goldmine.Dronebogus (talk)16:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm looking at them right now.FantasticWikiUser (talk)16:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]