AN[edit]

See the talk page guidelines, redacting out material when it is oversightable, while waiting for someone to delete it is allowed. In this case, the edit in question links to page that contains the PII of another editor on its front page. Sagflaps (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sagflaps. The edit I reverted contains only on-wiki links; it doesn't contain any external links, and certainly none to Wikipediocracy. Please take more care. Grandpallama (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how a second degree link to it is that much different (the on wiki link links to the off wiki link), but there's been so many edits since it was posted at this point it might as well be moot regardless. Sagflaps (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact you don't see the difference is why you shouldn't be messing with others' comments. You should reread WP:TPO; removing a wikilink isn't an acceptable reason to redact someone else's comment. Grandpallama (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it would allow people to get around the rules by creating a Wikipedia page containing a link to a dox of a user, and then wikilink to that page to circumvent the rules. Sagflaps (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TPO. Grandpallama (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Hello, Grandpallama,

I just wanted to thank you for your comment to me in the ANI discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Summerdays1 and WP:BATTLEGROUND). I don't spend much time on noticeboards as when I first started editing and I didn't check all of the diffs in this discussion, just the ones I saw for harassment and personal attacks. I probably should have looked deeper into the charges before making a off-the-top-of-my-head comment. Your remark was sound and it turned out that the editor had used multiple accounts and was worthy of being blocked.

When I was a frequent visitor to ANI (~2013-2016), the atmosphere was very divisive, mob-like and a little brutal so the "personal attacks" cited these days seem a little mild to me. But that doesn't mean that they were okay to say so I really shouldn't compare behavior from years ago. Any way, I appreciate your counsel. Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I thought your comment was perfectly fine! In fact, I very much agree with the sentiment you expressed about giving people a chance to respond; you (along with a couple of other admins--Cullen immediately comes to mind) are especially good models of patience, assuming good faith, and all around consideration of others. I thought your comment was right, and I wasn't admonishing you (or at least wasn't intending to), but to pull your attention to the fact that there had been more editing after your comment.
AN/ANI can obviously still get pretty heated, and I'm no angel in terms of some of my contributions there; I could probably always stand to be more patient and more forgiving. So, sincerely, thank you for continuing to show us all how we ought to behave at places like that. Grandpallama (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's already March 2024[edit]

And there is no sign Mickey's Mouse Trap releasing this month. 23.245.44.64 (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Providing reliable sources isn't optional. Grandpallama (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing and appropriate notification per "participation" and "expertise"[edit]

Hi, Grandpallama. Regarding this comment of yours at an AN/I thread about possibly trouting me for responding to canvassing, I just wanted to point out that the guideline for appropriate notification includes these criteria:

To the first point: I have a strong interest in welcoming and helping editors at Wikipedia whose native language is not English, and who may be having language-related difficulties in their editing. This has been true for years, and has extended in the last decade or so to student editors at Wiki Education as well, a significant minority of whom are foreign students who sometimes fall into this category. As far as the second point: I have a history of improving or creating articles in English about Brazilian topics, especially in politics, government, and criminal investigation, sometimes on topics that have no recognized English term available, such as this and this. Such articles often have arcane or subtle translation difficulties, and to support other editors and myself who translate articles from pt-wiki or use Brazilian sources, I created the Wikipedia:Brazil/Glossary. Whether that rises to the level of "expertise" or not is not for me to say, but other editors might think so.

Given that I believe that I was notified on my user talk page for these two reasons, I did respond at the AN/I thread as I consider it to be appropriate per the guideline. Nevertheless, I added the "(canvassed)" note which you noticed in the interest of full transparency and to permit other editors or admins to assess my comment who might view APPNOTE differently—especially so a discussion closer could discount my comment if need be.

I didn't want to clutter that "nightmare" thread with an even more tangential side issue of a side issue, just to see it drone on even longer there, but I did want to explain, so I hope you don't mind my responding here. I hope this helps clarify why I think it was appropriate for me to respond at the thread. I'm well aware that you might view things differently, and if you want to trout me, feel free; I won't remove it from UTP. Best, Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see two problems with the canvassing (but less on your part, per my ANI comment). The first is that while you certainly do have that background, experience, and those interests, the complaint wasn't really about Portuguese (or Portuguese-language) articles, or about welcoming new editors--that's just how the canvassing to you was framed. And you were the only person canvassed—by a frequent collaborator and, I would presume (perhaps incorrectly), friend. That leads to the second problem: in no way was the request for your input neutral, or neutrally worded, or anything other than a "come back me up" call for help. There's reasonable wiggle room regarding whether or not you are an appropriate recipient, but the notification itself is, as I stated at ANI, a textbook violation of WP:CANVASS. You were not explicitly prohibited from following that invitation, but it creates a "fruit of the poisoned tree" situation. I think you (both) genuinely want to help O recomeço (whom I've deliberately been "nopinging", because I'm afraid all the edit notices he's going to return to are also going to be counterproductive), but in responding to that particular request, worded in that particular way, I think you did him a disservice when it comes to whatever admin finally closes that discussion. To me, the trouting is about your participation likely having the opposite of your intended outcome, and was intended to be gentle. Grandpallama (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that, and I'll definitely have a think about the "opposite of [my] intended outcome" part especially, and I appreciate the "gentle" as well. Ditto on the "nopinging"; +1 for that (and as you have no doubt noticed, I've been doing the same here). Because the canvassing issue is part of a discussion about possible sanctions against an editor now, I feel I have to respond (gently, briefly) at the thread, against my own preference, as I had hoped to avoid additional drama, but I think that argument deserves my view, if only to add a link back here and not go into any details about it there. Thanks again, happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. And it is, conversely, time for me to stop commenting at that thread and let whatever will be, be. I think it needs a couple more completely uninvolved editors to opine, and then a swift close. Grandpallama (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more! Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I[edit]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname links[edit]

Why did you remove the link to Honorific nicknames in popular music in the articles of Sarah Geronimo and Angeline Quinto? ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the former in the talkpage discussion you opened, and the latter was pretty clearly explained in the edit summary which removed it. Further content discussion is probably best kept at the relevant talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More