Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Talk:Muhammad you wrote "I get the feeling that with a page as clearly contentious and important to certain special interest groups as Muhammad, circular and repetitive and never-ending arguments are endemic to its talk page."

I agree. In this case however, the controversy is different, not something we've dealt with on the talk page in the past.

If you look at the article history, you'll see that one editor, over the past couple of months of incremental edits, has completely replaceed the original GA-assessed Muhammad article with his own version, all done meticulously and in good faith. Most of the talk page now arises from the massive-in-total changes and the quality of the sources introduced. Concerns have been aired not just by special interest groups, but from regulars like myself who feel overwhelmed by the hundreds of edits and are unsure whether the article can be considered a good article anymore. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hello! i've seen you all over the talk page of Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians and thought you might be interested in working on WikiProject Artsakh, which has been revived for obvious reasons. thanks for your work & commitment to neutrality! Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not interested. JM2023 (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the ((Ctopics/aware)) template.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I honestly think this guy deserves to be permanently banned.

I literally haven't interacted with him since February 2023. Within that time, I've finished one course of study and have moved onto a new one. I have only very briefly edited Wikipedia articles a few times since then, and I've also edited my own user page a bit.

There's obviously no evidence that you and I are the same user, so that entire discussion is moot. Now it is time to decide whether Grandmaster should have any charges laid against him. I am in full support of the most severe consequences. He must feel the full force of the law. This attack from Grandmaster has been a rude and abrupt assault against my personal wellbeing. I literally never wanted to speak to that person ever again, see him ever again, or hear from him ever again. Now, he is trying to get me punished for something that I haven't done. What sort of upside-down universe are we living in? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If something aroused their suspicions such that they filed it then that aroused their suspicions. Mind you, they weren't exactly opaque. They put it plain., so there really is nothing to ask

This is my final attempt. Whatever it was you were cleared. It is abundantly clear that you and the other editor are not the same person. The "Perhaps not" is because there is no point in beating this drum. Please read WP:BEANS to understand why your precise question will always receive a highly imprecise answer.

"We" file SPIs when we consider things are worth filing them for. Other editors, highly competent editors, with a whole slew of tools we ordinary editors have no access to, they work diligently to decide what, if anything, is awry. In this case there was nothing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know I do not need to ask the filer, because he made it explicitly clear what he thought was similar, and I refuted that already. My problem is elsewhere. It seems two be two separate problems.

If I'm interpreting this right, it's saying "we cannot tell you what is similar about you and this user, behaviourally, because you will know how to distance yourself from this user, and you may [somehow] abuse this knowledge to avoid sockpuppet detection". It's the last part that I cannot understand the logic behind. I have already been cleared, which means distancing myself from this SPI-accused editor cannot have ill intent? Horse Eye's Back, (who as far as I can tell has no special tools and even had their comment moved from the patrolling admin/SPI clerk/usercheck space into the "other users" section), said that they have no doubts that me and Jargo are the same person. I wanted to know what they saw that I didn't see. I ask you: is there anything wrong with that, and could I get a straight answer if I asked that normal, non-special user?

The other thing was me asking the admins/SPI clerks/usercheck people what they saw as behavioural similarities that I could not notice. This seems to be an issue with people. Does with a whole slew of tools we ordinary editors have no access to mean the checkuser tools where they can see technical details like IP? Because I am referring to behavioural details, not technical ones. Can they do behavioural analysis of edits and writing style and tone and such that normal editors cannot see? Is that the problem with me asking, that I have no permission to know because it's something only they can see and are allowed to see? Because the other SPI clerk / admin I asked, Yamla, seemed to have no qualms telling me to simply ask Girth Summit about the behavioural part. Do you see what I mean here? One of us does not understand what the other is saying, and I do not know which one. JM2023 (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CU details will never be revealed. They have signed a big legal agreement with WMF about the data CU reveals

Behavioural similarities is a thread that is pointless to pursue. Whatever the filer thought it seems there were none. I have no idea what tools they have, but the legal agreement with WMF is likely to cover all of them.

Forget the other editor. They were not relevant to you before and they are not now. Do not interact with them. Just move on. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do remember Horse Eye's Back from years ago. Mind pointing me in the direction of his comments? In any case, Horse Eye's has a history of contentious editing himself, so I'd take his accusations with a grain of salt. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've undone the NAC on the e. coli blurb - while I agree it should be SNOWed, (non-admin closure) guidelines dictate you can't do so if you were involved in the discussion. The Kip 03:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the heads-up, now I know about it for the future. I noticed you indicated your deleted oppose !vote when you NAC closed another nomination, so I didn't think there was a rule against involved snowclosing. Apparently Stephen thought my NAC snowclose was fine though, maybe he sees it as a WP:IAR thing? JM (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With the other nom I hadn’t voted, I just indicated it’d probably be better to SNOW it than just leave another oppose. Otherwise all good. The Kip 17:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 5 November 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2023 Nepal earthquake, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 02:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is very off topic, and not about editing or anything important, but I am actually somewhat ...confused, at least... by your elaboration here - it had occurred to me that maybe you weren't reading "real" as intended, that's all clear. But it's how you've then explained what you assumed I meant and what you read it as that has me going huh... I don't see how the misunderstanding occurred, at least, unless you don't understand the legislation. Since I hope/assume you do, I've just come to ask for more elaboration?

I'll explain about what/why (some quotes for ease).

• I wrote So not just LGBT+ people will face prison, but anyone who acknowledges homosexuality/bisexuality/etc is real. - Intending this as "anyone who acknowledges LGBT+ is what it says it is / acknowledges homosexuality-as-understood-by-the-West exists"
• And you replied authorities themselves must acknowledge that homosexuality is real in order to persecute these people - Per your explanation, intending this as "acknowledge that homosexuality exists, whether invented or natural"
• You assumed I intended "real" as "something that exists and is natural" - the definition of, basically, natural. I don't know why you'd assume that?

I am also confused about your assumption in that last bullet point (five minutes later - I think I'm less confused on this now, see next paragraph), but it's not the main thing that I feel I need some elaboration on. No, that relates to how you read "real" initially. Because the sticking point with the Russia legislation isn't whether people are born gay (exists and is natural) or decide to be later on (exists and is invented). Though most people agree that latter doesn't really happen, it would still be banned in Russia - so even by your reading of "real", my original sentence still made the point I intended (part one of the confusion).

And then when you think about that, it seems that your reading doesn't realise the actual crux of the Russian legislation. If the legislation was just Russia saying "gay people exist but people aren't born gay and therefore it's wrong and they must be punished", your response would make sense - if Russia agreed homosexuality is real then the authorities can't both stop it and ignore it. But that's not what's happening. Russia simply deny that gay people exist - the point of the legislation is to say that homosexuality as you and I know it isn't real (by any definition). The sticking point is that there are effectively two concepts of homosexuality, one we would say is true (people can be gay) and one that Russia says is true (LGBT+ is fiction spread to harm Russia). That Russia has a separate concept is the actual whole big deal, not that they think homosexuality exists-but-was-invented, and your explanation would make it seem you don't understand that (part two of the confusion).

As I was typing this, I think I realised the issue. I think... You thought that the ruling was an analogue of Russia banning cooking, with me commenting that they're not just going after chefs but anyone who says cookery exists, which wouldn't make sense. You read my comment correctly, though. Because it makes sense when put in the right context. The ruling is like Russia saying cookery doesn't exist and that cooking is a lie told by people as part of an evil plot. So, is that what the confusion is? Or am I all wrong and you can offer elaboration? Kingsif (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kingsif I didn't answer this when I first saw it because I didn't really understand what you were saying. Coming back to this, I think I may understand what you're trying to say... you understand the ruling as "cookery doesn't exist and that cooking is a lie told by people as part of an evil plot". I understand the ruling as "cookery is bad and unnatural and it should be illegal for people to say that cooking is good and natural". We have two different understandings of the ruling. The issue about the word "real" came in because you view the ruling as claiming "LGBT is bad and doesn't exist", whereas I view the ruling as claiming "LGBT is bad and unnatural". JM (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks - Yeah, I was confused about your interpretation. Not that that matters on the ground for everyone it affects, sadly. Kingsif (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 19 December 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2023 Iceland earthquakes, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 20:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion at ANI and the user's talk page were a bit frustrating. Have a happy new year. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:D5AE:2D16:B03B:9C46 (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...and yeah, I hear you on the way words like these divide us, and how such division doesn't make the same sense it did in "the dark chapter" of "colonial history". But I still think, of the words the English used, "indigenous" is far more "acceptable" than the more savage alternatives. If I could right great wrongs, I wouldn't capitalize or capitalise it, but that's a First World Problem. There's also this notion such publicity perpetuates that Old White Man decides when its time for "the Indian" to shine, and it might very well be "nobler" to wait till a Best Actress is "determined" by "her own people". That there, though, is a Worry for Another Day. Cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Howdy. Now that I've restored the "Infobox government" version to all the gov't pages-in-question. I hope that doesn't mean the end of the discussion. Would like to see consistency achieved between the four countries. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great job on those pages. Also, I've deleted "vice regal" from the intros to the Governor General of Canada (as well as trimming mentioning of the monarch is HoS, which is already mentioned in greater detail at Monarchy of Canada) & the intros to the lieutenant governors (not to mention the intros to the Australian governors & others). I figured having "representative of the monarch", is the definition of vice regal & so there's no need to repeat it. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]