• 2018
• January–June 2019
• July–December 2019
• 2020
• 2021–22

Don't ever use an article talk page to accuse a colleague of willfully misreprenting you. If I see you doing that again, you will be referred to AE. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Show me a relevant guideline or precedent, or withdraw your threat. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi 123! Can you explain the rationale for removing spaces before vertical bars in templates [1]? Thanks, Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Levivich (talk · contribs), that was simply to reduce the download size of the article, since it's a very large article. If there is a utility to the spaces I have no issue with restoring them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find it hard to read a template if there aren't any spaces between the parameters. I've seen people add spaces but I'd never seen someone remove them all before, which prompted me to ask. In terms of restoring it I appreciate the gesture but I don't really edit that article anyway, certainly no need to restore it on my account, I just was curious about the edit. I'm not sure if having a space is "utility" or just personal preference, so I think you and the other editors who regularly edit that article should have it however you want it. Thanks for explaining, and cheers! Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not too long ago, you moved List of ASTM International standards (D) to draftspace. I have split part of it off, and performed some fixes. Do you think it is ready to be moved to mainspace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5a5ha seven (talk • contribs) 00:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there 5a5ha seven. It looks like the D6001-7000 article can be moved into the main space, but the main (D) article is still too large. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'll do that 5a5ha seven (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just improved the main article, do you think it's ready now for mainspace? 5a5ha seven (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@5a5ha seven: Definitely improvement. Can the article be split further? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It can be split further, and I'll do that. What should be a maximum of the length of the article? 5a5ha seven (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's hard to put a number on that, but if it can be split further without difficulty, then that would be enough for now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: I have split three of the sections off, and revised and published them. The main page as a whole is only about 312K, less than half of when it was created. Should I go ahead and move to mainspace? 5a5ha seven (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that should be good enough for now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I have realized you have closed a debate on whether or not merging some pages about exoplanets. I would appreciate if you could please not merge since consensus has not been reached. Actually, one of the pages involved has been protected against vandalism, and any merging of that page should not take place. More editors have to get involved in order to determine whether the rest of the pages have to be merged (something unlikely in some of them since they have been haevily edited by many editors, and it would also be a lack of respect for other's work to merge that imo). In any case, I have formally asked Wikipedia admins to evaluate the outcome of the current debate and to decide whether or not it should be closed. For this reason I would appreciate if you could please let the admins decide it. Cheers.ExoEditor 14:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ExoEditor: Yes, I closed the discussion finding there was a consensus to merge all the articles. As the discussion started on 30 September 2020, this has been a discussion of an extraordinarily long duration. There has certainly been enough editors contributing to the discussion, and enough opportunity for more to contribute. You are entitled to ask administrators to review the closure, but not to unilaterally overturn it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand you and I appreciate your help, but no consensus has been reached in 100% of the merger requests (as you can also see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:KOI-4878.01) For me it's fine if it's closed as consensus reached for 3 out of the 4 mergers, and no consensus reached for KOI-4878.01 (page in which btw many of us have spent a significant amount of time working on). Cheers. ExoEditor 15:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just realized you have closed the debate, but no consensus has been reached for KOI-4878.01: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:KOI-4878.01 (a page where many editors have worked on). I have already asked the administrators to open the debate, but I would appreacite if you could open it again in order to avoid further conflict (and to avoid wasting their time). The only page that has not been merged yet is currently protected and the user who wants it merged is under a sockpuppet investigation. Cheers. ExoEditor 16:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OneTwoThreeIP, you have made your first approach on reducing the size of List of 2020 albums. I was expecting this, as the article is the 2nd largest in Wikipedia at this time. I hoped that the issue would not arise until we were closer to the half-million character mark, but I am not surprised it has become an issue. A few years back we worked to reduce the size of List of 2017 albums, and came up with the decision to remove citations, although that was not mandated by the discussion (Talk:List of 2017 albums/Archive 2). I have come to regret that, and I anticipated this issue for the List of 2021 albums, which is growing very very rapidly, so on that page, I have initiated an early talk page discussion which I think will be relevant to reducing the size of List of 2020 albums if it is necessary to go there. Please review Talk:List of 2021 albums#Early discussion on splitting the list due to rapid growth for my and others thoughts on article size issues, and then lets initiate this discussion for the 2020 albums list. Mburrell (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mburrell: Would you rather removing references for albums with Wikipedia articles or splitting the article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it is necessary to reduce the size of the article, at this point I would support splitting the article. I was just hoping that articles that were not even 475k characters were still acceptable. Just a month ago, there were several articles over 500k, and now an article in the 430s is the 2nd largest. If your goal is to reduce article size, congratulations. My goal is readability, but I guess we shall propose splitting the article in the talk page, and if the users buy off on it, we shall split it and see if it still remains comfortably readable. Mburrell (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean, a month ago the largest article was at around 500,000 bytes. An article of 430,000 bytes has always been one of the largest articles on Wikipedia, and now happens to be the second largest as of right now. My goal is absolutely readability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per my comment on the article talk page, I beieve you've violated 24-hr BRD at Donald Trump.. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Awilley: SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm currently on my phone but I will reach a computer and review this immediately. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Can you please show me where I have made two reverts of the same content within 24 hours? If I have inadvertently done so, I will certainly self-revert. You haven't provided any edit histories here or on the article talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

24 hour BRD. Not 1RR. SPECIFICO talk 07:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Two reverts of the same content within 24 hours is the 24 hour BRD rule, is it not? The 1RR rule is two reverts regardless of content. Nevertheless, can you please show me which content you are referring to that violates 24 hour BRD? I have made numerous edits on the Donald Trump article recently. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. That's not the restriction. It requires discussion and is intended to promote respectful collaboration which, as I've previously said, is something I find lacking in most of your work. If you choose to edit pages with DS restrictions on them, the responsibility is with you and nobody else to ensure you understand and observe them. Please don't ask other editors to micro-tutor you in proper WP conduct. SPECIFICO talk 18:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not asking you to explain rules to me, which I understand already. I'm asking you to show me which edit violates discretionary sanctions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's already quite clear from my comment on the article talk page (and at least one other editor's objection) that violation is these two edits without any talk page engagement in between:[2] [3]. And your baseless claim of consensus and accusation that others were edit-warring? Those only make it worse. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those edits are eight days apart from each other. I never claimed consensus, what are you talking about? Please stop making things up about me. The person I reverted was blocked for edit warring for that edit so it's not me making the determination.

Gershonmk made an edit to the article and I reverted it on 18 February. They reverted my revert shortly afterwards, claiming they had consensus. I reported the matter to WP:AN3 and did not re-revert. After a few days, Gershonmk was blocked by EdJohnston. Therefore, I restored the content to what I described as the pre-edit warring version, as that had not been done yet. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Awilley, El C, Cullen238, Doug Weller, and MelanieN:. 123, there's nothing more I can say. I've pinged a few Admins who've noted your behavior in the past. I urge you to collaborate on talk and not declare your view "consensus" as an involved editor. It's rarely important which version stays in the article while talk paged discussion is underway. What's important is the resolution, and we should all try not to make extra work for our colleagues by making cuts and removing references where such edits are likely to be contentious. The 24-hour BRD is intended to promote this kind of collaboration, and it's worked reasonably well on various articles. No need to disparage @Gershomk: either. SPECIFICO talk 21:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Fixing Red pings @Cullen328 and Gershonmk:21:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I simply haven't declared my view as consensus. I haven't disparaged Gershonmk and have no reason to. I have explained the entirely situation sufficiently in my previous comment. Over a week ago I reverted a bold edit by Gershonmk and they reverted my revert shortly afterwards. I reported the issue to the edit warring noticeboard without re-reverting the content. I only restored the content to the previous version (before the initial bold edit) after Gershonmk had been blocked for restoring their bold edit. It doesn't make sense to harass me about waiting an extended period of time for the administrative process to take place and restore the article to how it was, when the process found that the version should be restored. As always, I am more than willing to discuss the content at the article talk page. I ask you, Specifico, not to reflect on me personally again, as your views about me are now well known and further repeating them is not constructive. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onetwothreeip, the rule clearly states: "If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours" (emphasis added). Gershonmk violated the part about waiting 24 hours and was blocked when you reported the violation. You violated the part about reinstating your edit without first discussing it on the talk page. Both of you refused to self-revert when the violations were pointed out. What's fair here? ~Awilley (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought I had commented on the talk page before then, and I have done so since then. If I hadn't added to the discussion already, that's an oversight on my part, since I am normally quite prolific on the article talk page. Though I was restoring the content to before what someone was blocked for adding, I would be happy to self-revert since I hadn't brought this to the talk page first, but someone else already reverted my edit before I was aware of this. Pipsally reverted those reverts of mine before I first read anything about this, which was hours afterward when I was viewing a Wikipedia article on my phone and saw the message from Specifico. Given the above, and if Pipsally or nobody else had already reverted my edits, I would have definitely self-reverted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reading the discussion above, I kind of doubt that you would have self-reverted, at least before the admin came along. And if I understand correctly, Gershonmk also had a mobile device/wikibreak issue with not self-reverting on time, yet you seem satisfied with their block. I'm personally not a fan of blocking users who were editing in good faith, so let's do this: you take a week off of editing that article, and I won't block your account. (You can edit the talk page and related articles, but not the Donald Trump article itself.) Deal? ~Awilley (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd have to contemplate that. I wasn't on a wikibreak or anything, and it's nothing to do with me using my phone. I made the revert in the morning before I started work. While I was at work, Specifico raised the issue here. Some time after that, Pipsally reverted my revert. Then some hours after that, I finished work and came across this issue, and I engaged right away. Unlike Gershonmk, I was not aware of the issue until it had already been resolved by Pipsally, so how could I self-revert? When Specifico first raised the issue with me, they hadn't shown me which edits they were referring to, and hadn't said that the issue was about me not raising it at the talk page. With Gershonmk, they read my comments saying which edits were a problem and why, and also from EdJohnston. They could have self-reverted at any time before or after the block when they weren't away from Wikipedia.

I don't have a view on the sanction that Gershonmk received. I have nothing against this editor and I have no reason to believe anything other than that they are a good faith editor. I didn't claim to know that their actions deserved a block, I only claimed to know that their action wasn't allowed. I would have thought a warning would be sufficient, as other editors I have reported were warned in the past, but that is something not for me to determine and I wasn't seeking a block in particular, just that the matter was addressed.

I'm short on time today so I will be away from Wikipedia for at least a few hours, but I can certainly respond further later. I won't be editing on any articles for some time. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to be clear, the choice is between this, a short partial block, or a short formal topic ban. (What I'm saying is don't bother trying to negotiate something that isn't negotiable.) ~Awilley (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm considering taking a short break from the Donald Trump article in particular. It's not clear what you mean though, are you saying you think I was editing in bad faith? The edit I made was a revert, not really a bold edit. I didn't have the opportunity to self-revert, but if I did then I would have done so. Another editor has already reverted my revert, and I am happy to leave it there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

123, You are not helping yourself here.
On the article talk page, both @Gershonmk: and I objected to your edit several hours before the other editor undid your violation. In the interim, you denied the problem and disparaged Gershonmk. The immediate problem is not, as you seem to suggest, your failure to respond. It's the initial violation of 24-hour BRD. Failure to respond to a courtesy notification and now claiming you woulda if you coulda does make it hard to AGF especially with repeated WP:IDHT incidents.@Awilley: SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was at work in the interim, I didn't have time to disparage Gershonmk or respond to your request to self-revert. I finished work after Pipsally already reverted my edit. To be clear, the edit I made was a revert of the content Gershonmk was blocked for adding. I should have made sure that I left a comment about the matter on the article talk page. Please withdraw this lie that I disparaged Gershonmk, I have done no such thing, I have no reason to. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you even look at the diffs I gave you? Work or no work, you replied dismissively before Pipsally undid your revert and the ad hominem about his block is disparagement. The timeline is in the diffs. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You provided me with diffs long after you initially raised the issue. My understanding is that Pipsally undid my revert before I read your message here, which I did at 07:39 26 February. What was the "ad hominem" I made about Gershonmk? An extraordinary claim surely requires evidence. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

123, you have at least twice violated the 24-hour BRD restriction at the Presidency of Donald Trump article, edit warring over this just as you have promoted this tag at Donald Trump and perhaps others I haven't seen.

The diffs are 1 2 3 4.

After your recent similar violation at Donald Trump and your longstanding tendency not to listen to or fully engage with other editors on difficult subjects, it's hard to believe that you understand or care about the DS that we all rely on for an orderly collaboration on the American Politics pages. I regard this as a serious matter that may require a significant block or topic ban.@Awilley:. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't believe I have made any of those series of edits more than once, but I am happy to revert them and take them to the talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I've looked at the diffs, and I now see that it wasn't over any of the series of content changes I made in the last day, but it's over a maintenance tag. Someone removed the tag in January and I restored it, then you removed the tag in March and I restored it. This is getting ridiculous, as this is clearly not an instance of edit warring. When I restored the tag that you removed in March, I had no reason to believe I had already restored it in January, as I've made hundreds of edits since then.

I think this is really some kind of attempt to either deter me or to actually cause me to be restricted from editing from articles related to Donald Trump, as most of the reverts of my edits come from you. It's very strange that you were aware that I had restored the tag in January, like you were finding something that you could use against me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm willing to remove the tag for now out of an abundance of caution while this matter is resolved, but this tag is longstanding in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to remember edits they made 2 months ago. At some point we've got to reset the counter and start fresh. After a few weeks I tend to view things as new edits rather than reinstatements of old edits, assuming there's not been slow edit warring in between. ~Awilley (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what I thought. I take it that it would be fine for me to self-revert my edit removing the tag. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Awilley: This is not an isolated memory slip. This editor has a substantial history of failure to collaborate, IDHT, and obstinate insistence on shortening Trump articles at the expense of valuable references and questionable edits to NPOV text. He is, or should be, aware that consenssus does not support his repeated tagging of Trump articles with the long tag. He's been on this long tag issue for nearly 2 years, over and over.

See, e.g.this

this and

this.

I presume you recall having recently blocked him for related behavior at Donald Trump. At some point, failure to collaborate -- which is the essence of the current page restrictions on AP articles -- becomes a critical drain on community and editor resources. I estimate that less than 20% of this user's edits on Trump articles are constructive. Editors are repeatedly reverting them to restore longstanding NPOV text and important references. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a lie that I have ever been blocked for any behaviour, including in regards to the Donald Trump article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

123, it would probably be better for you to discuss before reverting again. Maintenance tag edit warring is lame edit warring. For that matter discussing maintenance tags on an article talk page instead of discussing specific improvements to the article is lame too. And I definitely frown on using maintenance tags as a badge of shame when you lose a content dispute. If you think the article is too long, try to find a way to fix it. If people don't like the way you're trying to fix it, try to understand their concerns. If a majority of people don't agree with you, move on. From what I've seen, I don't think SPECIFICO objects to simply shortening articles by writing more concisely. I suspect he thinks you're using "shortening" as an excuse to systematically remove negative material about Trump that specifico thinks should remain in the articles. In that vein, perhaps something you could try would be to shorten articles by writing more concisely and summarizing. Turn paragraphs into sentences without changing the meaning, as opposed to removing paragraphs altogether, or removing parts of paragraphs in a way that leaves out the negative information. Writing more concisely is not controversial. Significantly canging the meaning of a paragraph is more so and it's reasonable to expect more pushback. ~Awilley (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I am aware, the maintenance tag has been on the Presidency of Donald Trump article before I had anything to do with it, and I have restored it when editors have sought to remove it without consensus. The situation on the Donald Trump article is more the opposite, where instead I started a discussion in order to have the tag placed there. It's absolutely not intended to be some "badge of shame", or anything in response to "losing a content dispute". All of my activity related to maintenance tags is certainly a small minority of my activity on those two articles.

I too suspect that Specifico objects to my edits because they think I am motivated to remove negative material about Donald Trump. This is categorically and demonstrably false, as I have supported the addition and inclusion of negative material about Donald Trump. In fact, I do not recall supporting the addition or inclusion of anything positive.

I have tried many different ways of reducing the size of these two articles, including but not limited to rewriting paragraphs and sentences to be more concise, removing sentences of extraneous detail which can be better placed in sub-articles, and removing unnecessary references where fewer references would support the same content. Most of the time that any of these attempts are reverted, it is by Specifico. When I take these edits to the talk pages, I usually find more support than opposition or there is little interest either way, but this seems to be not enough to satisfy Specifico. Because most of the content about Donald Trump is negative, making any of the content concise typically means that something negative about Donald Trump would be omitted from that article.

I'm also quite tired of Specifico's constant personal reflections on me, which I find completely unnecessary. I happen to think that they are not a productive editor on the Donald Trump articles, but this is not something I feel the need to say like Specifico does about me at every opportunity. In particular, they like to constantly claim I am exhibiting "I-don't-hear-that" behaviour, for little more than apparently not agreeing with their criticisms of me. Their accusations that I do not collaborate are also troublesome, as I have been a frequent contributor to talk page discussions, ones started both by myself and by others. I have also reached out to Specifico on their talk page on compromises, but I do not recall them approaching me for any such compromise. They also like to misrepresent the opposition to my edits, as they generally imply that the general editing community on these pages as a whole is against me. While other editors have occasionally reverted some of my edits, which is not unreasonable on controversial topics like these, most of the reverts of my edits in the Donald Trump area are by Specifico, and they mostly speak for themselves when they criticise me personally, who also is responsible for the vast majority of personal criticisms against me.

In short, I certainly have tried and continue to attempt to find ways to fix the issues, which you rightly urge to do. The progress in making the articles smaller and more readable are slow but at least going in the right direction, aided by other editors and by the ending of Donald Trump's term as president. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can imagine that the absence of the constant torrent of news articles about the latest controversy is helpful :-)

You may be able to make a case for WP:Hounding at AN/I and get a 1 or 2-way interaction ban if you ask for it. I took a peek at your last 500 mainspace contributions and some "Ctrl+F" magic showed me that 76 of them have been reverted. (86 instances of "Reverted" minus 10 instances of "Reverted " with a space indicating edit summary instead of the tag.) If more than 3/4 of those reverts are by SPECIFICO I'd be inclined to see that as problematic, combined with some of the "aspersions" you mention. My opinion would change if many of the edits had obvious problems. Like I can understand why this edit was reverted. You can't get away with −6,089 byte edits using 19 byte edit summaries. I'm definitely not saying run to AN/I right now...I'd wait to see if SPECIFICO takes the hint and backs off a bit, assuming, as you say, that most of the reverts are by him. ~Awilley (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awilley Thanks for your guidance. I am very reluctant to seek an interaction ban, especially one that would be two-way. Would this simply mean I would not be allowed to revert their edits, and vice versa? Is there also any guideline against an editor claiming that other editors share their opposition to me? They like to frequently say that other editors have had the same issues with me as they have, which is generally not true, except to say that I have had disagreements with other editors as is normal. The editors they refer to are often not able to clarify or refute those characterisations, or don't wish to partake in drama. There also appears to be a serious case of WP:OWN, along with spurious claims that certain sentences of citations have special consensus that nobody else can see, but I don't think there is anything I can do about that. As for those particularly large edits, I wouldn't have known how many bytes an edit like that would remove until after it was already made, but I am now intentionally making those changes over a larger number of edits in the interests of as much size reduction being sustained as circumstances allow. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not the size of your edit I'm criticizing, it's the size of your edit summary. You've got 500 characters. Use more than 19 of them. Describe what you're actually doing in the edit and why you're doing it. Instead of "trim, overcites" write: "Removing several instances of OVERCITE. The content is fully supported by the remaining citations. No changes to content." Or if you did change content, say specifically what you changed and why. You can review this for examples of what I consider to be adequate edit summaries. ~Awilley (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Added Aha! Here's is why I was having that feeling of deja vu. ~Awilley (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Awilley: Yes, that was in February, and the edit summary you refer to was in January. I believe my edit summaries are more like your examples now. Can you provide guidance on my interaction ban question? Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent mass deletion, which I note you've done before, does not represent an improvement of the article on John Anderson. I strongly recommend you do some research and actually add to this article. Thank you. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erasmus Sydney This is your second attempt at boldly adding the same content without consensus. Now that an editor has challenged the bold content, a consensus is required to reinstate that content. You are surely aware of WP:3RR by now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onettwothreeip: I can see your most recent version - replete with a smattering of unsourced statements. You've had months to improve the article but haven't. I wonder if you might leave it to editors who do want to improve it. If you'd like to go ahead and create a consensus on your poorer version of the article, feel free to argue for it on the talk page of the article.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've noticed that you're removed all entries where there is at least one member who doesn't have a Wikipedia article. While I don't exactly oppose this, the lead should be reworded. The second condition also includes youth international players, who haven't necessarily played senior international football or in a fully-pro league (thus, no Wikipedia article). What are your thoughts? Should "or capped by a national team on the U-17 level or above" be changed into "or capped by a national team on the senior level"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Nehme1499, I have removed entries where there aren't at least two notable players, and I've removed non-notable players from remaining entries. I haven't removed all of those yet, I would guess I removed 60% so far. I haven't had enough time for editing but I would agree with changing the lead. We could even remove the eligibility criteria from the lead. Please feel free to let me know if you pursue this further, and my apologies for not responding sooner. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Onetwothreeip

I should perhaps have been more explicit ... the choice of term (violations v issues) wasn't my point, really. It was that I agree with you on the POV failure. The article in question (and as you say, many others) is decidedly and unduly complimentary to its subject and I'll continue to chip away at it. (My preferred way of dealing with this sort of problem is the frog in a pot approach.*)

I had already noticed that you have been dealing with this on the JA article for ages, and I thank you for that.

*No frogs were harmed in the making of this analogy. Wayne 01:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries Wayne aus, I didn't think your main contention was about that, you were clearly more concerned about the POV content. No need to thank me, we should all be more vigilant across Australian political biographies, as this isn't the only one affected. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, List of federal political scandals in the United States (21st century). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – List of federal political scandals in the United States. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List of federal political scandals in the United States. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Slywriter (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Slywriter, are you aware that I split the article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, that would be why I dropped the notice here. The edit to the primary was also reverted by another editor, then cleanup occurred on the primary article and no attempt has been made to further split the article... hence the request to delete the split before we end up with content diverging on the two pages. Slywriter (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slywriter That is explicitly not a case for speedy deletion per WP:A10. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't agree, otherwise would have gone straight to AfD but we can go that route as the split was reverted in the Primary article by another editor and we have duplicative content that provides considerable risk of content diverging in the two sections. Perhaps address the split at the Primary article as other editors expressed concern with it. Slywriter (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This does not include split pages. What would apply to a page created by a split would be to redirect it to the initial article, so AfD doesn't apply either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The content fork needs to be resolved. If re-directing to the primary article is a solution, cool. If the split needs to be put back in the primary page, cool. But absent either of those, the page is a fork and should be deleted. So AfD would apply.Slywriter (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[4] [5] starship.paint (exalt) 01:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you closed the discussion as having clear consensus to remove "storm" from the title, but didn't actually remove it from the title. Could you? Lots of people made their voices known and it would be bureaucracy in the extreme to have to re-ping them all when the discussion was just closed with clear consensus for removal. Feoffer (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be inappropriate to do so with so inconclusive and brief a poll. Moreover, I don't think it's best practice for any editor who's been active in this or adjacent topic areas to close so contentious a poll. No harm requesting a close at AN -- even if it turns out to be an uninvolved non-Admin closer. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have not been substantially involved in this particular topic, and I did not participate in the discussion itself. I have been involved in American politics articles, but this has not related to the issues of this discussion, as this is not a particularly contentious matter. The discussion lasted for longer than the minimum required period and has countenanced a large number of participants and has been discussed more extensively than the vast majority of requested moves, so continuing the discussion or including more participants would not change the outcome. In my close reasoning, I have opened the possibility for another discussion to form consensus on part of the title, which was not fully resolved and could not be resolved in the past discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disappointing you didn't undo your close. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You closed this, but didn't move it. Frankly, I don't think you should be moving it to anything but the title that was proposed based on that discussion. In other words, it should be "not moved", since as you pointed out there was insufficient support for the proposal. Given previous RMs to move it to "riot" or "attack" failed, it cannot be moved on the basis of this most recent discussion. See Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol/Archive_14#Requested_move_4_February_2021: what you are doing was already !voted down. Srnec (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Srnec: I tried to move it but I do not have the technical permissions to do so. This has been raised with administrators already. The most recent discussion favours a change to "attack" over the current wording, and that supersedes the results of previous discussions such as that in February. What I pointed out was there was insufficient support for "riot", but based on the discussion that occurred there is likely but not certain to be sufficient support if it was put to a separate discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following up on the discussion at WP:RMT, I'd ask you to consider rewording your close. Per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, it's important that the outcome be clear when closing the RM. In this case, "Moved to 2021 United States Capitol attack" should be the first thing we see when reading the result. 162 etc. (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking back, I definitely agree that the opening should be reordered. I have done so now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move review for 2021 storming of the United States Capitol

An editor has asked for a Move review of 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Srnec (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following article needs to be split since there is no consensus against a split:

• List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2010s into List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2010–2015 and List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2016–2019.

Also the article List of fugitives from justice who disappeared is too long again because someone decided to combine the article of fugitives from justice that are no longer sought with the main article, so that should be split again somehow. So since I know you are the person who usually handles the splits you should do these. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Blubabluba9990: I'll take a look later today. I recommend reverting a controversial or poor merger if possible to do so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Blubabluba9990: I have reverted the recent major addition to the fugitives article. You will be aware of the message I have left at the talk page for the LGBT characters article and I would be very grateful to you if you notified anyone else who may be interested. Editors need to be more vigilant in what they allow to be added to these articles, and splitting these articles would not solve that problem. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. I am unsure of who usually participates in split discussions though. You pinged a few people but they do not seem to have responded either. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another article seems to have consensus on a split: National day of mourning into List of national days of mourning (before 2000) and List of national days of mourning (2000–present)

At 01:34 this UTC morning, at or about Talk:Donald Trump, I indeed called shenanigans. But the requisite accompanying summary did not, in fact, call you, old pal, a "sucka". That was just a nod to five-time WCW World Heavyweight Champion Booker T, in recognition of the two times I echoed those four words in the part marked Survey. Now can you dig that? In either case, keep up the good work, no hard feelings, shenanigans happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@InedibleHulk: Your message is not at all clear, but I do not believe you have insulted me. I have no idea what you're talking about. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I did not insult you. That's the important thing. It's fine if you don't understand more than that. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Onetwothreeip,

When you move a page from the main space of the project to Draft space or User space, it's helpful if you tag the original page for speedy deletion, CSD R2. I don't know if you use it but Twinkle is a very useful tool for tagging pages for deletion. Thank you!

@Liz: I'm not sure if the original should be deleted or not. I do use Twinkle to nominate pages for deletion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?. Thank you.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. How do you know that he is not running? All we know at this stage is that he's been disendorsed. Has he made any public statement about retiring that we should know about? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JackofOz: The source says it, from when he lost preselection. Mr Andrews said he would finish up his term in Parliament and look at other ways to "serve Australia" into the future. We really should stop implying that MPs who lose preselection might still contest the election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, thanks for that.

On your latter point, there really is a difference between losing preselection and deciding not to renominate. The latter usually, but by no means always, follows the former. There are many, many cases of disendorsed members going on to campaign as independents etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JackofOz: That is correct, such as with Peter King, but we had a situation last time where we were implying that Jane Prentice could contest the election, despite every indication being the opposite of that. We shouldn't find ourselves reporting the obvious months (11 1/2) afterwards. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By "every indication", do you mean a public statement from her about her intentions? If she announced she was not recontesting, we should certainly have recognised that. But if all we had were statements from journos, commentators etc, and nothing from "the horse's mouth" so to speak, I don't see how we can just make the assumption. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should reflect what the reliable sources say. On the election itself, losing preselection has roughly the same impact as otherwise retiring, so the list should include both to avoid these kinds of situations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't agree with your reasoning. At the moment it's a null argument, but for the future it should be partitioned where necessary, as it was before. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello 123.

You have violated the Discretionary Sanctions 1RR page restriction at Julian Assange with these two edits:

• first revert, and
• second revert.

The second one is particularly problematic, as a small group of users have edit-warred over this content, even when it is under inconclusive active discussion at the article talk page and RSN and noticed at NPOVN. Moreover, there is a BLP issue with respect to Pompeo entailed by your second revert.

Please restore the page to the status quo ante and please be more careful in the future, as this article has been prone to edit-warring and advocacy in the past -- behaviour that has lost us many good editors on the page.

Thanks.

@Awilley and El C: SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a stretch to call that first revert a revert. It removed text that had been in the article for a while (at least several months), and as such would be considered a bold edit. There is also overwhelming consensus that the material restored in the edit called second revert should be in the article. There are 2 editors who are removing it, one of them being SPECIFICO [6] [7]. A quick glance at the talk page discussion shows about 6 or so editors supporting inclusion and 2 opposing it.

Additionally SPECIFICO was banned from this type of reporting, that is going to an editors talk page and pinging admins instead of using the actual processes. Coincidentally, they also received a short topic ban a little while ago from Assange for similar behavior. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• SPECIFICO, I don't understand why you pinged me to this page. What's my connection here? Also doing so apparently in violation of your 2017 ban of which I was unaware. Because either you ask someone to self-revert for a purported violation, or you ping an admin about that purported violation. Trying to do both somehow, I don't like that, ban or no ban.

In any case, WP:AN3 is structured in a way that prominently features (and sadly is often prominently ignored) a Previous version reverted to parameter. As Mr Ernie points out, a removal in isolation, indeed, is just a bold edit. Now, if it replicates an earlier removal, then yes, this current removal would be seen as reverting back to that earlier one (i.e. Previous version reverted to). El_C 02:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

El C, I pinged you because I believe you were the Admin who placed that page restriction on this article. Both edits undid recently-added and recently-deleted article text, so I do not view either as BOLD. They fit the definition of "revert" at WP:3RR, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."

Ernie, who strangely appeared on this page for the first time ever to intervene, misinterpreted Neil's restriction, which arose from my having solicited (and receiving) Admin enforcement on an article talk page. NeilN reversed the enforcing Admin. But at any rate, I pinged you and Awilley here FYI in the course of a friendly and request for a self-revert. That's something I've done from time to time because I think the more context Admins have about DS articles, the better they can deal with whatever issues rise to the level of enforcement. This has not reached that level, and I don't anticipate that it will. SPECIFICO talk 03:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SPECIFICO, please show the diff inserting the material which the edit labeled "first revert" removed. You say "recently-added and recently-deleted" so presumably you have that diff handy. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The two edits are completely different, so this appears to be yet another one of Specifico's unhelpful request-threats. I'm not part of any edit war or talk page battleground here and my edits were not in relation to anybody else. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SPECIFICO, I placed DS on like a million pages (see WP:AEL for eg.), though in this case, the sanction was placed by JzG, then later adjusted by AWilley. But aside from you touching on that (sorta), you don't really respond to the substance of what I said. As for your note RE: the 2017 sanction, I was unable to follow your explanation (no links, appeal, etc.).

Onetwothreeip, from WP:3RR: whether involving the same or different material. So, hopefully, you've learned this really basic thing wrt xRR, just like SPECIFICO did about how a removal isn't automatically counted as revert (well, at the very least, I hope they've learned that). So, basics for all, I guess...? El_C 08:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Onetwothreeip, on this page, in an earlier thread, you stated that [1RR applies regardless of whether it's the same content each time]. Did you forget that in a few months' time? Now that you've been reminded, It's hard to justify disregarding my request as an "unhelpful threat". FYI I didn't come here with any intention of launching an AE complaint. I did expect you'd correct your error -- that's what everyone does when these things are brought to their attention. But it now appears you're denying that you already knew how 1RR works or even that it is indeed how it works. That's too bad. Anyone can undo your edit, so there's no point belaboring it. But I don't think you've put your best foot forward here. SPECIFICO talk 23:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There’s no error. You are the one who is wrong. Please provide the diff inserting material the “first revert” removed. Otherwise it would be best if you simply said there’s no problem and moved on to something else. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I am not denying how 1RR works. You should respond to El_C. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to assure that I did not mean to imply anything about 1RR/3RR itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like most of the material removed in the "first revert" was added in 2019 so yeah, that's not a revert. ~Awilley (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is in violation of Wikipedia rules. Do not continue these actions. Ergzay (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not bark orders at good faith editors. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The editor did not and does not appear to be acting in good faith. Ergzay (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ergzay: Thank you for removing your claim on an article talk page that I am using sockpuppet accounts. You are yet to remove your claims that I am acting in bad faith and that I am vandalising articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's because it's exactly what you are doing. You came into the discussion having left no comment of your own, directly going against 3 "Oppose" statements written in bold and no agreement among those wanting a split on what kind of split should be done and then claiming that there was "consensus" for your move when in fact there was consensus for the opposite. You were thus obviously acting in bad faith by intentionally trying to ignore any opposition that didn't agree with your bias. You have a past history of forcibly splitting pages against consensus as well after I did some of my own investigation. Ergzay (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The split I made was not the proposal those editors were opposing. The rules that apply to everyone have always applied to me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article splitting activism

To more clearly say what I meant to say above, just some advice. You seem to be confused and think you are doing a good thing by trying to split articles everywhere. However that's generally not appreciated by many people who actually contribute to those articles and usually requires specialized knowledge to know when, where, and how to split a topic. Suggesting a split in a talk page is fine, but if you don't find other regular editors of that article who are also interested in the split (or no response at all) I suggest leaving the page alone. Especially in the case where you have historically split articles with no comment or discussion what so ever, that should NEVER happen. Please never do that again. Ergzay (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ergzay, well said. Splitting is rarely necessary and should always be preceded by a thorough discussion and near 100% consensus for splitting. It should never be a BOLD move. -- Valjean (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. In general, any edit that is likely to be contentious is best raised first on talk. And it's up to each of us to gauge more or less accurately what is likely to elicit dissent. Splitting an article is generally liklely to be such a matter. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wish editors to have more experience and knowledge on this before making these comments, but you are welcome here nonetheless. Most of the time, there is no controversy at all over splitting an article. I have always done so in a deliberate manner, to minimise the chance of controversy or disagreement.

To agree with one point Ergzay has made, it's true that sometimes editors feel insulted when an article they have been particularly focused on editing is split, suggested to be split, or even when its size is scrutinised. Addressing issues with any article, whether its size or anything else, should be clear that it is not to punish or reprimand any editors. Valjean is also correct to say that splitting articles is not necessary for most articles, which is why most of the articles I've split have been among the very largest on Wikipedia. Specifico is also correct to say that splits that are likely to be contentious should be discussed first, and I wouldn't make a split if I thought it could be contentious, but we shouldn't overstate the likelihood of splitting being contentious. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's constructive. You and I have discussed a similar issue in "trimming" various American Politics articles even against recent consensus. I think the same principle should apply for cutting content that's been discussed at length on talk pages. Thanks for your comment. SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onetwothreeip First off, I think it is you who need more experience and knowledge in this area.

As to your next point, in several of the splits you have done you didn't even ask for comment, so your statement is incorrect on it's face. Of course there is no controversy because you didn't even give it a chance to develop. And of course once an article is split and several edits have been made, the "undo" tool no longer works and reversing the split requires manual effort. Many people will simply give up and not protest in the face of an activist such as yourself. Think about the position you're putting other people in.

As to your next paragraph, it's not that editors feel "insulted" it's that they feel "you don't know what you're talking about even when told". You appear to have a strong superiority complex and the only reason people could disagree with you is because you think we're insulted by your changes. In fact we think that the articles are properly better when not split. Several of the splits you have suggested or performed in fact make the articles worse, harder to browse, harder to read, more confusing, or all of the above.

I agree that SOME articles it is possible to split, but any splitting should be done with much care, after talking with many people, especially by specifically pinging people who show up commonly in the edit history who are most likely to care, and then finally doing it in a way that guarantees that the page doesn't break if the split is actually warranted. Simply getting agreement from the common 2-3 editors I see on every single discussion section over a split all over wikipedia's large wiki article talk pages is not sufficient for a split to be considered "in consensus". It's almost the same as using sockpuppets, you're using people who are already likely to agree who are not involved in the article to get a consensus for a split.

Finally, you should read up on False consensus effect, and also WP:IDHT both seem to apply. Ergzay (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For anyone who wants to assist that reads this, the Special:Contributions/Onetwothreeip page can be used to watch for disruptive edits. Ergzay (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fully concur with this. Onetwothreeip has persisted with aggressive edits that most editors know deserve a modicum of discussion beforehand, and other editors have asked 123IP to stop it, but s/he consistently refuses. As I said on this Talk page a year ago, if others seek to have you sanctioned, I'll be right there with them. soibangla (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article splits can be reverted using the standard editing tools such as the 'revert' button. I'm referring to both before and after the split when saying there is little controversy. The truth is that most articles I've split have very few people active on them or even none, let alone editors who would contest them. I'm trying not to respond to any personal attacks.

As for the "common 2-3 editors" you're referring to, I've never seen them before until recently either. The first article I created as a result of a split was in June 2018, and in all the time from then until probably a couple of months ago, I had never seen those particular editors before. I certainly don't do anything to bring them to any article or discussion. I've only split articles which are reasonable to be split and it's far from the only thing I do on Wikipedia, not the main activity I'm engaged in. Editors are entitled to disagree with bold edits of mine, as I'm entitled to disagree with theirs. I have always done my best to follow WP:BRD and it is a principle I stand strongly by.

Finally, I would like you to be constructive, as I hope editors consider me to be. It's perfectly fine to have disagreements, but let's get specific about those disagreements as they relate to editing and do away with the personal drama stuff. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop digging. SPECIFICO talk 03:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Though I don't appreciate the tone Specifico, you are correct. I will try to not engage with any more personal stuff and I shouldn't have taken the WP:BAIT. I've reduced the size of that previous comment. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"That's not true, splits can be reverted using the standard editing tools." That is not true in many cases. Once the article has been split, people will immediately start editing the split article so a revert will lose information. Secondly, if the article is edited in certain ways then an undo becomes impossible and you get a error when trying to revert or undo, this is especially true when some time has passed since the edit.

"The truth is that most articles I've split have very few people active on them or even none, let alone editors who would contest them." If that were actually the case then they wouldn't have kept growing in size enough to get on your radar. It's thus clear that someone is actively editing it, even if they don't talk on the talk page (or maybe don't know how).

"It's perfectly fine to have disagreements, but let's get specific about those disagreements as they relate to editing and do away with the personal drama stuff." I would like to but many of the reasons you do things differently appear to be personal to you and you resist changing them because they seem to be personal. When you split an article (as you tried to do with the Falcon 9 list) when discussion has largely reached a consensus against a split and then insist that there was a consensus you're just going to generate anger as you're either unable to see the consensus (something personal), or intentionally choosing to ignore the consensus (another personal thing). Ergzay (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If editors are editing an article after a split has taken place (and they aren't reverting the split) and time has passed, that becomes the stable version. It's then a bold edit to merge articles together. Many articles I've split weren't actively edited at the time.

As for the Falcon 9 list, I agree the talk page was coming to a consensus against a certain split that someone else proposed. The bold split I did was a different split to that proposal, taking into consideration comments from the talk page, including of those who opposed that other proposal. I've never insisted there was a consensus for that, I've always acknowledged my action was bold and any editor was entitled to revert it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Coming from the ASPI dispute, Onetwothreeip, you really need to knock off the wikilaywering and stonewalling if you want to work effectively on this project. Cjhard (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are currently two pages where I have suggested splits and they have received no opposition:

• Splitting List of March for Our Lives locations into List of March for Our Lives locations in the United States and List of March for Our Lives locations outside the United States
• Splitting out the 19th century historians section on List of later historians of the Crusades into a separate article titled List of 19th century historians of the Crusades.

Can you split these. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voices_groups_in_Australia&type=revision&diff=1069539879&oldid=1068961122&diffmode=source All the groups removed claim to use the same "community group carefully choosing then nominating an independent" method as the original Voices for Indi group.Transient-understanding (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Transient-understanding, I think we need these organisations to specifically reference "Voices", and for media sources to link them together. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that bar for inclusion is too high. And besides, ProACT is "Inspired by the ‘Voices for…’ model from the electorate of Indi and elsewhere,"(https://www.proact.org.au/about) "We Are Fadden" is included in the movement by the Sydney Morning Herald,(https://www.smh.com.au/national/liberal-revolt-as-voters-push-for-independent-change-20210807-p58goo.html) and I dare say similar references can be found for the other removals. If there's any evidence that a listed item isn't a Voices group, perhaps we can quote the source saying that with a cite.Transient-understanding (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If a reliable media source says it then I would think that should be included. Otherwise, we are at risk of including too many candidates, which could conceivably be every single independent candidate. The table and the article needs redesigning regardless. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please stop the mass deletions of this article's content with no discussion first. Regarding "Removing entries without either reliable media sources or candidate running", the latter is hardly a good criteria given that the election hasn't been officially announced yet. Regarding the former, you appear to have made no effort to find the typically easily found sources, nor to tag entries as "citation needed". There is no risk of adding "too many candidates" as no candidate can be listed without it being attached to a group that someone has considered to fit the "Voices" mould. Independent candidates without such a group have announced their candidature, and they don't have any kind of endorsing group that could be confused with a Voices one.Transient-understanding (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see any consensus for the entries. We shouldn't be adding entries that don't have a candidate or don't have significant media attention, and there is no consensus for it. We require reliable sources, not self-published ones. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Onetwothreeip, I started a split discussion over at 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in response to the tag you added. Feel free to add why you decided to suggest a split and participate in the conversation! Wildfire35 (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I support 110% the trimming of this article, I would object to your trimming it if your basis is, as you did here (edit summary: "700 references is far too many") to eliminate references from the article. Users don't come to an article to read its references but primarily to read its text. References are then read by those wishing to do more research. Even in this case, the researcher, obviously, doesn't "read" them as he reads a book, from cover to cover, but selectively. So for now I have reverted your changes. What I would support 110% is trimming, as you did, all that needs trimming while simultaneously keeping as many references as possible. This can be a challenging task because many editors are in the habit of placing references only at the end of the paragraph where the material is discussed. So, if a paragraph contained, say, 3 sentences and 3 cites at the end, one for each statement made, but the last statement was "spurious", deleting the last sentence and (blindly) deleting also the 3 cites that immediately followed it would have the undesirable effect of removing valid cites for the 2 valid statements left behind as well. Mercy11 (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mercy11, I did not mean to say that I am only removing references from the article. I could just as well have said the article size of 500,000 bytes was too much. Both of these aren't themselves the problem, they are indicators of the problem which we both can see.

I removed content that was far too detailed for the article, which happened to have many references. For example, for one song by the subject of the article, there was a list of countries where the song reached the top 100 listing of popular songs for each country. While the list was extensive, there was a reference for every single country. This list was not due in the article, so I removed it. This had the effect of removing many references for the unnecessary content, but it was not about removing the references.

I hope this clarifies the edits, and I would ask that you review them in light of this explanation. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, as the main contributor of the article, I can help and I know every single part of the article and the fact that what references are citing what sentence. Tell me what exact phrases you think should be removed and I will delete them. (For example chart positions or etc.) About the 'Legacy and Influence' section, if you think it is too much, I think we should separate it to another article; like what has been done for Shakira, we can create an article for his cultural impact, and then put just a summary of it here. But I disgaree with just removing the info. (For the songs and their commerical performance, there are already articles, so that is ok.) آرمین هویدایی (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Onetwothreeip, thanks for your comments. You said, "For example, for one song by the subject of the article, there was a list of countries where the song reached the top 100 listing of popular songs for each country. While the list was extensive, there was a reference for every single country. This list was not due [weight] in the article, so I removed it." I support this sort of situation you state. However, the challenge in that particular instance is, IMO, to ensure the article on the song already does have such reference so that the wikilink from Ricky Martin to that other song's article will have such references present; otherwise, we may need to abstract such cites from the Ricky Martin article and carry them to the other song's article. I say this because such references need to be preserved in order to comply with WP:V. Unfortunately, sometimes if a statement indicates there are, say, 9 countries where the song reached 100M, but no single RS states all such 9 countries, we are forced to provide up to 9 cites, one per country, to support the claim.

I see another editor above (whose username unfortunately I can't reproduce with my KB's cut-paste this?) has joined the dialogue. He has proposed separating portions of the article into other articles of their own. This was the approach I follow myself here when faced with a similar situation, and which action resulted in 5 new articles. So, I think his idea is an excellent one. I wished I had more time to devote to this but, unfortunately, I am currently in the midst of completing 2 other projects and will not be able to dedicate the quality time this project requires. With both of you guys' approvals, I will leave it to you guys to work out the procedural details. Again, my apologies if this is all I can contribute for now. Thanks to both of you for your understanding and willingness to work with such outstanding goodwill. Best regards, Mercy11 (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Mercy11. The content about any of the songs by Martin and his concerts that are in the Ricky Martin article, we can safely presume is already within the articles for those songs and concerts.

To the editor with a username in Middle Eastern script, we can move certain sections into their own articles, but there is still the issue of the article having too much information which is effectively a duplication of other articles. For example, we do not need to state the chart position for several countries for any of Martin's songs.

I think we can reinstate the edits I made with this understanding. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I will take a look on your edits and remove the country by country chart positions, except the most important ones. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey - just noting I actually think this is a great and overdue idea, I just think we should formally establish such a big change given how many pages it will affect. Can't figure out how to undo the Senate and I don't intend to as I think it's a good example of what a simple and effective change it is. Frickeg (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Frickeg, I was actually surprised that nobody, including myself, hadn't thought to do this earlier. I couldn't think of a possible argument against it so I did it boldly, but I appreciate that we have an established format so I take your revert in good faith. How about this, I can put a note on the talk page about this, and if there's no opposition, we go ahead? It would be great if this could apply to all the Australian candidate articles, but I'd still want it applied to the 2022 list and be inconsistent with others rather than to not be applied to any of them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Honestly I now regret the revert - we've done so well keeping these pages consistent but once I actually started looking I agree, this is such a no-brainer. Frickeg (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! During your moving of Talk:List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1–1999, you forgot to update the archive location. This is just a reminder - don't worry, I've fixed it. Thanks! Aidan9382 _(talk) 06:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Onetwothreeip,

Moving this article to draft space resulted in thousands of broken redirects so I have moved it back to main space. I think because of the repercussions of a page move or draftification, any further action on this page should be made at AFD where the consequences can be considered. I don't think any admin is prepared to delete thousands of pages of broken redirects so that an article can be worked on in Draft space, especially if the article will eventually be moved back to main space and these redirects need to be restored.

I think it's unlikely that you would encounter this with another article but you might just check "What links here" before you move a page to a different namespace. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's unfortunate, but thanks for letting me know. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reverted the article to the previous stable version and I have retained a copy of the draft at User:Onetwothreeip/List of victims of the September 11 attacks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the article's previous stable version, Onetwothreeip, not the redirect (not an article) you reverted to. — Guarapiranga ☎ 16:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like the version you linked to was in the middle of significant changes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From this point forward indeed it was. I thought it was going to be an easy improvement, but it turned out a bit of a mess as I started to bump into parsoid's time constraints. I'll work on it in my sandbox. Now there's the matter of changing all the redirects back to the list article, away from the orphaned Casualties of the September 11 attacks#name links. — Guarapiranga ☎ 01:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume you used some program to create the few thousand articles and redirect them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I used JWB. — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirecting the article caused an issue of its own, though. The 3,000 redirects to the List of victims of the September 11 attacks now point to Casualties of the September 11 attacks because you redirected the former page to the latter. As it is, we now have a mess because none of the 3,000 redirects to the Casualties of the September 11 attacks page points to a proper section. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started fixing it, but someone didn't like it, and reported me at WP:ANI for it. — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I appreciate your efforts in trimming Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte. While I am trying to expand the content for comprehensiveness, I also am trying to condense the content but I am not that adept at it. If I may kindly request, could you please condense the content a bit more? I have requested both a Peer review and a Guild of Copy Editors copy edit for the article about a month ago, but both would appear to have to wait for a few (or more) months if they are even accepted. Thank you. Sanglahi86 (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sanglahi86, I can see you have made substantial work on the article and related articles. If I have time I will look at this article further. I would encourage you to continue finding where you can split substantial parts of the article into their own articles, as the content is quite thorough and would be sufficient for a few articles. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I will also see which parts could be further split. Regards. —Sanglahi86 (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Georgina Rodríguez is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgina Rodríguez until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Thesixserra (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Results of the 2022 Swedish general election by constituency is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Results of the 2022 Swedish general election by constituency until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Obi2canibe (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

Can I ask why you undid just about all the edits I made. The wording's clunky and it ought to be cut down a bit. 2603:7000:D03A:5895:2985:DCA0:EC54:5C93 (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was not much cutting down. There were many changes made, and most of them did not improve the article. For example, the introduction was changed to describe Shanks as a "self-help guide", when this should not be in the introduction before describing him as a political commentator. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have recently made edits related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. This is a standard message to inform you that discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Barkeep49, what are the rules that apply here? Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question. There aren't any specicial rules for infoboxes, just the general expectations around contentious topics:

Hope that answers your question. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that, Barkeep49. The rules for contentious topics are not different to other topics? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While the rules for editors editing around infoboxes are the same, administrators have more tools at their disposal to deal with disruption. As such, it's more important to edit carefully and constructively. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then what are the different tools? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question. The individual CT page for infoboxes lists what those are. As a note, everything box infobox probation is standard across all CT topics, but some CT topics (like infoboxes) have additional rules. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Barkeep49, but what are the situations when administrators can apply these sanctions? These don't seem any different to the sanctions that are broadly applicable. I'm not familiar at all with how contentious topics are treated differently than other topics. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The way I think of it is that it's the same rules more strictly enforced. Strict in this sense means both that sanctions are given sooner than they might be in a non-CT area and that sanctions can be more severe when placed. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, that is fair. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was checking closure requests when I noticed your close at Talk:2024 United States presidential election § RfC: Polling criteria for “major candidate” status. I'm curious as to why you said no consensus for how inclusion criteria should be changed. The § FORMAL proposal/further RFC: Change "major candidate" criteria for primary election candidates section seems to be the specific further RfC you talked about in the closing statement. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Aaron Liu, I was referring specifically to that sub-section, "FORMAL proposal/further RFC", when determining that there was no consensus on how the criteria should be changed, but there is strong consensus that it should be changed. That part of the discussion was becoming inactive and the editor who opened that sub-discussion requested that participants agree on the need for changing the criteria, rather than proposing new criteria. As a result of that sub-discussion, there were multiple new criteria proposed, and there should be another RfC to determine which changes to criteria should be chosen. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I have misread it. Cheers! Aaron Liu (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Onetwothreeip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:James Ker-Lindsay, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I say this having gotten my own close of this RfC overturned: You really ought to elaborate on why you closed the way you did, for such a high profile RfC. Otherwise it will likely be overturned. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not that "consensus for all three" is an implausible result, just one that is non-obvious enough to require justification. Mach61 (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Mach61, I have thought about elaborating on the close. This close was deliberately brief and very specifically worded. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mach61: I have added some elaboration. Please let me know if you think anything should be further explained or if you have any questions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think this helps much. You've added that you do not attribute consensus to the community as a whole, but have not explained why you found consensus (and no one needed to see the resolutions copy-pasted). Please give detailed reasoning. Mach61 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've included the reason why I found the consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think we could use this mugshot in the infobox, as multiple editors have proposed? Feoffer (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will stay neutral on which image should be used. You can start a discussion on whether this image should be used in the infobox. You can alternatively add the image to the infobox (if it hasn't already been attempted), and see if anybody opposes it. Also, the image you added in this edit was different to the two images proposed in the RfC, and did not need to be removed on the basis of the discussion closure. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, huh? The lead image had been in place for years prior to its removal minutes before you made this statement. VQuakr (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@VQuakr: I did not remove any images from the article, as neither of the two images being discussed were in the infobox. There was a different image at the time the discussion was closed, but it was removed by Feoffer shortly afterwards. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not say you removed any images. The status quo (as it had been in place for over 3 years) was interrupted by Feoffer on December 23, [8], before they removed the 2nd image the following day, [9]. Your closing statement, neither image was used in the infobox at the time is not accurate. VQuakr (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VQuakr, it was accurate at the time I closed the discussion. This version was the live version of the article at the time. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, because someone had just removed it. That's an obvious issue per WP:GAME. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. How was my statement not accurate? There was an image in the infobox, but it was not one of the two options discussed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of the two images referenced in the RFC had been in the infobox since it was added per talk page consensus, in June 2021. That image was removed, while the RFC was open and active, by an involved editor less than a day before you closed the RFC. Saying neither image was used in the infobox at the time is technically true but not accurate, in that it does not exhibit comprehension of the disruptive behavior that resulted in that condition being true. VQuakr (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That makes more sense. The timing of the discussion closure was not related to any editing of the article. The relevance for saying that neither image was used at that particular time was because there were no edits for me to make in implementing the consensus result. For many RfCs, it is for the closer to implement the decision if applicable, and I was saying that this was not applicable as there was nothing for me to remove. If the infobox included one of the two images being discussed, I would have removed one of them on the conclusion of the discussion.

The RfC closure has no impact on dealing with editing disputes. I would assume that the infobox image has changed several times, causing a Request for Consensus to be needed. You can restore or add images to the infobox (except for those two which have been rejected by the RfC), propose them to be added, or revert changes made by others. It's not for me to get involved in that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you're saying the no consensus result would have resulted in reversing the previous consensus even if the image hadn't been improperly removed? Why is that? That does lead to my 2nd concern with this closure, that it did not address the frivolous nature of the "promotional image" argument. That's an example of a WP:UPPERCASE argument, in which a bluelink is provided but it isn't germane to the actual discussion. The only reason that image, which contains no branding, slogans, etc, could be considered "promotional" is if the real complaint is that it doesn't show the subject in a sufficiently negative light. This was brought up in RFC discussion but never addressed by the folks wanting to change the image. VQuakr (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found there to be a general consensus against both of the images. I did not and would not consider whether any image was removed, properly or not, because that isn't relevant to the discussion of which image should be in the infobox. The arguments in the discussion were disproportionately regarding the weaknesses of the images, rather than their strengths, and the "promotional" nature of image A (as described by discussion participants, not me) was one of those weaknesses. The community should be able to find an image which has more support than either of those options. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A consensus against both images is not what your closure statement says, nor is it a supportable conclusion from the discussion in that RFC IMHO. I find this to be a very ill-considered close and will be pursuing review, of which I of course will formally notify you and link. I do want to thank you for your replies here, though. While we disagree on the closure, you have been both patient and methodical in explaining it. VQuakr (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no issue with review of this. I am not enforcing any image or lack thereof onto the article, or anything else. In the closure statement, I outlined that the discussion was broadly against both images: As discussion opposes both images more than they support them, and there has been discussion about other options, the infobox should use neither "A" or "B" and discussion should continue assessing other images. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RFC Closure Review - Enrique Tarrio. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for notifying me, VQuakr. These comments on my user talk page are not part of the RfC closure, by the way. They aren't relevant in enforcing consensus on the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Western Australian Goldfields is a term for areas in Western Australia that have had significant areas of gold mining occur is the lead and refers to the whole state.

the point is that goldfields occur outside of the identified region with the name goldfields - the content is very telling - it involves other regions of the state of western australia - the category of goldfields esperance has been removed - the perceptual problem is understood - western australian - and not just one region - it has been very useful to see the problem, thanks for that, I do hope you understand the potential misunderstanding. JarrahTree 10:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JarrahTree: That's right, the Western Australian Goldfields article referred to gold mining areas of Western Australia, including those outside Goldfields-Esperance, and is not a contiguous region or topic in its own right. We have the article Gold mining in Western Australia for that. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. If only it were as simple as that - slippages in terminology over time in popular usage do not help - even the distinction between the mineral field and gold field as found at Mineral_fields_of_Western_Australia can be slippery when dealing with certain areas of the state. JarrahTree 00:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Candidates of the next Australian federal election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidates of the next Australian federal election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Teraplane (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was hoping to ask you to reconsider this close one more time; I don't think there is any basis for you to decide that this was a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, rather than a standard consensus.

At the very least, would you be willing to withdraw your close and let someone else do so? BilledMammal (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your message BilledMammal. I did not determine that this was specifically a local consensus. I do not see a reason to withdraw the close but I am willing to consider arguments. What reason do you see for withdrawing the close? Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]