User talk:Cessaune/Archive 1

Important Notice
–– FormalDude  (talk)  04:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aerotrim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Korean Air Force. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Editing Sandbox page
Hello, I noticed that you were editing my Sandbox page on the Rewrite of the Donald Trump Lead. Thanks! I'm just wondering what your goal was, because another user on the Donald Trump talk page told me how to get the diff he wanted. I thought I already did that and posted the link. In other words, I don't understand how what I should do is different from what I did. To be honest I am a little lost here since I'm not that experienced of an editor. So let me know what the next steps should be if you would like. Thanks again! DynaGuy00 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You should do it on a paragraph-to-paragraph basis, so that they can actually compare to each other. For example, the last paragraphs of both the current lead and the proposed lead don't exactly line up, so they can't be compared in the diff. I was going to do it but didn't want to edit your sandbox without your permission. Cessaune   [  talk  ]   18:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you would like to do it then permission granted, go right ahead! DynaGuy00 (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Jenny Lind&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Tornadoes of 2023&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 15:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Bludgeon
You may need to read wP:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It's only bludgeon when people aren't referring to you:
 * PLease read WP:ONUS, its down to you to make a case for inclusion.
 * And they have disagreed with your assessment
 * I have no idea what you mean by "following ARBCOM stuff", unless you mean that a slow motion edit war is not explicitly prohibited with a bright-line restriction banhammer.
 * No one is stopping you form talking about it
 * Yes that have, you just do not agree with what has been said
 * Please review what I said about 'arbcom stuff", etc. You do not appear to understand policy.
 * You've done everything according to policy and the page restriction.
 * All examples of people talking to me. This isn't bludgeon. Anyway, it doesn't matter. I'm dropping the argument. Cessaune   [ talk ]   20:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do I have your permission to close & hat the discussion-in-question? There doesn't seem to be a consensus for undoing the revert-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Cessaune   [ talk ]   00:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Contact
Hey Cessaune, send me an e-mail, we can chat there. Cheers Radlrb (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * What is your email address? Cessaune   [ talk ]   16:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you go to my talk page, on the left hand side there is a link "Email this user" under Tools. I rather not type it here, you know, for privacy. Radlrb (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

A Vector for you

 * Matrix: a modal skin for editing where you can rearrange and resize columns to fit your needs? Sounds pretty cool to me. Cessaune   [ talk ]   00:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Matrix would actually be a good name for the next skin (or maybe even this one when it's finished?). Aaron Liu (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, &#32; Talk:Lia Thomas  and &#32; Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting on "Biographies" request for comments. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 11:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 23:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Trump talk page
You should know better than to make irrelevant personal remarks on an article talk page, and you should be mindful that your own credibility greatly suffers from such lapses. If you do not understand -- or do not wish to take the time to fully investigate -- the points being made, it is best to remain silent. Note that 's efforts can better be deployed on more essential matters than rebutting your empty disparagement. SPECIFICO talk 12:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * SPECIFICO, I normally refrain from making those sort of remarks. It just pisses me off when people don't fully explain themselves. And, in fact, I did take the time to fully investigate the points being made. Or, at least I think I did.
 * As always, I am sorry if my comments delved into a more negative realm than I had thought. I never intend to do that. However, what I said still stands—screaming 'cherrypicked!' into the void with barely even a low-level explanation is time-wasting and counterproductive. I do agree that Space4Time3Continuum2x:'s efforts can better be deployed on more essential matters, but that is irrelevant. I'm going to say what I want to say regardless.
 * If there is one issue that seems to be a reoccuring point of annoyance, SPECIFICO, you make a claim and then don't back it up with any evidence. So when you talk about "credibility" and "empty disparagement" it just serves to piss me off. I don't just say things to say things, and I always try to include at least a little bit of evidence. You come to my talk page, you do not analyze any of the claims I made about your remarks, and then you make your own claims about my remarks, without any sort of analyzation whatsoever. You spit out your opinion and treat it like fact: irrelevant personal remarks, If you do not understand -- or do not wish to take the time to fully investigate -- the points being made, empty disparagement—and then when I call out such behavior present in other talk page claims, you basically accuse me of either being ignorant or being unwilling to fully investigate... what? You can say what you want, but, the fact of the matter is: I don't care, unless you are actually willing to take the time to prove your own statements. If you're not willing to do that, fine, but leave me alone in that case.
 * And, also, I don't care about "credibility". And, even if I did, any reasoned editor would realize that my remarks are, at the very least, thought-out, even if they disagree with them. I don't just say stuff to say stuff. I constantly strive to be fair in my assessments, though I am obviously, clearly and openly biased.
 * Please, please respond to this with a coherent argument that goes beyond the realm of simply making a claim. Please analyze my statements about your edits. Or don't respond at all. Cessaune   [ talk ]   13:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your response does not show much inclination to self-reflection regarding simple, documented criticism. Under the circumstances, I'm not going to devote further time to "analysis" of your behavior. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair. I'll try to understnad the criticism better from now on. Cessaune   [ talk ]   01:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 02:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Your close at Trump
Thanks for the close. I would've left it open for at least another few days, but I'm happy if everybody else is. I guess it had reached the point of diminishing returns, and the odds of it going a different way were slim.

You have probably noticed by now that I reverted you in the consensus list and added #61. This means your close statement is now incorrect, and it should be fixed before the discussion gets manually archived per #13, 24 hours after your close.

We never state the consensus item verbatim in the close statement. The close statement merely needs to accurately reflect the consensus. In this case, "Clear consensus for option 1. Applies only to good-faith complaints." would probably suffice, but you could say more in summary of the discussion if you were so inclined.

Your last sentence in the close statement is a misstatement of the consensus. The new procedure applies only to the good faith complaints; the bad faith complaints are shot on sight. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Costa Concordia disaster
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Costa Concordia disaster you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DimensionalFusion -- DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Costa Concordia disaster
The article Costa Concordia disaster you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Costa Concordia disaster for comments about the article, and Talk:Costa Concordia disaster/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DimensionalFusion -- DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Robert Todd Lincoln
You haven't posted anything since July 1 at Talk:Robert Todd Lincoln/GA2. If you don't want/don't have time to do the Review now - whatever the situation is, that's cool. I'll follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I and release the article back into the pool of articles waiting for a GA Review. Just let me know what you want to do. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Shearonink, Sorry, I've been pretty busy. I'll complete it late today or tomorrow. Cessaune   [ talk ]   14:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for your quick response. Just checking in - Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for 2023 NCAA Division I men's basketball championship game
—Kusma (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Costa Concordia disaster
RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Polyvagal theory&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 00:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2872 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- 00:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Wow. I don't know what I did to deserve this, but thanks a lot. I didn't know anyone noticed my poems. Hearing that someone does made my day. Cessaune   [ talk ]   01:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Joseph Stalin&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Plant
Hello! Your submission of Plant at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pamzeis (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Costa Concordia
Hi. Regarding our edits, what are the two things you're referring to? Can you clarify? Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, looking through that souce, I don't see any mention of artifacts falling into private possession, or the "respect" for the victims. Nightscream (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yikes, I was lazy and the revert was premature. As far as I'm aware, the article makes no substantial mention of anything pertaning to "respect for the victims". The sentence before is verified in the article, underneath the header Samedi 18 octobre 2014, la sécurisation du Costa Concordia est terminée. Cessaune   [ talk ]   01:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Dina Belenkaya&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 23:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

talk
Please stay off my talk page Anonymous8206 (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

GA nomination of Mountain Fountain
Thanks for your attention to this article. I can provide scans of the off-line citations if needed. Regards. --Muchness (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Help
Hello. Help copy edit and removed template for acticle Akane Yamaguchi. Thanks you.171.247.210.89 (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Plant
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I missed this one while I was on vacation in October. Well done on a historic plant fact for DYK. Although now El Seed, self-proclaimed liberator of the plant world, may want to destroy you for repeating the scurrilous lie that plants do not have "sensitive souls". ;-) 🌿MtBotany (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 20:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Mountain Fountain/GA1
Cessaune, it has been over two months since you opened this review page, but have yet to post your review. As far as I can, both you and the nominator are active. If you intend to conduct the review, please do so soon; otherwise, perhaps you could G6 the page so the article can be placed back into the pool of unreviewed nominations. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * To be perfectly honest I kinda forgot about this. Thanks for the reminder. Cessaune   [ talk ]   03:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your attention to this article, it's appreciated. --Muchness (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Christmas!

 * Here’s a test to see if you get that red notification! Merry 01-11! Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Trump & Abraham Accords RfC close
Greeings, Cessaune, and apologies for not responding to the question you posed to me in the talk page of editor Vanderwaalforces, a section now archived. So, my belated response is that "the arguments presented by Oppose !voters are invalid" but that they're insufficient to overcome what is a very clear case of a notable event deserving a place in a person's biography. And I find the term "deserving" to be rather weak in this case. I did not expect a closure by a non-admin, to be honest. (If I weren't preoccupied with personal issues and absent from Wikipedia, I'd have proposed that the RfC be closed by two admins.) I was under the evidently naive assumption that the seriousness and the gravitas of the RfC's subject would have been respected by the community but Vanderwaalforces found it in themselves to go ahead and close the RfC, justifying the decision in favor of Oppose on arbitrary, personal arguments, invoking policy in generic terms. As I already said, this has been a very sad and disappointing turn of affairs for me. Political preferences may have played a part in the RfC itself or its closure; I do not know. In any case, all in all, a very bad decision. Take care.-The Gnome (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The issue wasn't that it was closed by a non-admin. The real issue was that the non-admin who closed it didn't close it well. Non-admins close RfCs all the time, and if they didn't we'd need more admins. Admins can't do everything themselves.
 * Two admins? The last time I saw a two-admin close, it was WP:V22RFC2. The community doesn't have time for that. And, ultimately, it isn't that serious. The sentence itself isn't even a controversial sentence, not like this.
 * As to the outcome, if it was as clear as you think it was the !votes would've been 18-4. As it stands, the issue's obviously not as black-and-white as you're making it out to be. What I want to understand is if you actually understand what Oppose voters are arguing about, because I sense that you only kinda do. Cessaune   [ talk ]   16:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The proposal for administrators to close a discussion is neither new nor exceptional. Have a look at the Closure Requests archives and you'll see this being requested when the issue involved proves complex and/or controversial, which is what the RfC abt the Abraham Accords in Trump's BLP was, quite evidently. And, yes, it was, not unexpectedly, an extremely erroneous closure. The reason was not the numerical comparison of suggestions but the quality of them. Almost every single "No" suggestion ignored or even denied the two vital criteria, i.e. the Accords were/are notable and they did happen during Trump's presidency, with America's role in getting them signed acknowledged by all concerned. How this can be translated in some minds as "Trump did not have anything to do with the Accords" is beyond me. And that's what the Oppose ~!votes were about. I got nothing else to say. I'm currently still working in Wikipedia but also reviewing if it's worthy and deserves my time any more. -The Gnome (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Gnome, notability is the test for a standalone page. The test for inclusion on other pages is WP:WEIGHT, which is entirely different. You also don't seem to distinguish between US role in creating the accord vs. US hosting a ceremony. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to forget or still choose to ignore that, in that wretched RfC, one main argument of the Opposers was that the Accords was not an important, i.e. notable, development in the Middle East. An argument which, of course, the sources I (and others) presented devastatingly refuted. These sources were: The governments of the United States, Israel, and the Arab signatories; most notable think tanks in Europe, Asia, Stateside, and elsewhere; and the world's media.
 * Some Opposers even descended as low as to argue that we should not include the Accords because events in the region following the Accords proved that the Accords did not help the peace. One does not know whether to laugh at such personal positions used as arguments or sigh at the level of discussion therein. They tacitly accept that the Accords were notable but then argue they actually are not since they failed. Munich Accords anyone?
 * As to the US role in helping the process of the agreement through (the term "creating" is inaccurate, if not disingenuous), that too is conclusively supported by a myriad of sources. I submitted a large sample of these sources too.
 * It's not a lightly taken position, mine. I consider that closing one of the worst, if not the worst, closings of an AfD or RfC discussion to which I've been privy in all my years in Wikipedia. The words used by a few Opposers about Trump and his presidency are very revealing about the deeper nature of their stance. An extremely pitiful episode. -The Gnome (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Am I included in this group? I hope not. Cessaune   [ talk ]   14:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to "VOTE" support please do so. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I !voted already. Cessaune   [ talk ]   15:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * That's my three, barring self-reverts. Stop unilaterally moving my comments. They are where they are for a reason. Cessaune   [ talk ]   17:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Slatersteven, respectfully, why are my comments being moved, but not the comments of others that are placed in the survey sections? Cessaune   [ talk ]   17:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In my case because yours were moved, and you then reverted it. But it maybe because other "comments" are more of a "I am unsure how to vote" kind. also being right is not a justification for edit warring. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Very sorry. I didn't mean to do that, I never mean to do that, and I'm just a little annoyed about this whole thing. I'll try to be better in the future.
 * Here are some of the comments that are placed in the survey section.
 * While I am not supporting or opposing the proposal, I will explain why I justify this wording to be most modest proposal and the most likely of any proposal to succeed. The proposal uses language directly from the Abraham Accords article, and does not credit Donald Trump with any active role (such as "brokering"), only that the signing was hosted, implicitly by him, at the White House. I decided to specify that it was foreign relations being normalised, as opposed to economic or other relations. If editors believe that there should be even more content about the Accords in the article, they should support the proposal, and if they believe that there should be no content about it at all, they should oppose it.
 * There is an erroneous argument in some of the suggestions here, to the effect that the Accords have failed to deliver what they promised and, therefore, they're not important enough and do not deserve a mention in Trump's biography. That is false, as false as arguing that, since they too failed, the Munich Accords do not deserve an article in Wikipedia. There might also be in play some kind of erroneous view of the whole issue. I hope no one opposes the inclusion of the Abraham Accords on the basis of their personal dislike of Trump and abhorrence for his actions as president. I truly hope so!
 * (sigh) We are not here to debate the consequences, the outcome, or the developments following the Abraham Accords. We are not here either to discuss the notability of the Abraham Accords! That ship has sailed. A myriad of sources from across the planet testify in the affirmative. All we are here to discuss in this RfC is whether or not the suggested sentence merits a place in the Trump bio, section foreign policy, subsection Israel. That is all. It is quite sad to see people still arguing about the agreement's trivially established notability and denouncing it as a "media event." (As if there was ever in the modern era a significant agreement between nations that was not a "media event"!) If this had not happened during Trump's watch, with American mediation still "crucial" per the words of the signatories, I submit that no debate would be necessary, much less an RfC. So, can we please, pretty please, with sugar on top, get back to serious work?
 * Cessaune  [ talk ]   17:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

TBH - in all RFCs, we should all refrain from commenting on or responding to other editors' "survey" posts, in the "Survey sub-section". Best to place such comments/responses in the "Discussion sub-section". Unfortunately, many editors don't do this. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That may be honest, but it is incorrect. A short comment directly associated with the predicate is much easier for everyone to follow than the same comment buried in a standalone position with no connection to the rest of a bloated "discussion" section. Sometimes a direct reply is best. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you drop it now, before you are sanctioned, the RFC is bad enough without having to discuss your (or other user's) conduct). Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I have stopped commiting any sanctionable actions. Cessaune   [ talk ]   18:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Read WP:REHASH and WP:LISTEN. Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)