User talk:Challenger.rebecca

That was a terrible close
Re this.

Two users expressed some opinion as to whether the article was GA-quality, one openly in favour of delisting and the other not opposed to delisting and stating that the original listing was crap. None of the other comments were even related to whether the article as it stood was of GA-quality or not. So why did you close it as a "maintain the status quo" when everyone opposed the status quo.

I understand you probably made a good-faith mistake, but if so it was still a mistake, and I strongly urge you to revert your close.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Users were arguing about the article content, but not all of it actually related to whether or not the article's quality was low enough to delist. Discussion had gone on long enough, and no one but the nominator said that the article should be delisted. No consensus means 'keep'.

Challenger.rebecca (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, firstly I should apologize for my gruff tone above. I was annoyed about some bullshit that had nothing to do with you or the GAR. Secondly, you should know that GARs do not need a broad consensus from a large number of users to delist. The default should be that if an article's GA status is challenged, it will be delisted unless either (a) a defense of the article's current GA status is mounted or (b) the article is improved to fully address the OP's concerns. In this case, one user challenged the GA status, and another user tried to improve the article but still agreed the article should be delisted. A GAR should never be decided on a vote count, but in this case even a vote count was in favour of delisting. If I were closing, I would have said Consensus is to delist. The valid concerns of the OP and first commenter have not been met. All other commenters are trouted and politely reminded that this page is for discussion of whether the article still meets (or ever met) our specific list of Good Article criteria, and is not a forum for general discussion of the topic, or even general discussion of the article and its quality. 'No consensus means keep' is for AFD, not GAR, as the burden of consensus must lie with those who want Wikipedia to continue hyping the article as one of the Project's finest. If 'No consensus means preserve the status quo' was a universal standard, the article would never have been promoted in the first place. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There were competing arguments there over the validity of the nominator's claims, but I checked the article myself and found the citations to be fine and the article to be decently organized. No one except the nominator ever said that the article should be delisted. If people want to change the title of the article, they can propose it on the talk page, but there was definitely no consensus and probably no good reason to outright delist.


 * There is no reason why you should be posting attacks on me about this reassessment on other univolved users talk pages. During all the good article reassessments I closed, I took special care to consider all angles and made the best decision possible. Challenger.rebecca (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, if any of the above looked like an attack, it was unintentional, and I apologize. Anyway, I find your analysis of the GAR and the article itself to be questionable. I'm not in the mood to argue this further. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate marking of "Minor" updates
Thank you for your contributions to the article Brampton Library. You marked your all your edits on March 28, 2017 as minor, when in fact only the first edit on that day was. Marking an edit as minor is intended to allow some editors to avoid being notified about spelling fixes, punctuation updates, grammar improvements, small amounts of reformatting, and other small changes to articles that do not change the intent and information contained in the article. Adding new content is generally not considered a minor edit, so should not be marked as such. Please review the minor edits article to help improve the quality of your future contributions. Nutster (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge submissions
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Your edits to Anxiotropic
I fixed these. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) We do not capitalize all words in section titles.
 * (2) After editing, please read the place you edited. In this article, you corrupted format.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention (October 22)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Canadian_Association_for_Suicide_Prevention Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liance&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Canadian_Association_for_Suicide_Prevention reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-Liancetalk/contribs 03:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity
Would you be willing to explain where you have "seen [Floq] in action for many years" (per this)?

You and he have never interacted, and you have virtually no WP-space editing history to indicate that you've generally been aware of his administrative actions despite that.

I ask because it seems somewhat weird that you would choose that to be your first ever (and thus far only) RFA comment shortly after I posted this in my sandbox and a few months later (today) you showed up and reverted an edit I had made to a relatively low-traffic article three days prior.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I often check the contributions of admins I admire, and he's been doing good work for a long time. It's not very often that a serving admin comes back up for nomination, so I certainly wanted to vote for him. I don't see why it's that unusual. Challenger.rebecca (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, well then how do you explain this? Did you follow me to the article and make that nonsense comment? Or did you simply miscount? Are you aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus is not a vote-count? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm going to ask you again, since an answer has not been forthcoming, and while ignoring the above question you posted this. How did you come across the discussion at Talk:Mottainai? The RFC template had expired over a week before you got there, and given your past interactions with me (including this travesty that I was too intimidated to bring up with you when it happened) have not generally been pleasant, it is extremely difficult to take as a good-faith coincidence. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn't think it really needed to be explained. I've edited hundreds of articles just by stumbling across them and no one ever asks me how. Anyway, in this case, I saw the discussion when it was listed, but I just didn't see any need to vote at the time, because I thought the consensus of the discussion was fairly clear. It was later that I noticed that the consensus as I saw it was not being implemented properly. Not only were the vast majority in favor of the change, but the best sources also proved that it was what should be implemented. And I don't recall any negative interactions with you. I always just try to edit as best as I can. People can disagree constructively, but that's not necessarily a negative interaction. You should tone down the personal attacks and keep that in mind. Challenger.rebecca (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought the consensus of the discussion was fairly clear. It was later that I noticed that the consensus as I saw it was not being implemented properly. Please read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Not only is a roughly 50-50 split not "consensus" for either one based simply on a headcount, but when one factors in that one side of the RFC was and is demanding that an exception be made to our core content policies of V and NPOV, clearly that side could not be allowed to have its way even if the split 60-40 or even 90-10. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Four tildes, not three
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png located above the edit window.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hijiri88 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ideographic Approach
Hello Challenger.rebecca, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ideographic Approach, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''has content. A7 can only be used for subjects it explicitly mentions which do not include philosophical ideas. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA'''. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. So Why  09:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Other Specified Dissociative Disorder has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Other Specified Dissociative Disorder. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Other Specified Dissociative Disorder has been accepted
 Other Specified Dissociative Disorder, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Other_Specified_Dissociative_Disorder help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Introducing Quotation Errors to Effective Altruism
Between Nov 12 and Nov 22, you've made several edits to Effective Altruism. Many of these are good. However, one repeated error you've made is to inappropriately move quotation marks beyond the scope of the quoted text. This may be a misunderstanding on how quoting text works. If someone says "X" in one paragraph, and later says "Y" in another, we cannot then write it as the quote "X and Y". Because the quoted lines are separated, we must instead write it as "'X' and 'Y'".

Another editor caught your mistake and reverted it. You then made the mistake again, and it was reverted again. You then made the error yet again. I have reverted this and am now notifying you on your talk page to please stop introducing quotation errors on this page.

Your other edits seem good. Although I reverted your last edit, I did so solely because of the errors you introduced. If you reintroduce your other minor edits without errors, I'm sure they will be accepted. Just please understand that because you've ignored multiple reverts on the quotation mark issue, your edits on the Effective Altruism article have additional scrutiny and may be held to a strict standard. &mdash; Eric Herboso 09:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to add that in your edit here, you changed "defeasibly" to "defeasible", even though it was part of a quote with a cited source. After I reverted the edit and explained that the quote correctly used "defeasibly", you simply did it again. Whether it says defeasibly or defeasible is not that important, but changing a quote without checking the easily accessible source of the quote shows a lack of care, and not responding at all when this is pointed out to you, but rather simply performing the edits again and again verges on disruptive editing. I hope that you will take a bit more care in the future, because the article really does need some copyediting, and I for one would be very grateful if you helped with it. &mdash; Knuthove (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was my mistake. I just misunderstood what had happened. Thank you for the feedback. Challenger.rebecca (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Your edit to Effective altruism
Hi Challenger.rebecca, thanks for your edit to Effective altruism. I especially appreciated that you added the missing "that" to the text I had inserted. However, I reverted your edit because the other changes you introduced didn't appear to be constructive. In particular, I think it flows better with a comma between each term (importance, neglectedness, and tractability) and its definition than with parentheses around each definition. I think definition lists on Wikipedia are usually formatted without parentheses, e.g. Polyhedron. Second, I think the way you combined the independent clauses in the definition of neglectedness was clunky (...to address a problem, determining a cause to be more neglected the fewer resources are going toward it).

I encourage you to continue making edits to the page as you see fit, as we need all the help we can get to help get it to good article status. Happy editing! Qzekrom (she/her &bull; talk) 23:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:200px-Hall Entree Guessous.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:200px-Hall Entree Guessous.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

License tagging for File:375px-Bablaalouwiki.png
Thanks for uploading File:375px-Bablaalouwiki.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

License tagging for File:180px-Maghrebwiki.png
Thanks for uploading File:180px-Maghrebwiki.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)