User talk:Chicdat/Archive 6

Your recent post
Just wanted to let you know that your recent post was removed, and I suspect you can figure out why. There are better ways of joining discussions like that. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, I was fine with that. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  09:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. It took me nearly a year, and I needed a lot of help, but at last it was done. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  10:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review
Hi Chicdat, I am happy to announce that your Article Cyclone Owen passed the Good Article Review. Keep up the good work! CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's just what I've been hoping for! 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  10:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Timelines
Per WP:Too Soon, if we really do need timelines for the Atlantic and Pacific hurricane seasons, (which I highly doubt) then we do not need to prepare them in advance before the first system develops as there is no meaningful content before then. The season articles get an exception to this as season forecasts are usually produced ahead of the season.Jason Rees (talk)
 * I will keep that in mind in the future. Chicdat (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you. It took me nearly a year, and I needed a lot of help, but at last it was done. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am glad it finally got done though, keep up the great work! 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 13:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why did you think I wouldn't? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  09:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!


~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 
 * Why am I getting this? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  12:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I sent a kitten when I saw Special:Diff/1021367276. No deeper meaning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for the kitten. So fuzzy... 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  10:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

in over your head
While I firmly believe anyone is welcome to give moral support and advice to blocked users, non-admins shouldn't make definitive statements as you did here especially considering you were recently banned from administrative areas, even acknowledging it moments ago and have chosen to take it upon yourself to take on a pseudo-administrative role in that discussion and subsequent AN thread. Might I suggest stepping back, because this seems unwise. Grogudicae👽 12:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I explicitly stated that I was not an administrator. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  12:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That...was not the point. Grogudicae👽  12:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The point, is that I was violating my ban. Well, if you read the first section here, you can see that my ban is over. Chicdat (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Chicdat - Wikipedia isn't a paint-by-numbers book, you can't just respond to a user suggesting your behaviour is inappropriate that you're colouring within the lines and that makes what you were doing okay. You were previously banned from admin areas for disruptive behaviour and due to CIR concerns - you should be seriously careful about any further action in admin areas, and you should definitely not be replicating very similar behaviour that caused the ban in the first place. There are areas on enwiki where you do good work - stick to them. -- a they/them &#124; argue &#124; contribs 12:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do good work in: content creation, RfDs, village pump, hurricane stuff. I'll stick to those. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  12:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I didn't say that your administrative ban is over. What I meant is when you'll finish my second lesson, you may request the administrative ban repeal with my support. But even then, that is not guaranteed as you need to prove yourself that you're competent at making administrative decisions. I did some administrative decisions in the first quarter of this year and I'm backing away from it because of these stuff. But at least I have learned these lessons, and I'm planning to give these to you some time after I'm done with my job. As Alfie stated please stick what you did good in there (for me it would be content creation, fighting against some LTAs, and identifying cross-wiki abusers).  Mario Jump  83!  05:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine. Once again I will treat my ban like a ban. I will continue to listen to Cabayi's advice back in August. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  10:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Poultry task force talk templates
I’ve been on a bit of a break, and it seems that Wikiproject Poultry has been brought under the wing of WP Birds as a task force. That’s all fine, but I’m seeing some problems with how it was done. I see many articles talk pages with two WikiProject Birds templates, neither of which include the Poultry Task Force flag. Many also seem to have lost other parameters, such as image requests. Do you know what happened, and how we can fix this? --awkwafaba (📥) 15:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I redirected Template:WikiProject Poultry to Template:WikiProject Birds. Someone with AWB access should fix this (not me). 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  09:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * : 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!

to
 * : 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 

—Anomalocaris (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  10:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Chicdat: Thank you for updating your signature. However, I was careless. Your previous signature had two nonbreaking spaces, which I copied, but I did not escape them in the display markup of the signature itself, so they displayed as ordinary spaces. The first nonbreaking space was between the contributions link and the user link. The second nonbreaking space was after the user link, but followed by a space, so it had the effect of putting two spaces between the user link and the talk page link. With the nonbreaking space converted to an ordinary space, the two spaces display as one space, and you can see that the display space between the user link and the talk page link is less. You are welcome to keep your signature as it is, but if you want to restore the nonbreaking spaces, change it to:
 * : 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 
 * —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've re-added the nbsp to my signature. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  10:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:OUT
Just so you know, I've reverted your retargeting of WP:OUT. This shortcut was used in Template:Uw-spamublock for 7 years and as such has over 31,000 backlinks. I would suggest taking it to WP:RFD if you want to see if the community would support retargeting. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  10:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Noah Talk 20:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Improper Move Request closures
Please do not perform another improper Move Closure, as you did at the article for Cyclone Friedhelm/Hurricane Bawbag. That was clearly against Wikipedia policy, and now, it will probably have to go through a move review and be re-opened. Please do not ever close a discussion that is currently in progress, unless it is a clear snow case or completely pointless. And no, moving to a third or a fourth unpopular option as a "compromise" is not acceptable. Consensus has yet to be fully determined (it was actually in favor of Cyclone Friedhelm, but it could have swung back to Hurricane Bawbag). Personally, I think that you should stay out of all administrative areas for the foreseeable future, outside of combatting obvious vandals/sockmasters and closing clear WP:SNOW discussions. You clearly aren't ready to get yourself involved in administrative activities right now. If you continue screwing up like this, you will probably end up in serious trouble. So for your own good, I think that you should avoid almost all administrative activities for the time being.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk)
 * I think you should define the limits of Chicdat's informal adminspace ban more clearly, since we're still seeing issues here.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have brought this to a move review as I don't feel comfortable with your closing of this contentious move request.Jason Rees (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, Chic, you are free to make your own opinions and comments about i.e. AfDs and merger requests, but please don't do anything that involve administrative actions, i.e. closing a move/merger requests (including SNOW closes to prevent urges of more administrative involvement), closing an XfD discussion, making RfC/WikiProject decisions or CSD tagging. Note that AfC reviewing, AWB-like actions (adding short descriptions), and requesting changes/XfDs (i.e. retargeting redirects, as long as it is done correctly) aren't considered to be administrative actions.  Mario Jump  83!  03:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How can I not get blocked? Since you are my mentor, you should be able to answer this question. (To provide some context, I once asked Jason Rees a similar question. He replied, "It will come with experience." But I've been here for a year. Isn't that experience?) 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  10:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Chicdat - take a look back at the last year, have you learnt anything? Jason Rees (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have; I no longer relist or close XfDs; I no longer strike inappropriate !votes at RfA; I wish I could say I didn't involve myself with blocks; I will keep learning. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  10:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Chicdat, why did you close the move request at List of off-season Pacific hurricanes? Only 4 people voted, and there are many, many more people at WPTC, the consensus could have changed by a lot. Please do not do this again. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 13:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I couldn't even if I wanted to; I'm banned from closing discussions. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  10:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ana
Hi Chicdat, Just to let you know I have restored the redirect for Tropical Storm Ana (2021) to List of storms named Ana, as the name Ana has already been used for a tropical cyclone this year in the South Pacific, which are also referred to as tropical storms at various times. As a result, I feel that the redirect to List of storms named Ana is more accurate than pointing it towards the 2021 Atlantic hurricane season.Jason Rees (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was not aware of that fact. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  12:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Mz7 (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
 * +1! Nice, congrats on getting PCR! 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 22:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've already started reviewing a few pages, and I hope to keep down that backlog. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  10:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Awesome, glad to hear that it is working well for you. keep up the great work! 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 11:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some editors have been putting together a Tips for pending changes reviewers page. As you start reviewing pending changes, if you encounter situations where you feel it would be helpful to have tips from other reviewers, add to the page or bring it up on its Talk. Happy reviewing! Schazjmd   (talk)  17:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Congrats! ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 12:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  09:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! That's my first barnstar in weeks. 🏳️‍🌈 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Please don't be embarrassed
I'm referring to your edit summary. If you have changed your opinion as a result of the replies then it's fine to withdraw a statement for that reason, but there's nothing embarrassing about having a different opinion from others. Please engage in the discussion if you think that your initial opinion was valid. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, those replies were more valid than my !vote, so.... 🏳️‍🌈 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  09:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Your revert on My Hero Academia (season 5)
The information was not unsourced. There is a source at the top of the table with the information, which is a common citation method for shows that are currently airing weekly. Please remember this for future note. Link20XX (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. 🏳️‍🌈 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  09:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Some recent problematic edits
It has been brought to my attention that you've carried out some more problematic edits recently. First of all, your WPTC invitation to CycloneEditor was much too early. We usually don't invite accounts with that little editing history, especially accounts that are not even a day old! Please refrain from making further invitations until you're ready for more adminspace edits. We have another active editors who are capable of handing invitations. Also, you are violating your informal adminspace ban again. One recent example is your revert on My Hero Academia (season 5). That shouldn't have been done. You definitely shouldn't be reverting any edits outside of clear, obvious vandalism and obvious socking for the foreseeable future. I shouldn't have to remind you that continued violations of your informal ban can lead to more serious consequences, including a formalization of the ban at a minimum, as well as sanctions (as an example). Please stay out of adminspace and administrative edits in general. Thank you.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologi(z/s)e for the Cyclone Editor invitation, I wasn't considering the fact that he/she had one day of experience. As for the My Hero Academia (season 5) revert, I was using my pending changes reviewer rights. I've made an exception in my ban for that. I guess this is my final/only warning that I mentioned above. I'll brace myself for a block now.


 * Once again, I am sorry for the welcoming and the bad revert. 🏳️‍🌈 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  09:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Look, this, which I just reverted, is clear, obvious vandalism. 🏳️‍🌈 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  11:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that is over reacting to stuff here. The My Hero Season 5 stuff was resolved and isnt really any of his business to chase you up on while the invite thing is just nonsense since anyone can be invited to join WPTC. Jason Rees (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jason Rees. 🏳️‍🌈 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  09:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. 🏳️‍🌈 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:RFPP now finally has an archive
We had previously discussed the creation of an archive at WP:RFPP. While I see the ban above and don't expect you to reply, I wanted to notify you that, yes, finally an archive exists.

If I understand the situation correctly, the best response is to remove this message without an answer. I hope it made you happy anyway. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can discuss the ban, of course. So, thank you. I never liked that rolling archive much anyway. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RFA
Your trust and support are important to me. I very much hope you call if you see I'm out of line or if you need help. You are at least 222 times more important on Wikipedia than you think. BusterD (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And yes, I will call. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  09:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

List of the oldest living people
Fyi, I reverted your revert again, because you obviously didn't notice my sourced addition to the list of Marcel Meys! Extremely sexy (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry! All I noticed was the addition of 112+, which is unencyclopedic. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  11:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Kane Tanaka
Hello, how are you, why you not like the colour picture?
 * Consensus has been formed on Talk:Kane Tanaka to not use the color picture. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  11:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Valentine Ligny
I see that you have nominated Lucile Randon's article for deletion, of which I totally agree, but would it be possible that you do the same for Valentine Ligny? I tried a couple of weeks ago but was denied very quickly, even if she is less notable than Randon! I'm a little bit apprehensive to start the process with my cell phone and won't have computer access for a while. Regards, MattSucci (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see the discussion, but the difference is that it isn't a real AfD, and plain discussions tend to fizzle out without action. I don't usually accept requests like this (my archives show people bugging me to create articles for them), but this is an exceptional case. Yes, I will nominate Ligny for deletion. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I am very grateful that you will take time out of your day to do this. Regards, MattSucci (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. The discussion is currently at Articles for deletion/Valentine Ligny. Please do not participate, as doing so would be canvassing. --🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

48th issue of Hurricane Herald newsletter
 Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary edits.
That Bart's editing is becoming tiresome! MattSucci (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The more recent comments there suggest he's stopped it. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So it would appear. Let's see if it stays that way. Regards, MattSucci (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, and.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:
 * 1) Corrosive RfA atmosphere
 * The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
 * 1) Level of scrutiny
 * Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
 * 1) Standards needed to pass keep rising
 * It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
 * 1) Too few candidates
 * There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
 * 1) "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors: 1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.

2. Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.

3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1. There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Jules Théobald
Any chance of nominating him for AFD too? MattSucci (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  11:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:RfP" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:RfP. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 21 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

AFD
DB is really getting on my nerves as well. Not only does he nominate everything under the sun for deletion, he'll badger anyone who votes against him. Drives me nuts. Bkatcher (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. When I left DB a message on the 19th, he accused me of "bludgeoning the process." This was an utter lie, it being him doing so. What do you suppose we do? 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  12:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been talking to a lot of users about his attitude. He's also a tattler, so if you'd like to e-mail me at bjkatcher@hotmail.com I'd love to discuss this further. Bkatcher (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Bkatcher Or maybe you could resolve this on-wiki by taking it to admins noticeboard:incidents instead of complaining about me behind my back, which is uncivil and unproductive behavior that just makes it harder for me to interact with you in a neutral manner. I’ve tried to, as you put it, “virtually bury the hatchet” with you, but you’re not making it easy. Dronebogus (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, for once, I agree with Dronebogus. Please start a discussion on ANI. For your information, a) I don't use e-mail, for private reasons; b) Despite all my success at AfD, I am banned from ANI (also the discussions leading up to that; it's an interesting read). I expect a quick WP:BLUDGEON block on his part. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Chicdat @Bkatcher I’ll try to stop “bludgeoning” if you two (particularly you, bkatcher) will try to stop complaining about me behind my back. I’d rather not go to ANI and just repeat that I’ll stop bludgeoning again largely because you appear want to see me get me kicked out for getting on your nerves. Dronebogus (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * All right. If you stop, I will stop. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, chicdat. Bkatcher, I sincerely hope you will stop going around trying to “privately” tell other users how much I suck, it’s getting old. Dronebogus (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Who was talking about you, Dronebogus? I was referring to notorious 1970s Skyjacker D.B. Cooper. Paranoid much? I'm not the one lurking around other people's user pages to see if my initials happen to show up. Bkatcher (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bkatcher Uh-huh, and I’m actually D.B. Cooper. (Sarcasm) Dronebogus (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure DB Cooper never edited Wikipedia, and certainly not in a completely coincidentally similar manner to me. You’re certainly not doing much to look like you’re the one in the right here with your “clever” rebuttals. Dronebogus (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But are you sure he never edited? No one knows who he really was. Maybe he's editing Wikipedia as we speak. Bkatcher (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes and why don’t we leave Mr. Cooper alone and continue speaking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#System-gaming_WP:HOUNDING_and_personal_attacks_from_user_who_claimed_he_was_stopping Dronebogus (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Death of Gustav Gerneth
His actual date of death is 21 October. Please stop reverting my edits. There are some sources published immediately after his death that say 22 October (rather in the night of 22 October), but they are not as reliable as his official obituary. Thus, I withdraw and apologize for my assertion that you have made an unsourced assertion. His 115th birthday report after his death also states 21 October ["Wenige Tage nach seinem Geburtstag verstarb er am 21. Oktober" A few days after his birthday, he died on 21 October]. Volksstimme (Saxony-Anhalt) is considered a WP:RS, and on the German Wikipedia, there's a clear consensus that his date of death is 21 October [2]. If my arguments are still unpersuasive to you, please find me a reliable source published after his funeral that states 22 October. Renewal6 (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for just blindly reverting. But if you looked at the sources cited in the Gerneth entry at the List of the verified oldest people, you'll see that they do cite 22 October. Furthermore, your sources are also correct. Why? Because of the often-confusing time-zone policies. In Britain, where UTC time is located, it was 21 October. However, Germany has a different time zone, and there it was 22 October. (There was also confusion regarding the death-date of Jiroemon Kimura, with some sources reporting 11 June, others reporting 12 June.) Since Wikipedia uses homeland times for its longevity lists, Gustav Gerneth died on 22 October 2019. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You're wrong. ["Gustav Gerneth died peacefully on Monday night" Monday = 21 October] ["ist in der Nacht zu Dienstag" i. e. the night before Tuesday(22 October)] The sources in the article don't state 22 October, that is why I did not change them. Your second argument is not convincing. Why should a German local newspaper and his own obituary refer to British UTC time? Renewal6 (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. That's a personal attack. Besides, I stand by what I said before: If you want to challenge 2-year-old consensus, take it to the talk page. Start a discussion on WT:LONGEVITY. My talk page isn't a place to change things. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing is a personal attack? Obviously not. You were the one who repeatedly reverted my edits by assuming that his own official obituary is wrong. Thus, your talk page is the proper place to discuss this topic, and you can not simply ignore my two arguments.
 * Where is the archived discussion on this topic? I wasn't able to find this consensus. Renewal6 (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Seek in the revision history of List of the verified oldest people. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  11:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * [One edit by one editor is neither a discussion nor a consensus] Renewal6 (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor in question is the authority of longevity. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  11:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as an "authority on longevity" in Wikipedia, and even if there were it would not be TFBCT1. I'm not going to waste too much more time on this, but if the edit-warring continues I will have all the relevant articles fully protected until this dispute is properly resolved. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 04:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

There's a discussion that concerns you going on. Would you please share your opinion? Renewal6 (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at the hours of the user's editing. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  11:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably not the best place for this discussion. Based on other cases: Swedish Astrid Zachrison, and French Mathilde Lartigue who died on their respective 113th birthdays, the terminology “overnight” was used and the following day represented date of death.  So based on precedent my opinion falls on October 22 being Gustav Gerneth’s date of deathTFBCT1 (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But in which way does your opinion outweigh the evidence of his official obituary? I found another reliable source that states 21 October (his 115th birthday report, see above), and the sources included in the article do not state that his date of death is 22 October (I'm fluent in German, so I'm able to assess that). This is why I would like to restore my edits. Do you have any objections? Renewal6 (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said my opinion outweighs anything. My opinion is based on consensus and precedent, if you want to challenge consensus take the issue to a longevity talk page as advised above.  Further note, if your sources state Gerneth died at age 115, they would be unreliable.  It is well established that he died at the age of 114 years, 1 week.  I’m done with this issue here.TFBCT1 (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My source doesn't state that, it was published after his death as a commemoration. If you want to challenge the evidence of his official obituary, you are the one who is obliged to take it to a longevity talk page, not me. Thus, I will restore my edits and hopefully none of you will engage in a pointless edit war (I'm ready to discuss this further on another place, if necessary). Best wishes, Renewal6 (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Stop your disruptive editing (in your own words "just blindly reverting"). If it happens again, I will take it to the admins noticeboard. Renewal6 (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My editing is not disruptive in the slightest. I'm just following WP:BRD. If you want me to stop reverting, take it to a place where regular longevity editors will determine whether there is consensus for this change or not. In the meantime, I'll revert your edit at list of the oldest people by country. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , Chicdat and Renewal6: You are both edit warring on multiple pages simultaneously: . This is my only warning; please take this dispute to the relevant talk page(s) – if you continue reverting, you may be sanctioned. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice
--Blablubbs (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. 16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Saturnino de la Fuente García
In my opinion, he needs to be nominated for AFD. If you get time and you agree, maybe you could work your usual magic! Regards, MattSucci (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, of course. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  12:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.163.1.15.238 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

New message from Passengerpigeon
 Passenger pigeon  ( talk )  13:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Voluntary restriction
I formally agree to a voluntary restriction. I will treat this like an involuntary editing restriction, and administrators may treat this the same way. The details are:
 * I can edit freely in certain areas. They include
 * Everything in mainspace and talkspace
 * Everything in WikiProject Tropical cyclones
 * Everything in XfD
 * All areas of the village pump
 * Using my pending changes reviewer user right
 * I may not:
 * Involve myself with blocks or unblocks, except my own
 * Interact with until he/she is unblocked
 * Edit in any way an admin noticeboard, except in discussions concerning me and to appeal this ban
 * Close any discussion, except to withdraw if I started it (per ANI discussion)
 * Edit any other noticeboard (see below)
 * Edit WP:SPI
 * Retarget project-space redirects without a discussion at RFD
 * I may, but only under scrutiny in exceptional circumstances, edit:
 * AIV (e.g. a vandal destroying large numbers of pages)
 * UAA (e.g. an extraordinarily disruptive username, like "XXXX should be dead")
 * RFPP (e.g. a page being vandalized 30 times in 10 minutes)
 * An extremely controversial article
 * Templates (only after discussion and testing in the sandbox)

If I violate these conditions once, I will be given a final/only warning. Twice, and please block me. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Another thing
I take full responsibility of any article created by Kashmorwiki. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * ? ? ? ? CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Chicdat means that he doesn't want any of them to be speedy deleted under G5 I believe. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * As your mentor I'll watch over you in regards to your restrictions. To admins: I don't think Chicdat should not be indefinitely blocked in all areas of Wikipedia when he's violating these conditions multiple times. I'll prefer a temporary partial block (on Wikipedia: space in particular), but if these things build up, eventual indefinite partial block. (Reason why I said this is because this is how topic bans normally work) BTW, here's your adopt page to continue your lessons, and please read policies and guidelines to help answering these questions.  Mario Jump  83!  07:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Apparently what you are doing here is WP:HOUNDING which is a form of harassment against a user, by checking his contributions and spuriously taking responsibility of the articles that cannot be checked at least not under a minute the way you are doing.

WP:PROXYING says: "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. "

Where are your independent reasons other than to "I want to preserve creations of Kashmorwiki"? That's not a valid reason but violation of WP:PROXYING.

Since a number of users have already raised concern over your spurious attempts to take responsibility, I am going to give you an opportunity to self-revert yourself on these all articles that weren't edited by you before they were tagged for deletion. Failing this, I will need to report you to WP:AN. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Chicdat, I understand that you don't want Kashmorwiki's articles to be deleted, but you are not in a position to be saving his articles right now due to the scrutiny of your actions to do with Kashmorwiki; and it would probably be a good idea for you to stop taking responsibility for his articles .Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I may agree with Abhishek and Jackattack here. Given you are scrutinized over your actions with Kashmor you shouldn't take responsibility over these articles. I recommend that you have to self-revert these edits: Special:Diff/1021727837, Special:Diff/1021727467, Special:Diff/1021727330 and Special:Diff/1021727380.  Mario Jump  83!  12:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you didn't get active during May 7 I have reverted your edits, please see Special:Diff/1021727380 and Special:Diff/1021727467 for the reason.  Mario Jump  83!  03:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I just realized this violates the "Kashmorwiki interaction" part of my ban. Thank you for realizing first, and sorry that I couldn't be active during May 7. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Modification
I expand this ban to closing any discussion, except when withdrawing a discussion that I nominated, that had significant opposition. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  09:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have clarified that I can edit in any area relating to my pending changes reviewer rights. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Chicdat continues his disruptive editing. Thank you. Renewal6 (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

"Not a list"
I'm very confused as to your edits such as this. How is it not a list?

Also, not sure as to what the point is of having these separate from List of historical tropical cyclone names, which seems to cover the same topic in a much more convenient form (I don't see why grouping by the first letter of the storm name is going to be something that would interest our readers). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not a list, it is a set index article (see WP:SIA). 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  11:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Set index articles are list articles, though. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 12:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh. You're welcome to re-add "list" to it. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  12:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px"> You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Names_of_European_cities_in_different_languages_(U–Z). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed you were not notified of the ANI discussion where the reverts you and DSMN-ISHAGT made, and adjacent items including your block, are being discussed. You can find the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Any relevant comments you make here will be copied there if you ask. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I do have a comment to make, even though the block has already expired. It is as follows: (I am using the TQ template for this, to emphasise what I am saying.) My approx. 40 reverts were certainly inappropriate, however I was making them for several reasons, which are; I believed that reverting clear and obvious ban evasion (which DSMN-ISHAGT was doing) was exempt from 3RR, I could not make a comment at the user's thread at ANI because of my ban and what I wanted to do did not fall under BANEX (for this reason I sent messages to some admins); also, by the time you made the block, I had already logged off, not that that would make the block unjustified. Lastly I would like to apologise for violating WP:EW fifteen times over, and I fully deserved that block. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  11:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also add: WP:NOT3RR says explicitly 3. Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users. Therefore the block was against policy. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  11:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reporting vandalism at WP:AIV would definitely have been allowable per WP:BANEX, and you should (as I think you realise above) have stopped reverting when it was clear it wasn't working (it takes two to tango after all). The block (of both of you) was made to prevent what looked like ongoing active edit warring before investigating (as I noted in the ANI thread I was not familiar with this LTA and so your message on my talkpage was somewhat cryptic) and so was within policy. Had you responded with a message like the one you just left before the block expired I would have unblocked you (and I noted at ANI I'd have been happy with someone else doing it if I wasn't around at the time). Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I understand. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  11:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look into the block the other day and felt that it was well deserved as you should have sought support from the appropriate noticeboards rather than reverting the person 40 odd times in less than an hour even if they were a sockpuppet, banned user etc. I would also love to know what evidence you had for your assertion that the user was a sockpuppet, banned user etc as I am getting fed up of users acting on their gut about these things. I would also suggest that if you want to remain on Wikipedia, Chicdat, that you find a decent project to work through rather than trying causing drama by reverting users edits.Jason Rees (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My evidence for sockpuppetry? WP:LTA/BKFIP and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, a discussion that was open even before I began reverting. And the block's expired, so it's pretty much a closed matter. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  11:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Goni is now the most intense storm in 2020
Hi! can you edit all the Pages or Articles where Cyclone Yasa is still leading in 2020 which is the strongest because Typhoon Goni is stronger and FMS has weakened Cyclone Yasa so Goni is the Strongest. Daniel boxs (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , you told me which pages you wanted edited, I checked them out and told you no new edits needed to be done. Please stop posting the same message to other editors. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Three-revert rule
Template:Three-revert rule has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't. I'm banned, as you can see above, from the Wikipedia: namespace. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks for letting me know. If you have a substantive, policy- or guideline-based comment about this template, or if you wish to request its deletion before the TFD closes, please ping me from here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * or if you wish to request its deletion before the TFD closes Yes, please. I'm not even sure why I created that template. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)