User talk:Dsuke1998AEOS

Unsourced changes to figures
Hello, I'm Ohnoitsjamie. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure what change you're referring to. I noticed that some IPs were recently changing the population numbers at the article Talysh people. Maybe you intended to warn one of them? Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes, not intended for you. Sorry about that! OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * THE LACK OF INTELLIGENCE ON THE SUBJECT DOESN'T RESOLVE FUTURE ISSUES IN COMBAT. DR. ROBERT DUNCAN INVENTED THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT PEOPLE ARE INDEED TARGETED WITH.￼ 137.103.143.242 (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Genuinely curious
Thank you for your assistance at the various RFA venues. I have to wonder, though, how you managed to edit all of those pages within seconds of SilkTork closing the discussion, given that it was closed half an hour earlier than planned. Primefac (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually I was expecting for to close the RfA. It was only a fortunate coincidence that I planned to make the edits (in separate windows) about 30 minutes before the official closing time. I had the RfA in my watchlist, and when I saw  close the discussion I just clicked 'publish'. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"Template:R hexadecimal" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:R hexadecimal and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 26 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"Template:R from hex triplet" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:R from hex triplet and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 26 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"Template:R from codename" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:R from codename and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 24 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 09:21, 24 September 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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Unsigned
Just on the off chance you're using a script that is somehow borking, Special:Diff/1131492808 put the wrong date which caused the section to be immediately archived. Primefac (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for noticing. No, I didn't use any scripts, I added the timestamp manually. In any case, better for me to let do the task. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah. User:Anomie/unsignedhelper.js makes it a bit easier, saves having to find and/or type out the date. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll test later. Thanks, Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hello, Dsuke1998AEOS! You might be interested in endorsing an essay in which creation I participated – WP:NOCONFED. Of course, this is just a suggestion, nothing more. Cheers! —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 13:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Eh, ok. I will read your essay and if possible give an opinion on its talk page, though my gut feeling is that I will land on either the "Non-Endorsers" section or the section immediately below it. Cheers, Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move
Re your move of the Philip Cross article, see WP:AfD: While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. Please don't do this without at least discussing it on the talk page first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I've made a request to revert my move here. And I'm not going to touch the article again. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Eddie Wall (American footalll)


The page Eddie Wall (American footalll) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Deletion Review. Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: NTY (disambiguaton)
Hello Dsuke1998AEOS. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of NTY (disambiguaton), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: These types of redirects are typically fine. Certainly not bad enough to be an R3. Thank you. BangJan1999 14:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Philip Cross
Would you mind CSD'ing this redirect under WP:G7? It's not particularly helpful as the case can already be found by searching "Philip Cross" at Arbitration/Index/Cases. Further, redirects like that are generally only created at the direction of Arbcom.

I'm just asking personally here and not in any other capacity. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Fine, I have done it; I wasn't aware of that last fact. Though I have to note that I seem to get myself in trouble whenever I make an edit related to that editor. :) Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * [Thank you for the ping] lol just a bit of bad luck there. I guess don't play the lottery on Philip Cross's birthday! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for clarification on closure
Read your close, and even if we set aside 2:1 as "slightly more" (?) I'm wondering how you weighed the policy argument vs all the expressed subjective opinion. - jc37 03:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * That nomination differed from the usual RfD discussion in that the redirects weren't judged by their merits, but rather by the editors' perception of them being a net positive/negative. As a result most comments on both sides were subjective to some extent, and it wouldn't be right for me to give more weight to those opinions whom I agreed with.
 * The strongest policy-based arguments for deletion came from Scyrme, who posted a personal account of experience with ANI which can be considered evidence of the redirect being "discouraging for new users", but it isn't so extraordinary as to overrule the vast amount of "keep" !votes.
 * Of course, if you still aren't satisfied with my explanation, you are free to go to this venue. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pointing to DRV on the first response? lol, no worries, this isn't adversarial. It is what it is: a request for clarification.
 * And I noted at the top that there was "...all the expressed subjective opinion."
 * For the most part, it was "This is inappropriate for reasons" vs "We don't care, we want to say what we think about the place, for reasons".
 * And everyone who wanted to Call a spade a spade, should probably take a moment to contemplate: This is not a pipe. (shrugs)
 * But I also agree that there were a few standout comments, like the one you noted, or like NYB's "Redirects are not meant to be used as a vehicle for editorial comments about aspects of the project.".
 * But all that aside, I was asking you about policy (and guidelines). A closer doesn't only weigh the "us vs them" subjective opinions in a discussion, they also need to weigh the discussion in relation to the broader policy. (Especially when discussion is mostly ILIKEITIT/IWANTIT.) There were several policy-related comments, even though some did not link to a specific shortcut. And then some that did link to policy/guidelines. And I'm also curious if you went to go look at the principles and finding of fact of those two arbcom cases that were quoted. - jc37 19:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * First, I apologize if my comment sounded confrontational, and have struck out the relevant part – I had jumped to conclusions based on that largely sparked the AN thread.
 * That said, I don't see how the two arbitration cases that you mentioned have much relevance to the redirects. One had revolved around an editor who caused a lot of drama for chronic incivility, while the other was about an administrator who made a remark widely perceived as a personal attack and even as xenophobic. These cases are not in any way comparable to linking to a snarky and semi-humorous shortcut in a non-personalized context, mostly to make rhetorical points. Not even close. The existence of these redirects is only a by-product of so many editors perceiving ANI as an unpleasant place. That many of these editors want for it to not be a "cesspit" should serve as a refutation of the argument that the redirects are an extension of the toxicity they describe. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I won't argue that I experienced more than a little lack of good faith there, especially by those who apparently missed that I pinged everyone, not just those that opposed...
 * So, no, I'd like to think that I'm not what others may have wanted to portray me to be - c'est la vie I suppose.
 * And you don't need to apologize, all things considered, your response was and has been quite civil, and appreciated : )
 * Anyway, for the next part of your response, I do think you're teetering close to "supervote" territory, in that you seem to have accepted the argument that attacking a place where people come together is not an attack on the people who come together there. There was a disagreement on that in the discussion, to be sure, but you as closer probably shouldn't be making that determination on your own. Same for you accepting that it was "mostly" a rhetorical point that people were making. I might argue that actual usage might disagree with what the opposers were aver-ing about how they felt about AN/I. (See also User talk:Floquenbeam#Why_ask_for_objections? (not pinging at their request) for some possible additional thoughts on the subject of AN/I.)
 * As for arbcom, the applicable sections in question: Etiquette, Good faith and disruption, Fair criticism, Offensive commentary, from the one. And Decorum, and Scottywong's manner, from the other.
 * All of which would suggest that editors shouldn't be doing what the commenters were saying they wanted to do with these redirects, in the way that they wanted, nor for the reasons they stated that they wanted to.
 * And finally, I'm still wondering about what your thoughts were on the applicability of Redirects_for_discussion point #3. - jc37 02:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Just wanted to thank you for your closure here. It's a thankless job and I think you handled it well.

–– Formal Dude  (talk)  04:47, 29 July 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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Socking" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socking&redirect=no Socking] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Skarmory  (talk •   contribs)  16:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement appeals
One stage of the appeal process is to "request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN")". I noticed you moved a discussion from AN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1198920978 but you did not put the reason in the edit summary. Was there a reason for this move? Peter James (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not know that AE appeals could also be posted at WP:AN. I'm undoing my move. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

"Thomas Castro" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Castro&redirect=no Thomas Castro] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I have re-read the Tichborne case article, and am still undecided on the outcome of the redirect's target. I will abstain from formally casting a !vote. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"ELMatronmaker/sandbox2" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ELMatronmaker/sandbox2&redirect=no ELMatronmaker/sandbox2] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

CSD tags
Just wanted to let you know that CSD tags can be reinstated if they are removed without explanation (as was the case here). This is completely different from PROD tags which can only be removed once. I've now moved the page to userspace and closed the nomination at RfD. CycloneYoris talk! 18:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I was afraid that I would be violating some rule if I reinstated the CSD tag. Regards, Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's actually a bit of a grey area. Speedy deletion criteria only apply when they are uncontroversial, so if someone objects then that's often a sign that the deletion is controversial and so it should be taken to CSD. However, this does not apply when the objection is not made in good faith, or (in many cases) when a tag is removed by the author. When a tag is removed without explanation and the original rationale objectively still applies (e.g. the only way to contest a copyvio is to show that either it isn't a copyvio or that it's sufficiently complicated that more investigation is needed).
 * In the case of a nomination for "this page was obviously created in error", the person who made the apparent error removing the tag should be read as them stating "this was not an error". Ideally they should explain why it wasn't an error, but if they don't the best first step is to ask them on their talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)