User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2022/October

You blocked me on the test wikis
Despite what you said in the “2001:8003::/32” section on the talk page, where you said “I don’t see a strong reason to block the range”, you blocked me from [| here] and [| there]. 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:9541:78E9:CB4:9EE4 (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * EDIT: It was “Jeff G.” instead. Talk to him about it. 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:9541:78E9:CB4:9EE4 (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I also reported you at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  — Jeff G. ツ 10:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I did nothing wrong. But, can you get banned for not creating an account? 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:9541:78E9:CB4:9EE4 (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you can't get banned for not creating an account — your contributions on don't exactly seem to be, but blocking the /32 for a year for mild vandalism (on a test site which doesn't really have a policy to support such a block) seems a bit much. The contributions on  certainly didn't warrant a block — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly! There is no such thing as “vandalism” on a test wiki anyway. I will, however, be banned on THIS site (the English Wikipedia) for “good hand / bad hand vandalism, WP:NOTHERE and importing drama”. I have not done any of these. @Tamzin I am NOT appealing blocks on other wikis on here. 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:9541:78E9:CB4:9EE4 (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @2001: I've reënabled your talkpage access on testwiki. You are welcome to submit an unblock request there using testwiki:Template:Unblock. Please do not use the English Wikipedia to appeal blocks from other wikis. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 11:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. *Goes to the test wiki to make an unblock request* 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:9541:78E9:CB4:9EE4 (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I gave up my adminship on test over a year ago and have never edited the project. I have no control over how they operate. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 11:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was Jeff G., not you. I thought you blocked me until I read the block template. 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:9541:78E9:CB4:9EE4 (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I made my talk page on the test wiki with the unblock template 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:9541:78E9:CB4:9EE4 (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am [| 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:9541:78E9:CB4:9EE4] just with a different IP. I am currently trying to avoid getting block by Jeff G. for “WP:NOTHERE”. I have not done that. I am here to edit. 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:441B:ACF9:1716:BEC1 (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted Page
Where I could find Deleted Vladas Knašius Basketball School page details to save it to my personal archive.

Thanks Paulmafija (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no way for you to access it. An admin could send the text to you -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 19:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leander Schnerr
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Leander Schnerr 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 Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

closing panel
Thank you for being great to work with, I'd join you on a future panel any time! Valereee (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Valereee: You as well! -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 17:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leander Schnerr
The article Leander Schnerr you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Leander Schnerr for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leander Schnerr
The article Leander Schnerr you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Leander Schnerr for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you for the star, TZ. The close was not an easy one -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 20:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Personal testing filter
Hey Guerillero. Regarding Special:AbuseFilter/history/1190/diff/prev/27854, there's generally been an unwritten convention that filters with names like "'s testing filter" are like user sandboxes: not exactly OWNed, but try to avoid messing with them unless they are causing problems. This also means, of course, not enabling any actions (warn/disallow) on your own testing filter. Apologies if you already asked about this but I didn't see anything. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Suffusion of Yellow: We discussed it off wiki. Thank you for the heads up -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 20:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah that explains it. Thanks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep all good - I thought rather than create a copy we might as well iterate in place. :) firefly  ( t · c ) 20:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

greetings
Following the July topic ban you imposed upon me, I asked you on at least three occasions if you believed you had the authority for it. I don't recall you responded. On August 1, after being blocked and thus precluded from Talking to you in a timely manner, I sent you a lengthy email describing why I believed the sanction was both inadequately predicated and improperly executed. You did not respond, though perhaps the email went to your spam folder, and I concede I did not request a response from you, stating I would address the matter in an appropriate venue upon my return.

Despite the vitriol hurled at me during the Recession article episode, which I consider veritable character assassination that ranged from specious arguments to outright lies to vicious bile, any question as to whether I "got what I deserved" is superseded by what appears to be an improper sanction. The "why" of the sanction is irrelevant; only the "how" of the sanction is relevant.

In good faith, I welcome your input as to how we might remedy this matter in a mutually-agreeable way that does not rely on adjudication by others. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Soibangla: Your topic ban expired 2 months ago. The topic was within the scope of WP:AMPOL. You were aware due to this notice from Feb 2022. It was well within my authority as an uninvolved administrator. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 18:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The February 2022 DS alert you reference related specifically to "post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people." Does Recession fall under that topic area? In this "Eyes needed at Recession" thread, an editor suggested Recession might be added to AP2 under the present circumstances, but an administrator disagreed. If Recession falls under AP2, there would be a notice on the edit page, but there is not. There is no logical reason Recession should fall under AMPOL, and thence AP2, because it is a science topic, not politics (despite some characterizing it as "the dismal science") and I don't see it does. As an aside, as one who is educated, trained and professionally experienced in economics, I am an economics purist who seeks to keep politics out of economics articles, and that was the persistent and central thrust of my Recession Talk page argumentation (which BTW ultimately prevailed by RFC consensus "by far" weeks after I left the discussion and finally implemented weeks after that.)


 * I had twice stated on my Talk page I was leaving the discussion about 24 hours before you banned me.


 * In summary, many editors aggressively sought to inject into the lead a WP:RECENT political "scandal" they'd heard from the "usual suspects" of conservative media, and after my vehement efforts to stop them led to me being banned, I watched my "inevitable vindication unfold."


 * From what I understand, the appeal "window" expires when the sanction expires, but because I was subsequently blocked for the duration of the ban, I was precluded from appealing before the window closed.


 * I maintain the ban was improper by policy, and unjustified for a host of reasons. I was depicted as the villain; how'd that turn out? pssst...the bad guys got away. soibangla (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * soibangla: if I may interject, I think you're still a bit confused about how the discretionary sanctions process works. It does not operate on a page level, it operates on an edit level. It's possible the recession article is broad enough that it's not useful to add a tag suggesting discretionary sanctions applies to the article, and maybe it's also not useful to add page restrictions. However every edit on that page, as with every edit on every page on the English wikipedia, is still affected by discretionary sanctions if the edit falls under some discretionary sanctions topic area. In your personal case, since you're aware of the American politics discretionary sanctions as well as the BLP one, you can be sanctioned for any edits you make anywhere on the English wikipedia where your edits relate to these two topic areas. This includes adding or removing something and even discussing something relating to American politics. So if you are adding or removing a recent controversy about recession that relates to American politics, then yes your edits are affected. Because post 1992 American politics has been a problem area where there has been significant problems, you need to take extra care to ensure your editing is appropriate when it falls under that topic no matter what page. The point of discretionary sanctions is to make it easier to prevent disruption, and we do not want editors causing disruption all over the place but not being affected by DS because the pages they're working on are very broad ones. Indeed, if an editor is trying to interject recent American politics disputes into a bunch of broad articles where such things clearly do not belong, that's actually one form of disruption DS is intended to help us stop. But it's always a two way street, so you can be disruptive even if you are opposing such things depending on what you do. Also, as always on Wikipedia, being right or trying to enforce text that ultimately achieves consensus does not excuse editing which is disruptive/problematic. Actually, even if there is existing consensus which your editing is trying to preserve, you can still edit in a manner that is disruptive. Note that I have not looked into your edits in much detail so I'm not making any comment on whether there were problems with your edits. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Soibangla: You can believe what you would like, but per Nil Einne, above, I believe my topic ban was within scope. I do not wish to discuss this issue any further. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 13:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail Comment

 * done -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 20:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Close challenge at Articles for deletion/DWEC-FM
Hey, I think you should reconsider your closure of Articles for deletion/DWEC-FM--keep !voters have not presented any real case for keep beyond the vague assertion that it meets GNG. I'm fine with other editors disagreeing with my assessment of sources, but if they're contesting the analysis I and others gave then they need to provide a counter-analysis of which sources in fact do comprise significant independent coverage. At a minimum, a relist seems in order. signed,Rosguill talk 21:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Rosguill: AfD's closed as redirect do not lock the redirect in. If you would like to do something like that, you need to start an RfC on the talk page. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 21:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, you closed the AfD as keep outright, not as redirect. Was this not your intended close?signed,Rosguill talk 21:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rosguill: I see that there is a numerical advantage for keeps and that they are making a case that the article passing the GNG. From that, I see a rough consensus. However, I will relist it. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 22:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marriage License
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marriage License 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 Legobot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hope you are doing well
A good while back you were a contributor to my first appeal to my topic ban. At the time you did not feel I properly understood the reasons for the ban, and objected. I am now re-appealing the ban at the administrator's noticeboard. Feel free to review the circumstances and appeal to the topic ban and chime in there.

I apologize that I contacted you after the other contributors to the previous appeal discussions. I just noticed that I somehow had failed to post a message on your page when contacting others. SecretName101 (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for NAFO (group)
Vanamonde 00:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Citations below peaks on discography articles
Hi. I understand it wasn't your intention, but by removing the citations placed directly below the peaks on Taylor Swift singles discography here, you left the information unsourced. When citations are placed directly below peaks on discography articles, the majority of the time that is intended to indicate they are only temporary until the header source update with the information, as the header source(s) are permanent and there's no point intending to permanently move temporary citations to the permanent header source. This is very common on discography articles. Thanks.  Ss  112   23:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Ss112: You may revert. --  Guerillero  Parlez Moi 23:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marriage License
The article Marriage License you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marriage License for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Terracon
I am baffled about how "Terracon" was deleted, when there were history, awards and subsidiaries listed on the page. Can you please enlighten me, and ping me when you reply? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Jax 0677 There was a consensus to delete the page at Articles for deletion/Terracon. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 15:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk page also
Toa is still creating disruption on the GOP article talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying things you don’t like =\ disruption. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is Toa allowed to comment here? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He's 1-week banned from editing the page. He's not banned from its talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem in these situations is that the discussions are often the most disruptive activity, which may be why partial blocks aren't so common. They don't stop all engagement on the topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Guerillero, this is turning into a clusterfuck because Toa is free to roam around and take actions directly affecting the article they are blocked from editing, such as attempting to protect the article and affect an ongoing RfC on the article's talk page. This abuse reveals they need a complete AP2 topic ban. Seriously, and fast.

The following comment at AE mentions the problem:


 * They submitted a RPP to try to get Republican_Party_(United_States) fully protected and restored to their preferred version.
 * In the middle of an ongoing discussion about whether an RfC should be started, Toa went ahead and started an RfC themselves at the talk page of the article that they're blocked from editing. They didn't take any WP:RFCBEFORE steps to work with other editors on drafting the RfC.
 * –– FormalDude  (talk)  02:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC) }}

At AE there are more concerns, this time from Black Kite:


 * * Edit: The persistent edit-warring on the Republican Party article whilst this AE was open suggests very strongly that a topic-ban is definitely required. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

and


 * * Even during an AE report, TN05 is again shoehorning negative information into Stacey Abrams which the citation doesn't support. In this edit, they change "her efforts have been widely credited with boosting voter turnout in Georgia" to "her efforts have been credited by celebrities and Democratic activists..." despite the actual source saying, quite clearly, "Celebrities, activists and voters credited Ms. Abrams...". This bit of semantics is done, of course, to give the idea that "ordinary people" didn't credit Abrams. Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I am very familiar with WP:WEASEL, thanks. However, my ability to AGF only stretches so far.  When someone who has persistently inserted negative material into a particular BLP in the past makes a wording change to that BLP which may make some readers believe something different from what the source actually says, it is unsurprising that I would assume that has been done deliberately. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Their comments at the talk page are also deceptive in that they don't even mention that they are the cause of the whole mess, are semi-blocked, and were brought to AE. That confused other editors, so I had to inform them that what they considered helpful information from Toa was not as helpful as thought because critical information and background was being withheld from them. Please turn the semi-block into a full AP2 topic ban. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Reverted comment
No idea what Special:Diff/1119294528 meant, but I see you've reverted it. I have no idea how it's going. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I should have left reading tea leaves to the experts -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 19:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)