User talk:Ikjbagl/Archive 1

Archive of old posts from when I used to blank my talk page, before understanding the importance of keeping an archive:

Translation project page
note to self: eventually set up a section on my userpage dedicated to translated works. Have a separate subpage just explaining that I like to do translations / giving a foreward and then list them all as a directory.

Discretionary sanctions alert

 * I am posting this on your talkpage out of an abundance of caution solely because you recently edited Talk:Sarah Jeong and, as the message says, not suggesting any policy violation by you. Abecedare (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation/clarification. Ikjbagl (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Jeong
Could you stop splitting my comment starting the survey? The whole point is to discuss the options together so that we can choose 1 for the article, not rehash the discussions above that were about each option separately. So each person would comment what option they prefer and why (including say Option 3) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Your version makes it incredibly hard to follow the page. I am trying to restore the formatting you removed but people keep commenting and it is extremely frustrating. I understand what you are trying to do, but I strongly disagree with you that it will help move the discussion along. I think it is only slowing it down. Ikjbagl (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is how most well-structured RfCs and the like follow - present the options, and discuss them together, to prevent continuous splitting of the discussion and instead keep it together and focused. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time believing that people will be able to follow a discussion like that, but I am probably not as experienced at this as you. If you really, REALLY think that it would be best for people to just throw a stream of consciousness about all the options and have editors wade through to try and pick which one has the best support among several, and if there is precedent for that working, then maybe do that, but I think this is just adding significant difficulty to discussing the options. I don't know how an editor is going to be able to assess people's level of support, especially on a contentious topic like this. People seem to be able to follow the split-up sections easily enough as it is. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not how it would be - look at how my comment is, the point is for editors commenting to pick one and explain why they think that one is best. See this discussion for an example. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, so you want people to just pick one. I see, I misunderstood. Maybe that would be better. I also don't know what is going to happen soon when the page protection runs out and all hell breaks loose. It seems like at least one more person is going to throw their version in, maybe we can do a comment/vote like you are suggesting once that is posted. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

What is the editing restriction on the article? It says semi-protected, I thought that meant autoconfirmed users had the right to edit. Ikjbagl (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Also, there is no reason for you to be so rude and short.
 * The next time you violate the editing restriction on the article, you will be blocked. Abecedare (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See the edit notice and Abecedare's talk page notice "You are not permitted to edit or expand the content related to recent tweet controversy without prior discussion and consensus on talkpage" Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Add: The edit notice specifying the restriction is visible when one open the article in edit-mode. Abecedare (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay I guess I scrolled right past that so it's my fault, but it is kind of hard to see. It might help if notices like that came up right before the edit box instead of the top of the page, but I assume that's not something that can be changed for individual pages. Ikjbagl (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Watriquet de Couvin


Hello, Ikjbagl. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Watriquet de Couvin.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Susan Kuhnhausen for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Susan Kuhnhausen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Susan Kuhnhausen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A loose necktie (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Pittsburgh flood of 1936
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Pittsburgh flood of 1936 a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. I have already added the article to the Requests for history merge page. ...Jokulhlaup (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your polite and informative explanation. Ikjbagl (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse Archive notice moved from here
A Teahouse Archive notice was moved from here and placed with the rest of the 2020 archive at User_talk:Ikjbagl/Archive_2. Ikjbagl (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)