User talk:Ixtal/Archives/2022/February

Closing Cases at DRN
You have closed multiple cases at DRN with the note that there has not been extensive discussion. I agree that the discussion in those cases was not extensive, and they were not ready for DRN. You then recommended that a neutral Request for Comments be used before filing a case request. I disagree, and would prefer that advice not be given in that form. DRN is one of the options after there has extensive inconclusive discussion at the article talk page. An RFC is another such option. In particular, I think that advising RFC prior to DRN reverses the order in which different stages of dispute resolution are in order. Sometimes DRN is followed by an RFC. On the other hand, if there has already been an RFC, DRN is very seldom appropriate. If the RFC resulted in a consensus, then DRN is likely to be bludgeoning a dead horse. If an RFC does not result in consensus, DRN is not likely to result in consensus either. So please don't advise an RFC first. It should be discussion first, then either DRN or an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I greatly appreciate your giving me advice on this, . I am of course just a beginner at DRN and your experience and reputation on dispute resolution is one I am glad to learn from. Thanks for the detailed explanation.In the case of the Irvington request, as the filer explicitly said the purpose of filing a DRN request was exclusively to get input from more people due to another editor's behaviour, I recommended an RfC due to its ability to outdo the negative effects of local consensus or niche-ness of articles through its notification system. I did not wish to imply that RfC is a strict requirement before a DRN case or that there is some chronological order between the two, but rather that the underlying need for resolution as laid out by the filer was one that would be best served by doing an RfC on the matter. Of course, the opposite party declined participation and that would've been enough to dismiss the request but I thought I'd propose the RfC option.Regarding the Bengal tiger and Supercomputer requests, I see how my closing text was wrong and won't recommend an RfC before DRN in future content dispute requests. Again, thanks for dropping by my talk page :) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 21:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Long Island iced tea
The article Long Island iced tea 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:Long Island iced tea for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HenryCrun15 -- HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Long Island iced tea
The article Long Island iced tea you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Long Island iced tea for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HenryCrun15 -- HenryCrun15 (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Not apologizing and remaining absolute
I'm not going to apologize and I don't feel bad for my removal on the List of fictional characters with disabilities page or any of the things I said in the discussion. I fully expected it to be reversed, but I did the removal anyway because I was tired of the worthless (and frankly unnecessary) discussion on the talk page of that list page started by an IP address who never even contributed in the discussion after their first comment. In retrospect, I should have just reversed the comment by the IP address and never began the discussion to begin with. I still stand by the idea that there wasn't any consensus or "decision," in part because I feel there wasn't enough participation (no one seemed to care about that but me) to warrant a claim of consensus or a decision. It seemed certain users (not going to name anyone in particular) wanted to wrap up the discussion too quickly, almost like they had a vested interest in doing so. As a result of this discussion, I pulled out of the WikiProject focused on disability topics, and want no part in fixing up the Sexuality and disability page, which is an utter mess. I've made way too many concessions over and over when editing for LGBTQ topics on here, which I have come to accept as a necessary part of editing on here. I have no energy to make yet another concession (removing all mentions of LGBTQ identity from the list page) to make a handful of users happy. Apparently the "consensus" is to make the page anti-queer and anti-LGBTQ, i.e. imply that every character on that page is straight, which I disagree with wholeheartedly, but its what the users have purportedly "agreed" to. I have no time, or energy, to get into petty arguments anymore, or to imply that certain editors are leading the character to remove sexual orientation based on their race, gender, and ethnicity... I'll go back to editing "safe" pages where arguments like this one won't occur. I have no interest in creating a Disability and LGBT identities page either or "fixing" the list page. I feel as I'm not wanted there, as the discussion clearly indicates. I will not be returning to do any editing on that list page (which I've come to believe is a totally unnecessary page which should be merged into the disability page and turned into a redirect anytime soon or that mess of a page, the one named "Sexuality and disability." Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * before anything, I want to say I appreciate the work you do on Wikipedia on animation (and other forms of popular media), characters, and lists of both. I hope you don't feel unwelcome by either my edits or comments on talk pages, as I would hate for that to be the case and deeply apologize if it is. Firstly, as much as I personally don't agree with allowing IP editing, we need to understand that they're an important part of the wiki ecosystem and shouldn't be dismissed wholesale. The IP raised valid concerns in a civil manner and there should be no expectation for an editor to continually engage in threads they start. On the consensus side, I strongly disagree and believe there was consensus in the talk page that LGBT identities should not be included in descriptions of character disabilities. You mention that you believe there wasn't enough participation in the thread for there to be consensus. While WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is certainly a thing that exists and might affect the consensus reached on the talk page, the fact that a small number of editors engaged in the discussion does not mean that the consensus achieved should be dismissed. If you feel that the consensus was negatively affected by the number of editors involved, there are plenty of ways to request dispute resolution or further discussion (e.g WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:DRN) which should be used. Dismissing the consensus and editing against it can be considered disruptive and won't get you far in the discussion anyways. If you feel certain users wanted to wrap up the discussion too quickly I would certainly recommend starting an RfC on the topic as the 30-day expected duration would prevent that from happening (or be a great obstacle to close the discussion prematurely). I understand editing LGBT topics can be infuriating and cause great deals of stress and impotence (I myself have been involved over at Irreversible Damage and ROGD in a terribly discouraging discussion for a few months now). I have experienced many of the feelings you share above with me. You are certainly encouraged to continue editing in safer pages if that'll help keep you part of the project. I personally would hate to see such a productive and unique editor like you leave Wikipedia. However, I don't think any editor in the discussion was trying to make the page anti-queer. Other editors as well as myself are queer and believe mentions of LGBTQ identity were not WP:DUE in the page and could be demeaning to LGBTQ readers and editors. If you disagree with that consensus and wish to get wider community consensus through an RfC, I'd be very glad to help draft a neutrally worded RfC for that purpose in my talk page, as I think both sides had compelling arguments and wider opinions on the matter would probably suggest a middle-ground approach that would mostly satisfy all sides. As a final note, I agree that the Sexuality and disability page is in a terrible state and can only feel sad that, in a world where I can't fight all the battles I wish I could, I'll have to leave that page for a more dedicated editor with more interest in that topic area to bring the article to the quality the encyclopedia needs. I hope none of my reply feels passive-aggressive or dismissive and even if you don't reply I hope we continue to meet on wiki in the future, :). I hope you enjoy the rest of your week and had a restful weekend. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 21:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edits and what you have done doesn't make me feel unwelcome... it was other users that made me not feel unwelcome. I'm not going to name specific people, as I have named specific people in the past and well, that didn't go so well for me, so I'd rather speak about it in generalities. I understand that IP editing is important, and I have come around to it, although sometimes it can be disruptive. Even if I had reverted that comment by the IP user instead of responding on January 26, I would guess that someone would have reverted my edit, and brought it back, pulling me into the discussion regardless. While I'm still not entirely convinced there was a consensus and feel the discussion was wrapped up too quickly, I suppose in this case WP:LOCALCONSENSUS could apply. I could, if I wished, "request dispute resolution or further discussion" but honestly. I'd be willing for you to draft a neutrally-worded RfC, even though I predict there would be the same result at the end of the day. I suppose it would be worth a try. I have dealt with that one editor you mentioned on the Irreversible Damage talk page before, who appeared annoyed you called out some editors as transphobic (like that is a bad thing? It's not). That discussion on there definitely seemed dispiriting. I would hope that none of the editors on there were "trying to make the page anti-queer" and I do have to agree that the Sexuality and disability page is in a terrible state too. I wish I had time to deal with it, but I've been trying to lessen my time on here and I still have pages that I'd like to create in the future. Your response doesn't feel passive-aggressive or dismissive. I guess, at times, I can be a bit too passionate about this stuff and it spills out in arguments, so I have to constantly restrain that impulse. Historyday01 (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you think an RfC is worth a shot. I have included a draft right below and would appreciate any comments you might have on it. I've worded it based on the options raised in the discussion. In terms of passion, I think your passion is a great thing. After all, it's what is driving you to make more content for Wikipedia and engage in discussions. I myself often let that passionate overtake me (my ADHD's impatience doesn't help with that, gotta say), but reading WP:CANDOR and If— often bring me back to the ground. Don't lose your passionate drive,, it's something to treasure! My proposed RfC:
 * How should the list include information on characters' sexuality, gender identity, and/or relationships:
 * Wikipedia's interests in increasing the visibility of both disabilities and LGBTQ+ identities while diminishing the possibility of demeaning or hurtful presentations of these minorities sometimes may cause tension that is difficult to resolve. Issues arising in this area must be addressed with a high sensitivity to the competing concerns and editors must remain civil and continue to assume good faith from others in the discussion. This RfC is an effort to address such an issue on this page.
 * The list should not include this information and limit itself just to describing the disability of the character(s);
 * Add an additional column to the list titled "Character Notes" to include this information and other character descriptors that readers might find interesting or relate to, keeping the disability information in a "Disabilities" column;
 * The list should include this information in the "Notes" section (status quo)
 * Thoughts? A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 07:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That RfC looks good to me. I won't lose my passionate drive, for sure. Historyday01 (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That RfC looks good to me. I won't lose my passionate drive, for sure. Historyday01 (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)&#32; on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Help with a user who won't communicate
After the problems with RepresentUs I made the mistake of looking at which pages was editing. He had added some material to a page that wasn't supported by the sources, so I removed it. He added it back, with more sources, but none of them say what he claims. Instead of discussing it on the talk page, he is leaving messages on the talk pages of other articles. I don't think I am being overly sensitive when I say that the second one looks like he is calling me homophobic. He was insulting in the Conflict of Interest discussion and here he was very passive aggressively calling me names ("I'm not trying to destroy the RepresentUs page unlike another editor"). Is there anything I can do about this? I know it's partly my fault for not just leaving things alone, but after I saw what he did on RepresentUs I was concerned. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * thanks for dropping by my page, I'm always glad to hear you out. WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE offers some possible paths you can take to resolve the dispute. Seeing how he's just blanked his user page (entirely in his right to do, I will say) right after you added a new section there inquiring about his actions, I don't expect you discussing this in his talk page will do much. Those are the things you can do, but there's a lot of things that will happen without you needing to do anything. Yes, discussing the issue in other article's talk pages is both wrong and immensely infuriating to the other party, but generally has no effect. I would recommend ignoring that behaviour. That is not to say that you are being overly sensitive (you are not), but that many of the editor's actions won't have influence either the article or on how the community sees you. Finally, and probably my more actionable recommendation, is to go to WP:BLPN when another editor repeatedly adds unsourced or badly sourced information to a biography of a living person. There are dozens of experienced editors watching that noticeboard that will be more than glad to step in and help resolve the dispute (WP:WPBIO or other wikiprojects relevant to the article might be other alternatives). I've left a short comment on Tomwsulcer's talk page and ask you not to comment on that thread, but thought I'd notify you in case the advice I've given him is helpful to you as well and so you know that I'll try my best to iron this out between you two :)A final two comments: it is generally helpful and calming to remember that trusting the Wikipedia community always leads to the best possible resolution. And in case it is useful, I really enjoy the essay Imagine others complexly. Tomwsulcer is acting in the way he thinks will most improve the wiki. It's probably confusing, or hurtful, or ineffective (or even none of these!); but chances are he's doing it because he genuinely, truly, to his core thinks that's the best way to act. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 00:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Another alternative to the Imagine others complexly read is the last quote at the top of my userpage, a personal favorite of mine. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 00:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very helpful. I was assuming that Tomwsulcer was trying to improve the page on someone he respects, so I found it confusing when he didn't seem to want to discuss his changes. It seems counterproductive for him. Maybe your words will help. I hope so. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks
I've taken a bit of a step back for a day or so from the contentious discussion at the list of disabled characters page. I've just taken a look there and found the discussion has unfortunately been gutted. However, I've come to your page to thank you for your efforts to moderate the process. Your contribution is much appreciated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Your comment is much appreciated, . I tried my best :) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 10:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Shusha
Hello there. I noticed that you closed this discussion as a no-consensus. I would like to raise two points, if I may. (1) It looks like Option 3 received only four votes, while Option 1 received six (I am also counting the last vote, which was, in any case, against Option 3). Is this really a case of a split vote? (2) My second concern is the summary of the result. You mentioned that "Supporters of 3 believed that disclosing the ethnicity of the sources would be beneficial in the interest of neutrally covering the topic", when it looks to me as if Option 3 was meant to state quite obviously the nationality of the two Azerbaijani authors only and to make no mention of the nationality of Nersesov, hence syntactically "pushing" him under the qualification of being "Azerbaijani" as the former two. I would be interested in your ideas. Parishan (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , thanks for dropping by my talk page. I will first respond to your second point. I understand that you may disagree (based on your vote) with option 3 supporters' idea of neutrality and see it as POV pushing, but taking a few quotes from their rationales (e.g. disclosing any possible ethnic conflict interest of authors is important in this controversial topic and proper in-text attribution is required to make sure that readers are aware that viewpoint is not standard throughout 19th century sources such as would be the case in number one) indicates that they believed this option would be the most neutral when covering the topic (see WP:BIASEDSOURCES). You may feel differently, but that is the perspective they showed (from what I can tell). I make no comment as to whether that is the proper understanding of neutrality guidelines or the more neutral option in this particular case, and point that Nersesov's ethnicity seems to have been discussed at length in both other talk page threads and WP:AE cases indicating it's not as clear-cut an issue as your comment above describes it as being.
 * In regards to your first point, I will remind you that consensus is not based off voting. There were basically two incompatible sides to the discussion differing by one editor (thinking of it in a zero sum fashion) if we judge the consensus by just strict voting count, which I don't think is enough of a difference to call it consensus. Additionally, neither side had a much stronger argument than the other nor was there much interaction between the sides where their arguments could be fully debated.
 * I will say, though, that I think many of these consensus-limiting factors are due to how low the participation was in the RfC. I've gone through 's contributions from when he started the RfC and don't see any rfc notices being added to relevant WikiProjects (both those listed in the Article talk page as well as WP:History and WP:European history due to the nature of the discussion). I would suggest starting another discussion and advertising it in these WikiProject talk pages to encourage more discussion if you still desire for a clearer consensus to be reached. For an RfC where editors involved have very recently been involved in AE for this topic area and began a failed DRN case not advertising the RfC widely enough is really negative to the outcome. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 22:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Answer to your question
I answered your question on the WTW talk page, but on reconsideration just removed my comment(s) as too long and possibly digressing. The reply is visible in the talk page history if you are interested and did not see it. I'm not entirely satisfied with it AS an answer but it's OK as an approximate version of what I would ideally have said given time to write something more precise. Sesquivalent (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * , I just realized I never replied here, my apologies. Thanks for your comment, I did read it. Sadly it's been a while so I don't remember what my thoughts on it were. Damn adhd! Anyhow, thanks for dropping by my talk page, and I hope you enjoy the weekend. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 00:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Village pump discussion
Do my changes to subproposal 12 make it easier for you to understand how to contribute to it? I realize now while the structure is needed, the explanation could have been better. BilledMammal (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Honestly my main issue is that since none of the subproposals' discussions have been closed it's a bit difficult to figure out where to start as the discussion has been ongoing for about a month. Thanks for dropping by my talk page, btw, . Much appreciated :) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 20:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Several cups of tea is probably the right place to start. BilledMammal (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ate a nice meal and went through it, . Honestly the discussion is much more calm and enjoyable than I expected. I've made a small proposal on the talk page and am curious to see where it goes. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 15:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

HeeraDrishti
Was leaving talk in a number of places before being blocked. I undid that edit thinking it was more of the same. Didn't realize there was more to it. My apology! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , thanks for clarifying. Your gnoming is greatly appreciated! A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 09:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for advise and assistance for Exohood article bettering
Hello A. C. Santacruz, I would like some help or advise on how to better the article that I created (Exohood). The editing that I made recently was regarding the notifications that Wikipedia made about it being an "Orphan Article" and requesting to add a "Category".


 * Regarding the "Orphan Article" Issue: In the recommendations of Wikipedia, it said that I should provide links to the article from other Internal or external Articles, therefore I searched other articles regarding DeFi projects and added the "See Also" section in order to provide a healthy link to it. I meant to do no spam or violate any Wikipedia norm whatsoever.


 * Regarding the "Category" Issue: I added the articles category just as Wikipedia describes in its rules.


 * Finally, I added the term "EXO" on the page of "EXO Disambiguation" in order to include what could be another reference to the term "EXO" regarding to DeFi Token of the Exohood Project.

I would really appreciate it if you could guide me to comply with all of Wikipedia's requirements regarding the article.

Note: I now have seen that the Article has been nominated for deletion by a user that has been blocked for "Disruptive editing: abusive speedy tagging after warnings". So, I would like your appreciation about this case.

Thanks for your time. I understand that you're only interested for what's best for Wikipedia but I would really appreciate your advice and guide through this issue. That Article was very hard work. Efraindjc - Talk to me 16:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , thanks for coming by my page. I will preface this by saying there is no guarantee or expectation that Exohood will be kept as a result of the current deletion discussion. I will start by saying that an article being an orphan is probably something that you, as both a new editor and the article creator, should not bother fixing. I say this because you are unlikely to understand the Wikipedia policies and guidelines on content and your inclusion might be considered disruptive. Adding see also sections is one way to do so. See also sections should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic (per description in the relevant layout guideline), and you are probably too unexperienced on Wikipedia to understand what that exactly means. I'll list some examples below:
 * WWII lists Index of World War II articles, Lists of World War II topics, Outline of World War II, Lists of World War II military equipment;
 * NFL lists some articles closely related; and for a more similar case
 * Global financial system (an article one could see as closely related to Decentralized finance) only lists List of finance topics in the see also section.
 * Do note that there is a big issue on wikipedia of people attempting to promote cryptocurrencies and crypto platforms (like Exohood) due to financial incentives, so any behaviour an editor makes in this topic will see more scrutiny than in many other areas of Wikipedia. That is why I reverted your edit and gave you a warning, but I gave you the lowest level of warning possible as it was not seriously disruptive. The rest of the editing you describe does not seem outside of the guidelines to me from a first impression.I will mention, though, that the editor who nominated Exohood for deletion has all the right to do so. If you want to avoid it being deleted it is you who must provide two or three instances of significant coverage. I would also say that proposing that the article be moved to a draft space where you can improve it if there is no significant coverage until such sources are produced in the future is another alternative. I hope this helps. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 17:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup?
Thanks for your help today. I went on to mark a page for deletion, my first ever :-) Also, years ago I did a few minor changes to a few pages, and also added a personal page for myself. I don't see any of that anymore. Do these personal pages get cleaned up after a while? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japkiw (talk • contribs) 20:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see that personal page as one of your contributions, . Are you sure you were logged in and/or hit the "Publish Page" button? I do see the deletion nomination, however. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 21:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Never mind, it's not really important, I was just curious.Japkiw (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , sure. I'm still glad you came by my talk page to ask . A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's great that you are so welcoming to new people! I also solved the mystery: I have a separate Talk page on the Dutch Wikipedia, that's where my previous edits were :-)Japkiw (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I always try to do my best to make sure newcomers are welcome, . After all, we were all new to Wikipedia editing at some point (I've barely been editing myself for a year)! A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 16:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice
It is appropiate to stress a government/rebel dichotomy as Carlists barely hanged on rural areas in the North and the North East. They did not even hold control of big cities in their core territories (not to say they were quite far from the centre of political power). Failing to do that, the lead gives a misleading outline of the topic. Amateur, so to speak. And last but not least, defenders of the Ancien régime are better described in this context as reactionaries rather than as "Conservatives".--Asqueladd (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * please discuss this on the article talk page rather than on mine. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 18:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Only if you are willing to participate. If not, I will just go on with the changes.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am certainly willing to participate! I also agree with parts of your changes but thought discussion of content is best left to the talk pages so that other editors can either view or discuss as well. I hope my comment above didn't come across as passive agressive. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 18:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also for what it's worth, I personally believe the current version of the article is in sore need of improvement and am very glad to see you edit it constructively. I'm currently working on the background and first few years of the war in my sandbox if you wish to take a look, although I won't be done with that at least until summer. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This link allows you to compare my edits to the sandbox so far. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I just diagonally read the endless talk page... Jeez... There is a potential discrepance on the current weight/location of the "devolutionism"/"centralism" cleavage, but I think that given that reading, I think that it is a no go, so I will probably will let that part go. ;)--Asqueladd (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the talk page of the article is quite indicative of the sometimes contentious nature of the topic. To be honest, I'm really glad I'm not editing in the Spanish wiki as I'm sure conflict there is abundant. I'm still interested to hear your thoughts on the devolutionism/centralism issue even if you don't wish to change that in the article, . A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would introduce it later (and separatedly) in the lead as another layer of the conflict (insofar Carlists supported fueros... bla-blah... the war also underpinned another cleavage blah-blah-blah... opposing projects of administrative reform) rather than as it is right now.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me, . Go ahead :) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is my voice always silenced?
I am very frustrated at the way my proposals get responded to in AfD. I am tired of people not having to even try to produce significant coverage. The whole thing is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I understand your perspective, but you need to understand that the way you notified other users and the NSPORTS discussion of the AfD was neither neutrally worded nor with the intent to increase participation as much as increase participation by people you expect to agree with you, . As an experienced editor you are expected to understand how that violates the canvassing guideline. I myself believe the article you nommed should be deleted, and am endlessly infuriated by SNGs protecting articles to which we can find no SIGCOV at all nor can we ever expect to find them (see my record of AfDs nominations, for example). However, we need to be patient and wait a few days or weeks for the NSPORTS discussion to be closed. Deletions after that will certainly be much easier as the discussion will align the SNG more towards GNG. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The longer we wait, the more junk gets put on Wikipedia. Also, right now I am under the insane limit of one nomination a day. I spent over a whole day prepping this nomination. I am just plain outraged that people do not even have to in any way show signficant coverage. Some even have the audacity to argue that the system is not broken and does not need to change. Also, there will be no change unless people start acting. We still are drowning in articles on non-notable Olympians and there is no indicatio that any change will occur on that. Also, it seems very one sided when he defenders of these insane SNGs can easily place notices in their favorite places and easily turn out their shock troops to enforce the continuance of these insanely low bars to inclusion and the survival of articles that lack even the senblance of significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with your sentiment wholeheartedly,, but canvassing on a single AfD is not the proper way to fix this problem. To fix the system we need to change it, not violate its guidelines. Two wrongs don't make a right. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 20:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed all the notices. This is so frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) As infuriating as it is, you did the right thing, . I hope to continue seeing you in our fight against sports fancruft articles. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 20:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing proposed decision posted
The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)