User talk:Ixtal/Archives/2022/March

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:William H. Davis (educator)&#32; on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. 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 02:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Booth Theatre&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. 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 04:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Nutty Narrows Bridge&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. 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 09:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Jewellery of the Berber cultures&#32; on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. 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 11:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Memorial to Victims of Violence in Mexico&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. 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 07:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Paramount Hotel&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. 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 21:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:QAnon&#32; on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. 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 02:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Brahma Chellaney&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 14:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Walter Kerr Theatre&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. 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 18:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Bellesa&#32; on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. 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 00:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Leon P. Miller&#32; on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. 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 05:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Ping!
Hi,

Can you support me? I have few edit proposals, which are stuck and I don't know what step need to be taken next?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Elchibay's_speech

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Denying_entry_to_Azerbaijan:_Ilham_Aliyev's_interview_to_Simonyan

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Missile_strike_on_the_nuclear_power_plant_in_Armenia

Thanks in advance!

--Abrvagl (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look in a second, :) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 11:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the edit proposals. You may wish to link the discussions at relevant wikiprojects using the discussion notice template. However, sometimes proposals get stuck and you may have to just Let it go. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 16:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Can I also ask your opinion on the below statement from the Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan article? Reading the Wikipedia rules other day, I found that below information does not fit into the Wikipedia requirements and need to be improved, but I am not sure if Im right or not.

"President Aliyev regularly makes remarks seeking to belittle Armenia and inciting inter-ethnic hatred. He in particular encouraged to wage war against Armenia,[125] made statements alleging that Armenia is "a country of no value" that is run from abroad and artificially created from "ancient Azeri lands",[126][127] that "it is not even a colony, it is not even worthy of being a servant",[128] further stating that it is, in contrast to Azerbaijan, in constant decline[129] and that Armenia's existence should be called into question.[130][131] Aliyev also claimed that the main enemy of Azerbaijan is the Armenian lobby in the United States,[132] and invoked imagery of the Battle of Aghdam to argue that the Armenians are vandals and barbarians.[133][134]"

As I understood above information is based on the WP:RSPRIMARY sources and not following WP:NOR requirement. Because it states that "President Aliyev regularly makes remarks seeking to belittle Armenia and inciting inter-ethnic hatred", however it is not supported by secondary source, neither it is supported by the provided primary sources. As I understood it is analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources, which is against rules..

Above means that statement also not inline with WP:BLP and WP:BLPPRIMARY requirements. Moreover, accuracy of the quoting not followed, as per WP:RS/QUOTE, words are taken out of the sentence and context.

So in my opinion above should be rephrased. Conclusion part of it should be removed, all other statements should be correctly cited inline. Am I right? I'm not sure, and don't want to start talk page while Im not sure, because I afraid to get accused in the intentions which I do not have.

Sorry for disturbance! Thanks in advance! --Abrvagl (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not willing to involve myself in the armenia-azerbaijan editing area as a content editor, as I have close to no knowledge about it and it is not of great interest to me. Thus, I cannot make opinions on whether a statement should be rephrased or parts removed, but am willing to moderate disputes. There are cases when the use of primary sources is appropriate without it being OR. While the phrase "seeking to belittle" is most definitely not encyclopedic to me, quoting statements he made may be useful and encyclopedic. See Éric Zemmour, for example, for an article that does this. I recommend you start a discussion in the article talk page, but keep in mind consensus may be against your perspective. If you believe wider participation is necessary, you may start an RfC by proposing alternative wording as an option. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 16:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for response. I know that you know almost nothing about armenia-azerbaijan editing area. I just needed someone with technical knowledge to advice me). Thanks for advice! --Abrvagl (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Neil Simon Theatre&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. 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 04:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed
An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
 * Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
 * is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
 * is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
 * GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
 * Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
 * 🇨🇽 AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
 * Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
 * GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
 * Flag of Provo, Utah (1989–2015).svg SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
 * 🇺🇳 Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

 * Thanks,, I'm glad you liked reading it! I wrote it to distract me from the frustrations of dealing with stonewalling by a highly partisan editor, so I'm really happy someone found it funny. May we stay forever civil in the face of stop signs! A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 18:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, things like that can be stressful. I am not up to date regarding any of the drama, but it seems to me like you could be a good administrator, maybe just work on the areas the RFA voters look for (AfD, etc...) before you ever decide to run. Keep up the good work on your articles and stuff, and happy editing. Rlink2 (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The stonewalling wasn't anything recent (unrelated to the current drama w fr.wiki it was at Éric Zemmour). It was the first time I had ever really gotten into a dispute on wiki, and am thankful had the patience to teach me how to deal with those situations in the future. I strongly appreciate you thinking I could be a good admin someday,, but I think I have many years of constructive editing and discussion to go before I'd even consider myself worth the community's trust. Additionally, the mop is not necessary for the parts I like most about editing (content creation, GA/FA/FL reviewing, and helping at COIN/DRN/ANRFC). A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:August Wilson Theatre&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. 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 03:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Iveco&#32; on a "Economy, trade, and companies" 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 11:31, 7 March 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 March 2022 (UTC)

Question
There are a few additional disputes on the Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan talk page. Should they be included into the current DRN or it is better to wait for solution to the current one, and then start a new one? TBH all of them straight forward, but they become long-lasting disputes because some editors just pushing their POV. I personally believe that it is better to wait and start the new one. --Abrvagl (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for notifying me,, I'll take a look later today. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 15:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , what disputes are you talking about? I see no ongoing disputes. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 20:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This one Missile strike on the nuclear power plant in Armenia, I just stoped making any edits to the article and talk page because DNR is ongoing, might look that there is no dispute --Abrvagl (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * that is not a related dispute to the ongoing one. I recommend you wait for the current DRN case and related discussions (such as a future RfC, for example) to finish before starting a new case. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 14:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&#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 23:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: gendered footballer categories closure
I am somewhat confused by your closure at Village pump (proposals): you seem to have found a consensus for both the main proposal (to rename the generic footballer categories into male footballer categories) as well as for sub-proposal one (to merge female footballer categories with the male ones). Moreover, I am not convinced that the sub-proposal discussion received enough participation to override the consensus of the main proposal, and IMO, the sub-proposal isn't sufficiently broad because the precedent would apply to all biographical categories split by gender and overturn a major categorization pattern, which would require a much more broadly publicized and widely participated RfC. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming to my talk page,, I'll take a look at my close again. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 17:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Ping.
Hi there! Hope my message finds you well and happy:)

I am not sure why Robert McClenon decided to close the DRN which was almost completed, but he clearly stated what he stated. There is the truth in his words...but, I am definitely not the one who pushes POV. I always strictly follow the Wikipedia rules even if they are against my POV.

REgarding the dispute. AS I understood it was about to be closed. My and Zani's dispute is about if there are sufficient reliable sources to support the statement of Elchibay or not, and I believe that we found out that at least at this point there is no such source available, and we were waiting for Zani's last reply, where if he did not provide the reliable source and we did not find any - dispute is closed.

Anyway, I followed your recommendation and UNDO the reliable source noticeboard request. --Abrvagl (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * , it wasn't Robert that closed the thread (in fact, it wasn't closed at all). What happens is that threads at DRN are automatically archived by a bot based on the Do not archive until template which is updated automatically for each thread based on the last comment. DRN threads usually are failed if more than 48h happen since the last response (as was the case here) and so the bot automatically archives such threads. I have reopened the thread now. Of course, if Zani does not offer any new, more reliable sources I don't expect the community to support keeping the quote in the article. However, I want to remind you that we should be working with the community in mind. The case should hopefully lead to some kind of community discussion on the issue through an RfC (either on RSN or the article talk page) as I don't think 3 editors is enough of a consensus to determine the applicability of WP:EXTRAORDINARY or settle sourcing disputes in such a contentious topic area. I hope this comment helps, and thanks for participating with good faith and dilligence in the case :) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 23:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I see what happened. Thanks for explanation! Lets wait for Zani then. P.S. there are 3 editors in the talk page who agreed, that statement is not supported with adequate source and should be removed. (Me, and plus two others), not sure if that enough for consensus.  Abrvagl (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As with all things related to consensus, it depends based on context. In this case,, I think you shouldn't trouble yourself too much about other editors in the talk page until after the DRN case is over (either failed or closed successfully leading to a discussion on the talk page). A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 23:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Icewhiz's law
Wikipedia:Icewhiz's law, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Icewhiz's law and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Icewhiz's law during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The WP:DENY concern you raise is well-founded, I hadn't considered that when creating the page. The particular accusation that someone is an Icewhiz sock is something I see too often, but perhaps it's best not to create a page for it and just mention if I think the accusation is unfounded on a case-by-case basis as a reply. Thanks for catching that so quickly,  A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 11:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being so understanding. I closed the MfD. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

don't let me commit a sin
Hi,

I know, I already got you with my pings...but I need your advice.

In the Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan, user Kevo327 added information about a living person and supported it with WP:NEWSBLOG source, which also seems to be partisan and biased. As per I reverted his edit and proposed to discuss it on the talk page, however, he refuses to do any discussion and reverts his edit back. 1. Should not he first reach a consensus before making an edit? 2. This user's attitude is clearly disruptive. As I do not want this to grow into edit wars, can you advise how I can follow up on this in a peaceful way?

Thanks in advance!

--Abrvagl (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * If there is an editor you feel is edit-warring and does not respond to requests to discuss the edit, do not edit war back. It is good you recognize the need to avoid that. You should follow the instructions at WP:ANEW, namely placing uw-3rr on their talk page and if they continue reverting reporting the issue at WP:ANEW. Before doing so, however, have you started a discussion yourself in the talk page? Telling the other person to do so in your edit summaries is unlikely to lead to such a discussion. Once again, thanks for dropping by my talk page and seeking assistance rather than attempting to escalate the situation, . Hope you had a good Monday :) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 20:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Monday was wonderful, and I hope you have the same:)
 * I am about to start the talk on my own, just need find time to summarize my point. However, I just wonder, should his edit remain while the discussions ongoing? Should not he do not make edit until consensus reached? Because i afraid that, in the Talk page he will do the same, what he did while reverting. He will just ignore my point, and write completely unrelated staff, and drag the talk, and talk will take us nowhere. Then I will need to spend my time and take action to follow up, where in reality he is the one who proposed edit and he is the one who should ensure that consensus reached. Am I right?


 * Forgot to say: Thanks for your advice, it was really useful! And have a wonderful Tuesday)

Abrvagl (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Financial economics
Hi A. C. Santacruz. Just to thank you for re-assessing Financial economics (per WikiProject Finance & Investment/Requests). Your comment is appreciated. Fintor (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * welcome! I'm terribly sorry to see how old the backlog is there. I'll be slowly working through it as there are other things (both on-wiki and irl) distracting me right now. Thanks for all your great content contributions to the wiki :) I'm hoping I can help the finance wikiproject grow and be more friendly to newcomers. The amount of misinformation being given to retail investors right now troubles me greatly... A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 11:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Royal Expedition
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan Dispute
If you are waiting for a response from another editor, maybe the case should be closed for lack of response. If you aren't waiting for a response, either the editors need another statement or the case should be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There is an ongoing ANI related to one of the two participants in the topic area which wasnt started as part of the dispute I'm moderating, so I'm waiting for that to finish before continuing, . A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 06:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't see an ANI thread involving either of the participants, but maybe I looked at it and didn't notice it. About where up or down is it, or what is its name?  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see closed ANI and ANEW threads involving both of them, but not an open dispute. Have I missed it, or have you?  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The thread was Kevo237 but it's now been archived without close, thanks for the reminder :) I'll reopen the case A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 05:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The house with angels
Hi, I have a question.

The article The house with angels was proposed for WP:PROD. I checked the article and sources and objected, but I missed 2 and 3 steps of WP:DEPROD. Kevo327 called this "vandalizing", reverted my objection and then he actually removed the source and materials from the article, although I checked the source and it is valid.

From my perspective Kevo not doing the right behavior here. I objected deletion and as per rules if there is objection, then you can not use proposed deletion, but he reinstated proposed deletion. Second, although I said that I checked the source and it is valid, Kevo removed it without any discussion.

What can I do here ? I have rights here to undo Kevo edits, and start the talk page discussion, as I am acting as per wikipedia rules, but if I do that - I will be again accused in everything possible. Please help.

--Abrvagl (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I strongly recommend you do not do anything related to Kevo for the next week. That is all you can do unless you really want to get IBAN'd. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 15:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will just start the talk page and let other editors to deal. P.S. I see that you linking ANI with my and Kevo disagreement on the Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan page. I want to state that ANI I raised has no relation to that dispute or anything else. The reasons why I raised ANI are standalone. I do not have any personal issues with Kevo and it was not a vendetta or something like that. --Abrvagl (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * you might not see them as related but fact is that if you have very strong and personal disagreements with an editor it will affect other interactions elsewhere and outside editors will see all interactions as connected when discussed as part of a behavioral dispute. I see your interactions with Kevo in that way as well. In the ANI thread you are being accused of hounding Kevo. Further interacting with or about them will strengthen the arguments in favor of such accusation. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 16:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Guess I agree with you. Apparently if majority think like that, then it is really how it looks from others perspective. Anyways, I just writing to thank for all your support, and wish you a very good and sunny day, as I am partially the reason why you involved to the unpleasant conversations today. Hope this will fix it at least a little bit:)  Abrvagl (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ACS, sorry to butt into(onto?) your page, but this seems the place to give advice. Abrvagl, this is WP:CANVASing. You shouldn't do it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Em, I just asked experienced user to have a look, whom i dont know him and I do not know what is his view. Did not know about Canvasing, thanks for noting. I deleted mentioned comment. Abrvagl (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thus reading the CANVASing, it is not black and white, cuz I definetely did not have intention of influencing the outcome, but want to involve more editors to have healthy coversation.  Abrvagl (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If your concern is wider participation,, I suggest you start an RfC instead. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it acceptable if I will leave a informing note on the WikiAzerbaijan project talk page? Abrvagl (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A neutrally worded notification to any wikiproject you think would be interested, not just one in particular. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I Put it on Wiki Iran and Wiki Azerbaijan, dont know who else might be interested. Abrvagl (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Council/Directory offers a list of WikiProjects divided by topic, you may find other relevant ones there as well :) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 20:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * you are welcome to edit here anytime :) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly, just didn't want to show up all bull in a china shop with blunt pronouncements and not beg your pardon. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Good days, hope you having a good times. Just a question is other encyclopedias can be used as a reliable sources? For example www.britannica.com? Thanks!--Abrvagl (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * you can see the WP:RSNP entry for britannica at WP:BRITANNICA. In general they shouldn't be used as reliable sources, but for information like geography and such they are okay. In any case, it depends on the context and the purpose of its use, but there's nothing outright wrong with Britannica per say. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 16:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for disturbing you again and again, was Encyclopedic dictionary of Azerbaijan toponyms. In two volumes. Volume I. Baku: "East-West" decided to be not WP:RS source in this Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 212 Reliable sources Noticeboard?  Can editors delete information sourced from this book with comment that not WP:RS as per reliable sources notice board? As far I can see, if I am not mistaken, it was not accepted as not reliable. Thanks in advance!  Abrvagl (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether editors should or should not remove information sourced to the book is something that should be discussed by knowledgeable editors in the talk page of the relevant article, . Sometimes it should be kept with attribution, sometimes it should be kept with a better source needed tag, sometimes it should be removed. It depends on the context and the consensus of all editors participating in the talk page. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 16:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this one I understood. But question is if above book accepted as not WP:RS as result of Reliable Sources Noticeboard review? Abrvagl (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion happened 6 years ago and I am not an expert in the topic area, so I will not comment on the reliability of the source or consensus about it. Sorry if that answer's disappointing but I don't want to get too involved in the topic area. Gives me wikistress after a while. In any case, just talk it out at the article talk space. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

a side note
out of curiosity, do you know of any other RfA candidates sunk by a similar subpage to mine and Curbon7's? is this a recurring theme? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't remember at this point exact names but subpages like essays and similar subpages dedicated to other editors' comments have definitely affected editors before. One way to find them is browse the archives for relatively close or withdrawn candidacies. Sorry this isn't too helpful, ! In any case, your RFA is close enough of a precedent that it will affect Curbon (though curbon's subpage seems less of an argument against than yours did). The only way I'd see the subpage having a meaningful effect on a possible candidacy by them is if it is part of a pattern of egregious incivility (which I am terribly at finding). A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)