User talk:NoonIcarus/Archive 10

Happy New Year!

 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! This is so heartwarming. Happy New Year! --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Lima Consensus
Hi NoonIcarus

First of all, a happy new year to you and wishing you a pleasant 2024 ahead. Just to note though, your move of the Lima Consensus page has been reverted, initially following a request at WP:RM/TR to revert the undiscussed bold move you had made earlier. You should therefore not reinstate that bold move, unless it is confirmed in a WP:RM discussion. It really doesn't make much difference that it's nominated at AFD, there's nothing in the guidelines that says we have to maintain an undiscussed title just because you happened to nominate the AFD during the brief time that it was at that title. Cheers, &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks for the message, and Happy New Year to you too :) My last move was mostly related to Liz's rationale, who said that the title was the one under which the AfD was filed under.
 * I also wanted to point out that a disambiguation probably would be beneficial in this case, and that none of the terms seem to have preponderance over one another. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

La Salida intro
Just wanted to inform you that I updated the wording in this edit since the previous version was inaccurate. There were no sources discussing "an effort to end to the Bolivarian Revolutionprevalent since 1998", but sources were saying there was "an effort to end to the government of President of Venezuela Nicolás Maduro", so I provided the wording of the latter. Hopefully this is an improvement and appears more neutral to you than the wording "an effort remove Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro" and we can move on from this article. Again, I'm notifying you of this edit out of good faith. WMrapids (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. This looks like a fair compromise. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Future collaboration recommendations
We have put each other through a lot over the past months of editing together. I have some recommendations for us both that could help with future collaboration and wanted to get your feedback on these ideas.
 * 1) Self-imposed use of the interaction ban's "undo Bob's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means": We both have a lot to contribute. Having our contributions removed can feel disheartening and maybe even personal sometimes. This also benefits with avoiding stonewalling. All of this can be further supplemented by...
 * 2) Always using talk pages, not edit summaries: This helps in two ways; we can discuss the content of additions instead of unilaterally removing contributions and it also limits us from going towards removals in order to provide an explanatory edit summary. This would be more beneficial than the bold, revert, discuss method as it results in less conflict (we are not removing contributions), it allows more in-depth dialogue on concerns to additions compared to edit summaries and it provides a discussion history for future users who may have similar concerns. On talk pages, we can use ping notifications liberally and focus on how to word our contributions.
 * 3) Establishing boundaries: In talk page discussions, we can notify each other when a line may be being crossed. For instance, if an edit is made that one of us completely disagrees with, we can ping each other and say something like "Hey, I want to revert this because of X". Doing this allows us to recognize the concerns of one another while also distancing ourselves from reverts that have the potential to escalate into edit warring.
 * 4) Leave our biases behind: We must recognize that we are here to build an encyclopedia and must avoid personal biases when possible. We must establish that in controversial topics, each "side" has an opinion and voice for a particular reason. If we are to focus on one voice while minimizing the voice of another, it leads to neutrality issues and narrows the scope of information available to readers. While it is important to recognize that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, it is important to be more inclusive with notable information than exclusive on controversial topics, of course within reason.

These recommendations can be summarized as a sort of gentleman's agreement, but we have to start somewhere. Let me know your thoughts on this! WMrapids (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi. While this proposal can be a good first step, I don't think I can agree with an interaction restriction (at least if it covers even partial reverts or changes), given that some of the changes I have disputed have consisted in content that failed to be verified and have overall affected the quality of articles.
 * I have tried adopting a 1RR approach overall and allowing the 24 hours period (or more) for discussion, and it sounds similar to your second point.
 * If I might ask for more context, can you explain a little better the third point? Does this mean generally notifying the other editor if a change is disputed or if one is thining about reverting?
 * If there's anything I'd have to add, is to stress I think that talk pages should also be used before the changes, and not only after, given that I think that a good part of the disputes so far has been caused by the large scope of said changes. Let me know what you think about this.
 * Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well for the third point, I'm really trying to emphasize the importance of reverting at all costs and being more communicative on how an article should be structured. Since the use of tags has been controversial between us, I am open to receiving pings in talk pages if you have a dispute or concern as it is less disruptive to the article. The main point is that we add more than we subtract from an article. WMrapids (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the clarification. I'll try commenting about potential tagging, in that case. I wanted to comment again about the possibility of talking before expansions, given their scope. I don't want this to be construed in any way that you would be "asking for permission", but I feel it's more of a matter of reciprocity and I probably would be able to provide feedback about the content at hand, possibly even including more. Happy editing, --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Simón (2023 film)
The article Simón (2023 film) 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:Simón (2023 film) and Talk:Simón (2023 film)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red February 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your GA nomination of Simón (2023 film)
The article Simón (2023 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Simón (2023 film) for comments about the article, and Talk:Simón (2023 film)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Category:Guayana Esequiba has been nominated for deletion
Category:Guayana Esequiba has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Venezuelan politics
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, —S Marshall T/C 10:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly for the notice. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Orphaned non-free image File:Crazy Bus poster.png
Thanks for uploading File:Crazy Bus poster.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Community topic ban
As a result of the thread at ANI, you are indefinitely community topic banned from Latin American politics, broadly construed. The ArbCom case request and, if opened, pages directly relevant to the case are excluded from the TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * For the record: the related ARBCOM case decision can be consulted here: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Be mindful
Hi - we've not had any substantial engagement previously. To the best of my knowledge we've only had engagment at AfD: once where I supported a nomination of yours, twice where I did not support a nomination of yours ([1], [2]) and once where I commented on an article of yours that was nominated (while remaining ambivalent on the question of deletion). I'm leaving a comment here in good faith which I hope you receive in good faith.

At 09:24 UTC on 2 April 2024 you received a topic ban on Latin American politics broadly construed. At 10:06 that same day, you created the article José Rafael Marcano, a Venezuelan video game programmer. It appears this is a translation of es:José Rafael Marcano, which you created on 19 March and which you continued to edit up until 10:59 UTC 2 April 2024. The notable difference between the two articles is a paragraph in the Spanish version which details Marcano's political persecution in 2004 for producing a game deemed anti-government. That paragraph detailing the persecution was in the Spanish language version at creation, which indicates you were aware from 19 March of a political connection to this subject.

There are different ways one could interpret what happened with the timing and content of the English version of the article; an attempt to avoid the topic ban or disregard for the meaning of broadly defined. Or perhaps you simply didn't look at your talk page until a later time and were editing unawares. Of course, this last explanation appears (to me at least) the least plausible given the differences between the Spanish and English versions of the article. I'm not seeking a justification, only making observations.

I think there people here who are supportive of you and who consider your work a net positive to this project (to be clear, I'm not saying I do not). I have no reason to think the ArbCom case will be anything but transparent - I do not think there is any predisposition against you from the arbitrators. Nevertheless, I can only say you can choose to do yourself favours or not do yourself favours - your work will come under scrutiny, be mindful of grey zones. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just for full transparency (to you and others who might be reading), there's two more AfD interactions I've come across: we agree, we disagree. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for your message. I avoided the paragraph precisely in order to respect the current restrictions (especially since in Spanish it might be expanded), focusing only on those aspects unrelated to politics. The last time I was subject to restrictions I always asked the concerned admin when in doubt, but in this case I can notify and request a speedy deletion of the article per G7 if this is seen as too near of a grey zone.


 * I'm thinking about appealing the restrictions, but I will respect them nonetheless, both before or in case they stay in place. I likewise welcome any scrutiny because it is only bound to give information about the current situation.


 * I know from your comments and our interactions that you have the best intentions for the project in mind, so I'll be glad to help in any way I can. Kind regards, stay safe. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * . FWIW, I think in this particular case a speedy is unnecessary - only because it would be process wonkery, but I think you can see it is a reasonable question whether this was a breach of the TBAN. However, this is the problem with being in the grey zone; here the spirit is more important than the letter. If something one does in future is going to necessitate "litigating", that's how one can be judged, not on whether one was right or wrong, but the fact that one's work required continuous judgement. Travel well, kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't consider this to be a breach of the ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Venezuelan politics opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Djong (ship) has an RfC
Djong (ship) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Talk:Djong (ship) on a "History and geography" request for comment-- your comment would be greatly appreciated Merzostin (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Using the workshop page
Guerillero is one of the drafting arbs for the case; that means, he is one of three who will be writing the proposed decision for the other arbs to vote on. Since he already added the Sockpuppetry proposal in his section, it's redundant for you to add it again, and you should probably delete that. More importantly, I recommend that you notice his addition of the Recidivism principle, which means discussion of that is on the table, and view that in relation to my recommendation here. Best regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  09:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the advice once again. I was finally able to answer to your first query, and I only hope it could have been earlier. I hope it's enough time for you, I will look forward finishing throught tomorrow. Please let me know if I should add anything else. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping! Some acknowledgement of how you would handle reverts going forward would be good; many experienced editors have a one-revert rule for themselves. A very strong and convincing statement of what you will do differently going forward would be good; English-speaking people aren't always as subtle/discrete/polite as Spanish-speakers are ... you could say things more forcefully :)  If you are finished with your workshop entries, and if you have time, I was wondering if you know of any sources on the following:
 * Has Weisbrot published a position on the Guyana-Venezuela dispute?
 * Does Oliver Stone have any plans for new "documentaries" or films in the works that you know of?
 * Is there any reason for the recent sudden interest in Halvorssen Jr. and Sr. ? Why are they suddenly popping up again?  Is that just related to discrediting Lopez, or is there a piece I've missed?
 * Saludos, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * PS, to be clear, in relation to your topic ban, I need these for my evidence. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * PPS,, if you have any followup on those three questions, could you please add it to your private ArbCom evidence? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Following up on these, since afaik the Workshop has closed. I added further acknowledgement in other comments; I only hope they're noticeable enough.
 * To answer to the questions: I'm not aware about Weisbrot's positions or new works by Oliver Stone, but I can look into it. As for the Halvorssen family, I know that they have been subject to a defamation campaign for years now. This is part of a really complex and messy network that has also affected Venezuelan journalists and might be related to Derwick Associates. I'm not aware of investigations that have been able to look deeper into this. I'll try emailing ArbCom with the rest of the information that I have. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ... Thanks ... but by the way, the workshop isn't closed 'til it's marked closed by a clerk; if you have responses to make, you can go ahead. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Another note about arbcase functioning: witnesses arguing in front of the judge's bench is not a good thing, and I recommend ignoring things like this. The arbs will make those decisions; respond and argue your case only when it's constructive, or clarifies something that was misstated or overlooked.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for the notice. The first time that I read this I understood you referred to my comment (unless this is the time that I'm misreading it), but I already about not paying mind to it. I also noticed that it is in the wrong section.
 * I haven't forgotten to answer to your queries, it's just that this messages have taken me way longer than I expected and likewise have had less time than expected. Please let me know if you need additional time to answer by then, if it isn't enough. Stay safe! --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I was referring to the other person's comment; the arbs will pay attention to what matters, not squabbling on the workshop pages. If you need more time, be sure to ask. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, WMrapids did a streak of edits in the Bolivarian propaganda article. I think that one of the reasons was following articles I edited in, among others. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The workshop page is closed now, so your topic ban means we can't interact on political content (outside of the arb case) until/unless your topic ban is lifted. Saludos y que estés bien, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the reminder <3 Un fuerte abrazo, --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI, as there is some delay, there may be some disagreement between the arbs behind the scenes, but be aware that when the Proposed decision is posted, it often includes multiple options they have to vote on ... that is, for something to appear on the Proposed page doesn't mean it will pass. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. It's something that I didn't consider, as I seen many of the decision points being passed my unanimity. In any case, like you mentioned, I think it's better for them to take as much time as needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Khadija Mbowe for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Khadija Mbowe 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/Khadija Mbowe 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 until the discussion has finished. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Proposed decision in the Venezuelan politics case posted
Hi NoonIcarus, in the open Venezuelan politics arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this 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, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 17:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the notification. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Venezuelan politics case closed
The arbitration case Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
 * is topic banned from Venezuelan politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
 * and are prohibited from interacting with or commenting on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the ordinary exceptions. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rafael José Aponte Álvarez has been accepted
 Rafael José Aponte Álvarez, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Rafael_Jos%C3%A9_Aponte_%C3%81lvarez help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! SL93 (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban
Hey there. You may want to avoid edits like this, which might violate your topic ban. If enough of these borderline edits pile up, it could lead to more trouble. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Kind regards, many thanks for the heads up. I'm trying to be extra careful overall, but one can never be too careful. Thanks again for looking after me. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Checking in
Hey there. I'm wondering if a wiki break might be in order. This edit and the page retitling that preceded it are to me plainly at odds with your editing restriction on Latin American politics, broadly construed (I stepped in to help deal with the preceding PRODs because I knew you couldn’t). I had been hoping there could be some constructive resolution to the restriction and violating it makes that substantially less likely. Maybe some voluntary time away would help break the habit of editing in these areas? Genuinely hoping for a good resolution here. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I admit the restriction slipped my mind during the first move, which is the same reason why I didn't move the second article (Ecuador). I haven't appealed to the TBAN because I'm trying to take this time as a wikibreak on its own, among other reasons, and I'm already focused on editing in other topics . I scrapped my watchlist for the same purpose. I hope all of this is alright overall. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, I hope the break serves you well! All best, Innisfree987 (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)