User talk:Sb2001/Archive 2

User_pages
Could you please read through User_pages and then revert the problematic changes you've just made to your user page. Thanks. Nick (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

And I would second . Winged Blades of Godric On leave 12:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am busy at the moment. I shall have a proper look a bit later. I imagine that there will have to be a sub-page which contains the supposedly offensive content. Although, I am not sure how you can complain about my user page, when I am having editors use this sort of tone towards me: Gee, thanks Sb2001! Yet another ignorant comment. Referring to your ignorant comments as ignorant is commenting on the content not the contributor. I am not going to be coy here at all: STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE. Leaving twinkle warnings is not required; there is nothing forcing you to demonstrate by action your misunderstanding of the policy WP:NPA. Any further posting by you on my talk page outside of policy required notifications (which your misapplied twinkle warnings are NOT) will be construed as harassment and dealt with appropriately. I do not need your ignorant advice. Anyone who would advise one of our most senior administrators to use AfC has nothing to say that I would waste my time reading. Have a good life; somewhere else. I expect no reply. Tell someone who cares. Screaming at otheer editors like this is really quite unacceptable, threatening, and hurtful; having editors follow me around, and telling me that I am a school child (with no evidence, other than me once using the word 'student', and some research they did into my editing hours), and having this used to patronise me; being removed from projects with insufficient time to provide a case in my defence; editors having a go at me for asking for citations; referring to me as a hornet; telling me that I am ignorant, and need to get over myself. I see no reason not to explain to other editors the sort of criticism/abuse to which I am subjected.I am sure that you can understand why I may feel slightly targeted. Making a comment about an experienced editor creating a very poor article (since deleted), which would not have passed AfC, should not prompt talk page stalkers to lay into me in this manner. It is personal, intimidating, and should be discouraged by administrators. It should not receive the sort of response Kudpung gave it last night: (BTW, I believe this is describing me, although maybe it is some other editor with whom Kudpung has a dispute) Stalkers They fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. One would have been good enough, but I didn't quite think I'd kill two birds with one stone. —Kudpung, 23:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC). To note; Nick, it would be good if you replied to my email. I am still willing to drop everything. – Sb2001 talk page 14:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your e-mail to me did not request nor require a response. You threatened to report me to ANI at 2pm on 22 August. You didn't do that. I don't know quite what you're expecting or requiring me to say in any case. I'm certainly not going to add you back to the AfC reviewer list given your conduct since the removal, nor will I apologise, the reviewing issues and broader behavioural issues which prompted my removal of your AfC permission have continued and indeed, have significantly increased post removal, further vindicating my decision to remove you from the reviewer list. You're now failing to deal with the issue of your user page breaching User_pages which I've asked you politely to deal with, an offer which you've refused, claiming to be too busy to read a guideline and make an edit to your user page, whilst continuing to trouble Kudpung with unhelpful remarks and continuing to undertake further editing. I am interested in your thoughts on how you intend to proceed here on Wikipedia, because as it stands, I am very worried about how long the community will tolerate your belligerent behaviour. Nick (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If either of you do have any final suggestions as to how this may be resolved in a less time-consuming way, please let me know. Neither of you have responded to this, so I am now assuming that you wish for it to be taken to ANI. I said that I would start writing my ANI draft at around 2 pm on 22/8—I am nearly there. My conduct since the removal? Please provide specific, linked examples. I shall have nothing more to do with you regarding AfC: Primefac and I have agreed a resolution, which includes me spending my time elsewhere for the time being, and reapplying in a month or two, should I wish to do so (I have not yet decided whether I will).


 * I have now read the policy page. (PS, I was too busy to do it earlier. If you want a full timetable of my day, I shall be happy to give you one. My personal life should not need to come into this, though. Especially which school I attended/still do attend (still waiting to hear from on how this information was discovered).) It outlines some important information. I shall act upon this by removing the usernames of the editors.


 * I do want people to understand the abuse (such as the threatening attitude of John from Idegon (whom I shall not be tagging, quite simply, because I am scared of them), exhibited yesterday (this actually led me to log out because I was so upset ... I haven't logged out of Wikipedia in eons), which you and Kudpung seem to encourage) I have had to withstand during my time on Wikipedia.


 * Nobody has had any serious problems with my behaviour apart from you. Also, administrators are supposed to focus on content contributions. I have made plenty of these, and mostly very good ones. I work many hours a day on improving Wikipedia. Objecting to an editor not properly sourcing an article, or removing me from a project without giving me sufficient time to respond to the points raised (which even another administrator accepts was wrong (they apologised; why can't you?) is not really that bad. Complaining about an editor playing little 'school' games is very reasonable. I would like a response from you regarding whether you think that Kudpung doing this was OK.


 * Please let me know whether removing the usernames of the editors whose contributions are given on my user page is enough for you, whether you think the 'school' game was appropriate, whether you encourage the disgusting behaviour of John from Idegon and whether or not you are going to acknowledge that you should have given me longer to respond before removing me from AfC (and—ideally—whether you think that it was wrong for two administrators to ask me non-stop questions without giving me chance to consider my answers) in order for me to refrain from making a complaint at ANI (something I am perfectly willing to do. Not make one, that is). – Sb2001 talk page 18:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You will need to lay out exactly what requirements I will need to meet in order for you to avoid making a report to ANI. Nick (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have decided upon what I would like from you. I shall write as a list of points, with the main idea in bold;
 * Acknowledge that you should have waited longer before removing me from AfC. I understand your decision, especially based on what had been discussed to that point. It was—though—an incomplete discussion, to which I had had insufficient time to respond with carefully-considered answers. I would have answered differently with more time and less pressure.
 * Agree that only one administrator should have visited my talk page to question me. Since you and Primefac were taking off-wiki, this should already have been discussed. Since Primefac reverted my edit, maybe it should have been him. That said, you seemed to be the one in contact with the editor whose page I rejected on AfC. Looking back, I should have waited before posting on this editor's talk page. I was frustrated, and my tone was not appropriate for use with new editors. My second comment was well-meant, however. You interpreted it differently, issuing me with a threat of disciplinary action.
 * Show recognition that Kudpung should not have tried to wind me up by playing 'school' games. You should have interjected here.
 * Apologise for referring to me as a hornet. Even if it was in jest.
 * Review the situation with John from Idegon. If you are going to complain about my behaviour, you need to deal with other users about theirs. This particular editor should not have been so aggressive when in communication with me. Understanding needs to be shown on your part that Kudpung should not be encouraging this sort of behaviour. I would like you to demonstrate that administrators do not accept behaviour such as this. You need to say that this is far worse than anything I did. Even so, some of my comments were inappropriately placed, and I should have considered them more thoroughly.
 * Offer me suggestions on how I may improve as a reviewer. You should also assure me that I will be welcome to re-join AfC in a month or two. You should support my re-application when it happens. When I re-join, you should be welcoming and ignore my past contributions, instead focussing on what I do for the second time.


 * I shall make it clear that it is the treatment of me that is unacceptable. I do not have a problem with you removing me from AfC. I understand this, and accept that some of my comments left as an AfC reviewer suggested that I was not ready to review submissions quite at that point in time.


 * None of my demands are unreasonable, and I only ask you to apologise for one thing. Should you have a problem with anything for which I have asked, please let me know. – Sb2001 talk page 11:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This is not how Wikipedia works. I'm sorry that I'm not going to be able to comply with your request, and I'll explain for why.
 * If you now understand the key reasons surrounding my decision to remove you from AfC, then you'll understand that giving you extra time to respond would have made no difference. It was a decision that was arrived at after taking into account your initial response to my concern together with the complaint regarding the review you had just undertaken, and an examination of other reviews you had undertaken up to that point. I am genuinely sympathetic to your concerns here, but I also worry that no matter how much time had elapsed between my discussing the issue with you and removing your permission, you would claim that I was too hasty and things would be different if you had an extra 10 minutes/1 hour/1 day and so on. I think you need to accept the decision was taken in the best interest of the project, and move on to the stage where you can re-apply to the AfC project.
 * The suggestion that only one administrator should speak to you at once is simply not viable, it genuinely is not how Wikipedia or the administrator corps operates. We are elected by the community to maintain and protect the project but we're all responsible for our own individual decisions and actions. This means that there's no way we would ever consider asking another administrator to undertake an action on our behalf for which they and not I would be accountable. I determined there was an issue with your reviews and subsequently, with your behaviour. I then raised those concerns with you. The combination of factors (as detailed immediately above) is why I took the decision to remove you from the AfC project, it's not something I could or would ever ask any fellow administrator (Primefac or anybody else) to do on my behalf. I am, however, pleased that you have recognised that the tone you used with a newer editor was not appropriate, you must similarly realise that we cannot have people such as yourself (i.e active in or recently removed from AFC) leaving comments for the editors they're supposed to be helping, criticising some of their behaviour. That can be a massive deterrent to their continued editing.
 * I'm also unsure what action you want me to take with regards to Kudpung - I've not been following his editing particularly closely (and he edits at completely different times to me, we tend to pass like ships in the night) but it seems others have pulled him up on his edits, and I would further suggest that it's your responsibility not to get wound up, not the responsibility of the administrator corps. We can't be responsible for trying to control the behaviour of every user when exposed to some form of external stimulus. I note you've made a series of less than entirely helpful edits to Kudpung's talk page, such as suggesting he submits articles via the Articles for Creation process, in the grand scheme of things, I think Kudpung's game playing and your behaviour on his talk page are equally unfortunate and probably balance things out. It's either both people get shouted at, or nobody gets shouted at. I'm looking at things now and I'd go with nobody getting shouted at this time, since the issues were not at all severe and are now in the past.
 * I'm going to jump over the hornet thing for a moment, and move on to John for Idegon. I'm again going to say your behaviour towards John and his behaviour towards you was basically tit-for-tat, and again, it's either both people get shouted at, or nobody gets shouted at. I'm looking at this again and again I opt for nobody getting shouted, because it's not at all serious and is again in the past. You issued a warning to John, a templated warning wasn't the best approach, a custom notice would have been better (the template warnings carry no additional weight, and can often cause offence, a custom message is, in my experience, the best approach).
 * The hornet's nest thing. I'm sure you're aware of the idiom 'poke the hornet's nest' which doesn't actually label any person a hornet, but if it pleases you, I'll apologise if you believe I called you a hornet. I do think you need to develop a much thicker skin if you're going to survive on Wikipedia, this and the slightly more aggressive comment from John are incredibly tame compared to the abuse you may well encounter from other editors (now, administrators will try and help in such cases, but as I've said somewhere in this thread, we can't be everywhere all the time).
 * It's also worth reminding you, at this stage, that I'm but one administrator, I can't keep an eye on everything that goes on with regards to you and others you're in dispute with, I can't be online all the time and I can't cover every time zone. I'm a volunteer just the same as you, and I'm here primarily to write content, which I've managed to do very little this week thanks to the enormous time sink dealing with the fall out you've created over your removal from the AFC process.
 * Finally, with regards to your request about re-joining the AFC project, that would be something I can offer no guarantees about, I certainly will not commit to endorsing your application, that part of your request is tantamount to blackmail and vastly oversteps the bounds of propriety. I will review your recent edits and make a decision on whether to support or oppose your application as and when it happens. I would imagine, because I'm generally easy going with regards to permissions, that I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and support your application unless there are some really serious issues.
 * Now some general advice - there needs to be a significant and serious change in your attitude before we can consider re-admitting you to the AfC project (but this is something I'm sure we all ultimately want to do). You do need to understand that as administrators, we're not picking on you, we're just doing our best to protect the project, similarly, that applies when we take a course of administrative action that you disagree with, experience tells us when to get involved, when to hang back, what to say, how to say it, and how to manage a situation. You're most welcome to ask any administrator about a course of action they have taken but it's not helpful to tell them they're wrong before they've had a chance to explain why they've done whatever it is they've done. The endless threats about taking people to ANI are very problematic - you're essentially using the threat of an ANI discussion to blackmail editors that you're in dispute with, and that's something that isn't good (even though that's probably not your intention). These threats really do need to stop. The question about what you think ANI will do also needs addressed - there's a vast gulf between what you think will happen when you report someone to ANI and what will actually happen. The first thing that will happen is that your own edits and overall conduct will be reviewed in microscopic detail and it's just as likely you'll be censured or sanctioned because of your recent behaviour (particularly in the recent cases where you've threatened to create ANI reports). The person you report may or may not be censured or sanctioned (it's unlikely in all of the cases above, where you've threatened ANI).
 * I hope you find all of this understandable and helpful. I realise much of it is not what you want to hear, but I've tried to explain either my position, or the more general way in which things work on Wikipedia, so you can understand the issues at play, why things have happened the way they've happened, and part of what you need to do to get back onto the AFC user list.
 * -- Nick (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Nearly two months ago long before I had even heard of you,  told you:  'Please stop imposing your preferred style against Wikipedia's Manual of Style' , and warned you of the consequences of disrupting the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is big, important stuff, a lot of it is written by people with PhDs and while we welcome input and edits from young editors, Wikipedia is not going to be told how it should be run by someone waving a Year 10 GCSE certificate for 16 year olds as if it is the final word on the English language. In that discussion, you already pompously claimed to be a pupil at a prestigious school. You then tried later to bluff your way out of being a schoolboy, but it was too late even when you were still claiming yesterday 'According to Kudpung, I am a school child.' There is only one school like that in Nottingham, a city  I  know well, and when I made a perfectly  friendly quip about its bike sheds, you turned round and yelled at  me: How come you  know where I  go  to  school?. Everything we know about you (and are not really interested), you have told us yourself, even giving clear clues to your age and your real name.

has tried as an uninvolved editor to reason with you in no uncertain terms, but politely with this edit

as an uninvolved very senior admin has also tried here

I'm not as generous as Nick, because although I often take time to help young and new users, and actually wrote several of the Wikipedia advice pages for them, my patience finally wears thin. I also work in what we call the 'front line', which expressly  means examining people's edits to see if they  are complying with our guidelines and to help them if they are not, but I only do it when I already see someone doing something wrong or if someone has told me about it. However, I do also have a watchlist, and the two  specific the areas I look after are AfC, New Page Review, and surprisingly I also run, together with John from Idegon, the Wikipedia Schools Project. John and I at some stage in our long careers, were school teachers.

Nobody has been playing games with you. You have turned my talk page into a stream of personal attacks and harassment to the extent that not one but two uninvolved users have had to step in and tell you to clear off my lawn. You have been upsetting a lot of people, many of them admins. Look at the list of users and admins you've been harassing, baiting, stalking, or just generally been winding up:, , ,  , ,  ,  , , all of whom have simply been trying to help and explain things to you.

Policy states that we are not obliged to respond to threats or personal attacks or your special bulleted lists of 'demands', or even anything at all if we don't want to; we are supposed to forward to Arbcom the kind of TL;DR, threatening emails you've been sending out without replying to them. I haven't done that, nor has, I believe Nick. Because what could happen then is that your account might simply be quietly closed down by the committee. But where no response is forthcoming from us you continue hammering away your self-righteous drama on everyone's talk pages and even creating not one, but two pages of WP:POLEMIC in your user space. Now if you want to continue contributing to Wikipedia, win back some special tools one of the days, I suggest you take a moment to rethink how you would like to work with the people here, because you have gone well past the point where any uninvolved admin can now block you without further notice, under several policy violations and without even needing a discussion about you at ANI. We've assumed a lot of good faith, now it's up to you - Auxilium te, et auxiliatus sum tibi caeli. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I started my response to what had to say by making irrelevant points. I was trying to demonstrate the sort of hostility to which other editors were subjecting me. My user page was a gallery of hostility. I did not realise that it was in breach of any guidelines. I tried to rectify the errors as soon as I could, after Nick informed me that it was not acceptable. I apologise for any offence caused, even though some editors were pretty harsh on me.

Nick stated that I had 'threatened to report [him] to ANI'. This was not at all what I meant it to be. My email expressed that I was looking for a way to avoid making a complaint at ANI. To be clear: I do not/never did want to have to take anyone to ANI. After informed me that this was the only way to make a complaint, I questioned whether it was worth it. A combination of Kudpung going on about school, and Nick threatening me on another user's talk page made me decide that that was what I was going to do. So I informed N+K as such. I left Primefac out of it as they were offering me advice on improving my reviewing at AfC, and clearly wanted to help me to develop my skills.

You can put my 'threatening' tone down to inexperience. That was totally the opposite of the effect I desired to achieve. It was supposed to be firm, but—at the same time—reasonably friendly. I wanted to move on from everything. I was, in my mind, giving you an opportunity to accept that you made a mistake, so that we could do so and be free from conflict. I did not intend to issue lists of demands. It was what I felt to be the best way of expressing the sort of thing which Nick should have done. I never expected responses to everything, and am very grateful for what he did write. It was far more than what would have satisfied me.

I only kept mentioning ANI because I could not decide whether or not to go. Looking back, if I was going to do so, it should have been straight away—when I had some sort of a case.

I tried (and failed, clearly) to stand up for another editor on 's talk page. I really wanted them to have their voice heard, and it looked like they were being shouted down by other editors. I should have left it alone after my first comment, and especially after showed to me that they were ungrateful, by leaving edit summaries to the effect.

I was—actually—joking about going through AfC: the trouble with short typographic exchanges is that it is difficult to portray tone accurately. I was making a light-hearted comment about the fact that I had been removed. I did not feel that the article (on which we were harsh: sorry) would have made it through AfC. misinterpreted me further teasing editors (this time, about French stereotypes) and chose to have a go at me. Maybe I should have made it clearer that I was not being serious. I thought that expressing my distaste for French cuisine would suffice in doing so.

I was keeping the sub-page as a means to respond to Nick. I had found a discussion he was having with Kudpung, and stored it in my user space, so that I would find it again easily. I was pleased, maybe to your surprise, with I read from Nick. Maybe less so with Kudpung's attitude. I shall let that go, though.

Right: school. You have got my age wrong. You are not far off, though. Part of my experience in language is as advising other people on style. I do proofing regularly, as a favour. I enjoy using different styles, even if I disagree with them. may be surprised to hear that I have a copy of NHR, and have applied it to writing before any of the MoS issues here started. Excuse me for thinking that I have a good understanding of English. It is true. I may not be as qualified as people with PhDs in English Language, but I have a lot more to my name than that for which you give me credit. I never stated that I went to a privileged school. I understand where you read this: I actually stated that certain style guides were 'the most well-respected in my establishment'—the current one. I know that you must have read this as me saying that I am in a 'well-respected establishment'. I actually saw it as that myself when I re-read the thread. I was shocked that I would have said that: not at all me. You happened to get the school right, though. Well done.

did, indeed, make some comments at the AfC participants page. I responded to these in an evaluative manner. They did make some misconceptions. I wanted to correct these. For one, I did not use AfC to enforce what is listed on my style guide (genuine concerns, none of which go against WP's MoS. Corruption does not have to involve the transfer of money. I included 'seriously' in italics to mimic them. I should have included the template.

You will have to explain what happened with. I have no clue on this one. Please do not assume that all editors were trying to help me. I am sure that even would accept that there was little offered in the way of help from that way. It was more 'your style is nonsense ... go away'. My first suggestion was referred to was a 'waste of time' fairly early on.

I hope that this has been able to clear up some of the issues we have, and that we we will be able to leave them, and more on—collaboratively. – Sb2001 talk page 20:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you'll remind me of what you're talking about I'll let you know what I do or don't accept. It's fascinating how much time you want to spend recapitulating who did what to whom.  E Eng  20:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Eg, ie, etc was the first one. Then it moved to the slightly more civil MOS:TIME discussion; your comment to me on this has pride of place on my user page. (Probably won't for much longer!) My god, your user page is a masterpiece. The first discussion included you calling my proposal 'absurd' and accusing writers of style guides favouring me of having gone 'berserk'. I get over these things, though. – Sb2001 talk page 21:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well in my opinion I was being very helpful in calling your proposal absurd; had you believed me it would have saved everyone a great deal of time. Anyway, look, you really better stop whatever it is you're trying to do with all these posts and find a nice quiet article to contribute to.  E Eng  00:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional unsolicited advice since you seem to still be involved in the disputes I mentioned a few days ago: the best course of action in these sorts of situations (both here and real life) is to say "Thanks for the feedback. Sorry, no offense was meant. I'll take your concerns into account in the future." and move on, even if you are 100% right.Re: the userpage: if you haven't already I would suggest just rolling it back, not doing so would make it more difficult for people to believe you if you took my advice above. Note while I like all the editors currently involved I'm really only commenting here because this has gotten way too heated for an AfC helper script issue and I think everyone would be best served by moving on. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Yes: most of the new conflicts have started in the last day or two. Various editors' talk page stalkers, largely. My concerns are often because editors complain about me, without thoroughly explaining exactly what it is they think I have done wrong. It can be difficult to remain calm in these situations. I have sorted the userpage. Hopefully that is me in the clear. I shall wait for the others to respond. I feel as if I have done the right thing, even if they do not. – Sb2001 talk page 21:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Great on the user page. I think that will go a long way. Re: moving forward, I think the concern is that you, probably unintentionally, have a combative style. Even if you are 100% right, people often don't like being told how right you are. Turns them off. You also happened to pick a fight with one of our more visible admins in the middle of a dispute they were having with another editor: that is going to draw attention.A lot of Wikipedia is just being kind to others and being willing to let things go and learn what battles aren't worth fighting. I'd suggest just to let whatever is going on now go (and I honestly can't keep track of what the fight is). None of the people who were pinged want to think about this anymore, I promise you. If they reply back, just say "thanks for the input" or don't reply at all if it doesn't need one, and move on. It's your call, but I really think people would be much happier this way :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Other editors are not "subjecting you to hostility"; you're being hostile and combative, and inviting a long-term block, a community ban, or at bare minimum a topic-ban from WP:MOS/WP:AT/WP:RM matters. It won't be the first one issued, nor the last.  I'm not sure how many editors have to warn you are headed nowhere good, but it's starting to look infinite. This clearly indicates you will not listen anyway, and are just going to interpret any further constructive criticism as nonsense to attempt to mock.  I have to be clear that those attempts are an .  Pretty much every single other editor on WP is going to look at that list of complaints and advice and warnings (along with the rest, on your talk page) as the community giving you repeated WP:COMPETENCE chances, and you pissing on them. I've spent at least five hours of my own time, much of it off-wiki, trying to hand-hold you past these issues, but you're just WP:NOTGETTINGIT. The very fact that you're writing again on your userpage about what you're going to "enforce", after various parties have urged you to remove your self-declared "style manifesto" , is pretty much the last straw for me.  I'm done with you. This has become a clear WP:NOTHERE / WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:SOAPBOX problem. Look at this this way: If you behaved toward co-workers and working groups at your job the way you've been behaving here, you'd be fired (sacked) without hesitation, and it it would have happened months ago.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you have misinterpreted what I am saying. I am acknowledging that I was wrong. I do not know why you are mentioning moves and article titles: the TK Maxx proposal was successful and I am working on an appropriate re-wording for TMRULES. There is nothing hostile/combative about my approach to this. I do not really know what you think I have done. Why would I have an MoS topic ban? I have not contributed to the MoS talk page other to than assist another editor in moving things on in a discussion. I actually did what you suggested. I say that I 'enforce' MoS sections to say that I respond to them, and change mainspace content to respect what they request. I am endorsing the MoS. Everything in my style manifesto is in-line with the MoS. I spent ages checking it, to make sure. I was asked to remove the old manifesto, ie the anti-MoS one. If you are referring to me removing the criticism section, I did that to avoid breaching the POLEMIC guidelines. My edit description was to that effect, and suggestive that I was willing to respond to what other editors have to say to me. I do not think that it is fair for you to say that I am 'pissing on' other people's efforts. Tonight's contributions to this page are supposed to be demonstrative of the fact that I understand what people are saying, and am grateful for their feedback. I hope it read as so. I do not understand why people keep threatening me with blocks, as all of my edits are made with my best intentions—seriously. I do not know how this reads, as you have led me to question my writing style completely. It is supposed to sound as if I am totally bewildered ... I am. And I am really, genuinely sorry that you feel as if I am not being responsive to what editors have to say to me. I must be far better at face-to-face communication than I am this, because I am exactly like this in real life. People actually like my debating manner. – Sb2001 talk page 22:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC) : forgot to ping. – Sb2001  talk page 01:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody has misinterpreted what you say. Least of all . You are heading fast for a block and we keep giving you second chances to redeem yourself (we haven't even sent your threatening emails to Arbcom). You just don't realise that it is your attitude here, more than your writing style, that has become inappropriate and also ultimately blockable, so you haven't read or understood a single thing people have been telling you. You refuse to take advice and your postings are a time sink for all of us. Having to finally stop and respond to you is a disruption. Stop bossing people around like an NCO in your school's CCF - and then turning on the sweet charm and innocence when you are told you are wrong. Through your smoke, mirrors, deception, and persistently harassing other users, you've demonstrated that you can't be trusted.
 * Losing the trust of this community is just about the worst thing an editor can do. Just pipe down, stop constantly having the last word; some of us on this page (you  don't  even bother to  look  up  whom  you  are talking  to, let  alone  follow the links you're constantly  given) are highly qualified in education, linguistics, and philosophy -  they  don't care what  you  are like  in  real  life (until they or I see you at a UK meet-up) and are certainly not interested in you constantly telling us how good you are at everything.
 * People don't like your manner on Wikipedia. You really, really want to read this, this, and this, and this. You may also be interested in this -  perhaps you will even be in line for the weekly award if you stick around. And do please pay very good attention to the advice  is giving you below; he's one of the nicest users on Wikipedia but even he can finally give up on people. For the meantime you have some reading to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with what Kudpung is saying. Further, WP doesn't need  "manifesto" from anyone, about anything.  See WP:NOT and related policies.  This  primarily about attitude – or whatever you want to call it, e.g. collegial spirit, ability to communicate and work with others collaboratively, meta-cognitive awareness of when one's ego is getting in the way of the work, etc. – not about the exact specifics of any particular content edits. WP is not a debate club, and how people react to you being debatory somewhere else is irrelevant.  All this "I just don't understand", "tell me what I'm doing wrong", "I already am doing better and you're still saying I'm not, so I'm confused", "I don't know why you mention X when I want to talk about Y", etc., etc. handwaving is  the same WP:NOTGETTINGIT act put up by someone else about a year ago before being T-banned from MoS and then blocked for further refusal or inability to get the point.  If after this much explanation from this many parties you still cannot even understand the nature of the issues being raised, then this is a make-or-break WP:COMPETENCE problem.  WP doesn't need you to be an MoS "enforcer", especially since your understanding of what MoS says and means is demonstrably faulty, and your self-declared actual desires with regard to MoS are to change it in many ways to suit your preferences (or those of your preferred reading material, which is the same thing).  WP doesn't need anyone to be an enforcer of anything, anyway. It's the wrong model/approach.  PS: Warning you of the likelihood of an eventual ban/block if you continue in the same vein is no threat. As far as I know, no one talking to you now is planning any such action; we're just predicting it, based on experience.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I want to say that I'm already observing improvement with regard to some of the above issues. Seems important to say since, a) there's a lot of complaint from last month and earlier, and b) you'd expressed uncertainty about continuing to edit.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice reply (maybe check history)
Hey, I left you nice, helpful replies at the two recent places, but others are getting in my way. Will you please check the histories there and help? Also, could you please relax your no-post filter here? I'm trying to tell you how cooperative I'm being there but it won't let me here. Thanks if so, 75.162.228.46 (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Will you please help against troll at Imgur?
Hey, SB, thanks for being so supportive of helping me learn how to play the Wiki the right way. I don't know how to do an RfC yet. But will you please revert vandalism that troll keeps trying to put into place, where he falsely accuses my good edits as "tests" and "vandalism," and then report him to the ANI/3RR for edit-warring that includes breaking 3RR? Thanks if so. 75.162.247.165 (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to say that this was not in breach of WP:3RR. One of the exemptions to the rule is: 3. Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users. As you are a sock puppet of a banned user (even if you claim not to be StylizeD, your other IP addresses have been blocked), Jim was able to perform more than three reverts. I will leave a short message at their talk page to inform them that we have discussed this. Please do not continue to make edits until all of your blocks have expired. If you are StylizeD, you need to request the lifting of the indefinite block. Get back to me some time next week and I will provide answers to your queries. – Sb2001 talk page 22:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, "That IP address" on troll aloha27's page
Okay, my address changed, but it's still me. Thanks for your support. I sent you a nice reply over at that troll's page, but of course he'll likely erase it, so you'll probably have to go into the history to read it, and hopefully he won't erase it if you revive it. Please, for me? Thank you kindly, my friend. 97.117.38.89 (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I will answer all of your responses, but—to satisfy admins etc—I should wait until your block expires. I promise I will write back, though. – Sb2001 talk page 22:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sb2001, I admire your patience and willingness to mentor, but you're wasting your time with this editor. I'm not sure how I can convince you, but this is User:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD", who was community banned for endless disruption and harassment. I think probably the worst thing he was did was attempting to out another editor. And now he wants you to be his proxy. It's your choice whether you decide to continue your conversations with him, but I would strongly recommend against it. I have a long history with this user. Once you invite him in, he never leaves. Sro23 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Were I you, I would pay attention to the advice you've received along the way and revert and ignore any and all comms from the BANNED user. You have to be a special sort to booted through the goalposts by the Community at large. Regards.   Aloha27   talk  12:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I shall not be engaging in further conversation with the user unless their block is lifted. – Sb2001 talk page 16:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jack Posobiec
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jack Posobiec. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It must have been a region spelling style.
2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You have not provided me with enough context to understand the issue. I have checked my contributions against yours, and the only overlap is on one where you wrote 'an women's assistant', which could not possibly be interpreted as a regional spelling issue. – Sb2001 talk page 23:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Red
✅ – Sb 2001  01:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Red. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy
✅ – Sb 2001  01:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television
✅ – Sb 2001  01:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3
✅ – Sb 2001  01:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White
✅ – Sb 2001  18:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice
I think you have been improving well recently. Keep up the good work. Alex ShihTalk 02:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . That does mean a lot. I was very close to packing WP in at the end of August, so it is nice that editors are recognising change. – Sb 2001  02:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Em dash vs. spaced en dash
You probably shouldn't make arbitrary stylistic changes such as substituting an em dash for a spaced en dash. Either one is acceptable according to MOS:DASH so you should retain the style used in an article as long as it conforms to the WP:MOS. Quale (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I know. I was ensuring consistency in the article. There was an em rule in one section. My default is to change to em—it happened to be the first I saw. If it had been an en, I would have changed this way. – Sb 2001  20:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Consistency is a good reason to make a stylistic change. I'm sorry I poked you about this; carry on. Quale (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree w/ the "consistency" argument. En & em dash have different purposes or contexts. They're not equivalent stylistically, except in lists. --IHTS (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Looks like I learned something. ;) "In all these cases, use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, with consistency in any one article." (MOS:NDASH) Thx. --IHTS (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
✅ – Sb 2001  18:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

22:14:17, 25 October 2017 review of submission by Jobind
Wondering why the submission is rejected even after giving sufficient references. Jobind (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you please suggest some examples?

Jobind (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * : I was not objecting to the of references you have, rather the  of them and how well they cover the points raised on the page. As far as I can tell, there is limited evidence of notability, and you need to work on establishing a more convincing base on which this may be built. My comment on the AfC submission was as follows: More information needs to be provided about his works. Write this in paragraphs, rather than a short list. Aim for at least the same depth-of-coverage for career as personal life. You have not responded to this, which means that it is unlikely that it will pass another reviewer's checks if you submit at the present moment. I strongly advise that you:
 * Expand out your list of bullet points.
 * Read WP:BLP and respond to the guidelines there.
 * Find a broader range of references, eg from different types of publication, and—if possible—from countries around the world.
 * Ensure that your references cover the facts on their own line, ie do not simply place a reference in the general vicinity of the fact; this may lead to them being removed.
 * Make sure that you how certain points are significant, eg 'He featured in [programme name], which is the most-watched programme on [channel].'
 * Write in chronological order, telling the 'story' of the person about whom you are writing.
 * Leave me another message when you have done some significant work, and I will look over it, or if you are struggling. It may also be to your benefit to contact the editors of some similar pages that look to be more detailed than JPP's (this is an area in need of cleanup work, so not everything is worth copying), and see if they are willing to help. If I were you, I would give me the link to any page before you replicate it, so I can assure you that it is a good target. – Sb 2001  02:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking
✅ – Sb 2001  17:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse
Hello Sb2001,

Thank you for helping to answer questions at the Teahouse. However, please be sure that your answers are accurate. You wrote "editors are not allowed to write about themselves" but that is not correct. Autobiographies are discouraged but not forbidden, and are usually subjected to a high level of scrutiny. Notable people can draft articles about themselves through the Articles for Creation process. Editors who are the subjects of Wikipedia articles are welcome to write about themselves on the article talk pages, or in any appropriate administrative forum. They can remove vandalism and correct obvious falsehoods. So, please check carefully to write answers that are correct. Thank you. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * : Thank you for leaving me this message. I was unaware of WP:AUTO, to which another editor has directed me. My reading of WP:COISELF is that edits are allowed on an . I was confident in my answer, so did not feel the need to check it. This does highlight that there is poor wording used at COISELF; I shall start a discussion on the relevant talk page to ask for this to be changed/clarified, in accordance with AUTO, to avoid such incidents happening again. – Sb  2001  23:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Harjit Sajjan
✅ – Sb 2001  01:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Harjit Sajjan. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

NNS
Where did I say you were a non-native speaker? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  20:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * : email, 21 August. After criticising me for saying 'well-experienced' (I maintain, a perfectly acceptable construction). Not quite 'must' be non-native; rather expressing a suspicion. Even so, inappropriate and degrading. – Sb 2001  21:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sorry you felt that way. I'm looking at the message right now, and it does not say anything about native speakers; rather it suggests that the usage is redundant and not normal English. This is pretty well sourceable:
 * Merriam-Webster Dictionary: has no entry for "well-experienced"
 * WordReference.com: has no entry for it
 * Wordnik.com: has no entry for it
 * Random House Dictionary (via Dictionary.com): just redirects to "experienced", and provides no definition but attests that the construction "well-experienced" exists.
 * Online Etymological Dictionary (via Dictionary.com): Just has "experienced", no "well-experienced" [same URL]
 * Collins English Dictionary (via Dictionary.com): Just has "experienced", no "well-experienced" [same URL]
 * American Heritage Dictionary: Has no entry for it
 * Cambridge Dictionary: has no entry for it
 * Oxford Living Dictionaries (OED database, minus most of the detailed content like usage examples): finally, a definition . Oxford records pretty much  attested usage.
 * So, the usage exists but is very obscure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  21:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * : probably not the best thing to do, but I am assuming that you won't mind: 'I suspect it's not your native language.' Fifth paragraph. I understand what you are saying. I consider it standard; probably more of a colloquialism than I thought. I am pleased that we seem to have been able to work more productively in recent times, and hope this may continue. – Sb 2001  22:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * D'oh! I should have searched for "native" rather than "speaker".  OK, well I retract that; it's not an assumption I should have made, and I can see why it was insulting.  Please also consider that I was responding to you accusing me of a "vicious and hurtful attack outburst" for what I said in this thread. It was not vicious, intended to be hurtful, an attack, or an outburst.  I took a lot of time and patience to respond to you in that and other threads, and in e-mail, in an explanatory not "get lost" vein.  Unlike some others involved – this was at a time when various editors wanted to take you to ANI for WP:DE, and I advised against it.  To your credit, the issues I and various others in that and related threads were raising about your editing in August all appear to be resolved; nothing you're doing seems problematic now, and your talk page is devoid of fist-shaking. :-)  I apologize for the "I suspect" comment.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  22:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * : I am certainly not suggesting that I did nothing wrong around that time. I blew what people were saying out of proportion, because of the initial situation which prompted the disagreement (an unclear AfC rejection) and the way a certain administrator was repeatedly making a misinformed allegation about my age. I probably should have gone on a break, but feared that it would have been taken to ANI, and then I would have been out. By the end, I wanted to quit, and so nearly did. In hindsight, I am grateful for your patience. I did not appreciate it at the time, because it felt like I did was wrong. I think I responded in a warm way to your initial comments (from skim-reading the archives). Kudpung chose to mention you in a later thread to bring something from months before to the surface, and dampen my image ... not that it was particularly great at that stage anyway. I maintain that it  like a 'vicious and hurtful attack outburst' (whether that was your intention or not), because I had not done anything wrong regarding the MoS, except successfully request a page move, and ask for rewording of the confusing MOS:TMRULES. I do not object to the fact that you said what you did, just that you joined in with the criticism of me at that moment, and in such a public and humiliating way, and continued to find fault with me after I tried to make it right.  is what I found hurtful and attack-like about your comments.
 * I really do not want to go into any of this. It is not relevant anymore, and has not been an issue for a a while. I am embarrassed about it, and would like to take the opportunity express my apologies to ' and ' for keeping them involved when it moved away from AfC, and for taking my frustration with Kudpung out on them, even if I did not like what they were doing. I am not sure I actually got round to doing this—if not, it is long overdue. – Sb 2001  00:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that "age" thing was really inappropriate; I remember that. Again, sorry it felt like you were being piled on, aside from that. Lots of us have had similar trials by fire, myself included, so I sympathize.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  00:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just glad that we were able to (more or less) put it behind us, and I'm glad to see that you've become a productive editor. Primefac (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television
✅ – Sb 2001  11:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you review Hans Renders again?
Hi again, thank you for your previous comments. I edited the Hans Renders draft again, and was wondering if you could take another look at it and see if it is correct now. Madelonfranssen (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * : I shall certainly have another detailed look through it. From a first glance, I am pretty pleased. I am free most of tomorrow, so should have some feedback for you fairly shortly. Well done for your work. – Sb 2001  00:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * : I have thoroughly read the draft, and made some stylistic changes, in accordance with the Manual of Style. Some feedback for you:
 * You need to say Renders' nationality in the first line—'Hans Renders is a [nationality] professor ...'
 * You use some odd-looking punctuation in the titles of foreign publication names. I am no expert in Dutch, but doubt that his studies contain full stops in the title. Have a look at this, and check that they are not supposed to be colons.
 * You need to ensure that your writing is chronological. This helps with the flow, and is how you will find most good biographies are written on Wikipedia. See WP:BLP for more information on this sort of thing.
 * Specifically relating to the 'Career' section
 * The first paragraph could lose a few of the examples. If you like, they could be shifted to a footnote. Use the template.
 * There are not quite enough satisfactory references in the whole of the section. I have included one citation needed note, to guide you to an area which I think you should prioritise.
 * Specifically relating to the 'Work on biography' section
 * Your writing could be a little more concise. As I mentioned previously, dropping a few examples is a good start. They will not affect the coverage's depth too much.
 * Do not write as if a quotation is being continued. I have resolved this. It was the bit starting, 'Biography as a research area ...'
 * Make sure you are not capping the names of academic subjects.
 * Specifically relating to the 'Bibliography' section
 * I would lose most of this. It does not mean a lot to most English speakers, and feel like a 'heavy' addition to the end of the article.
 * There is some work for you to do, but not too much. Other reviewers would possibly have accepted this by now, but I would like you to have it at a good standard, so editors are less likely to query it or (worst case scenario) ask for it to be deleted. As always, if you are struggling, or do not understand something that I have said, leave me a message. Get back to me when you have has chance to work through what I have said. – Sb 2001  18:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ': even though ' has now accepted this article (I thought there was a chance someone would), I recommend that you still implement my suggestions, and take note of the advice given. – Sb 2001  12:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry Sb2001, I didn't mean to step on your toes- I was unaware of the comments left here. I agree that these changes should be made. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * : there is no need to apologise. I would never have expected you to have been aware of this thread. As I acknowledged above, plenty of AfC reviewers would have accepted the draft; I just wanted the changes to be effected before it went into the mainspace. I shall certainly continue to monitor progress on the article, though. – Sb 2001  01:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Request on 13:01:18, 2 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Brandfog
Thank you very much, appreciate the feedback! We're going to add some more personal details as you suggested, and it would be great if you could please take a look at it to give us feedback, when we're done. Appreciate your help!

Brandfog (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * : that is excellent. Just leave me a quick message to let me know when you're done, or—of course—if you are having difficulties. – Sb 2001  21:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you - made changes to add more personal details in the draft, as well as added a section for Personal Life. Would love your feedback. thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandfog (talk • contribs) 15:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * : I am really pleased with what you have done. There are some obvious changes that I can effect fairly easily, to make the tone more encyclopaedic, but—apart from that—there are no glaringly obvious errors. Well done; that is a lot better than most AfC submissions! I will spend some time over the next couple of days doing some detailed and thorough copyediting, and will then provide you with some specific advice. – Sb 2001  01:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * : I have gone through the article; I advise you have a look and ask me about anything where you are unsure. It is in pretty good order at the moment, so it may be worth submitting it for AfC again. – Sb 2001  01:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, appreciate the thorough review and feedback. If we submit it to the AfC again, would you be able to review it or will we need to wait 4-5 weeks until another editor can take a look? We'd love to get the page up after so many months! Thank you.Brandfog (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * : technically, yes—you do. I will have a word with another AfC reviewer, to see if they would accept it. If they say yes, one of us will publish it. If not, they will give you some specific advice. I am pretty sure the green light will be given, though I cannot make any promises. PS: I moved your latest contribution to the bottom of the thread, to make it easier to follow. I hope you don't mind. – Sb 2001  23:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of Huggle
I noticed on your main user page, Anti-vandalism section, that you will revert edits when large blocks of text have been removed and no edit summary is provided. Does Huggle distinguish between a granted user-right "rollback" edit which doesn't accommodate for an edit summary VS a vandal edit? Atsme 📞📧 12:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * : I will answer what I think you are asking—Huggle displays all the usual information you would expect in the history of an article when using twinkle, etc. That includes the full edit summary, and any tags (canned edit summary, TW, HG, possible test, visual, ...). The page's history is also show; I tend to look at this before reverting major removals of information. If 'undid' features in a summary, generally it has been done by a user who is not a rollbacker. 'Reverted' tends to be used with RB. I am very careful to check that it is not an antivandalism dispute taking place. I know that some of the other Huggle users are not. In short, it doesn't actually say 'rollback', but anyone with half a brain cell who has the patience to look at each edit thoroughly is able to work it out. – Sb 2001  23:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sb. I've had Huggle on my puter for a while now - never took the time to learn how to use it...is it that much of a time saver? Atsme 📞📧 23:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * : If you're into antivandalism, it's great (if a little faulty now and then; things are generally fixed pretty quickly, though). You do have to tolerate checking the all right stuff (where they are actually correcting typographical errors, as opposed to just saying it), but you can get through a good a good few proper cases of vandalism in a quarter of an hour. The main advantage is that you do not need to visit each user talk page to deliver a warning; it is done automatically when you revert, if you press the right button. – Sb 2001  00:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains
✅ – Sb 2001  00:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Article talk page: Comment on content, not on the contributor
Per Talk page guidelines "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." But I welcome your input. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * : well, actually, my comments were in response to your contributions to the two talk pages in question. Talk:Ice cream headache involved you behaving like it was all about you. I called you out on that. I also advised you that I will be leaving a note on your talk page regarding some other stuff. That is useful for others who may have noticed the same problems—so two people don't have a go at you over the same thing. At User talk:SMcCandlish, you criticised other editors for their contributions, which were not at all offensive ... unlike some of your edits, which are counterproductive. All I actually said was: Thinker78: or, alternatively, you could think of your own words and write it out like the rest of us. That avoids the issue of Twinkle templates being deemed offensive by some. Anyway, sort out the problems with your own editing before you start criticising others. The last sentence was a note towards your hypocrisy. As it goes, I never think it is a particularly great idea for brand new editors to 'enforce' P+G, because they typically lack the perspective and understanding needed. Anyway, my comments were all directly linked with what you were saying. This guideline is generally for people bringing in completely unrelated issues. Eg an RM contribution may have read: Support: as per the logic of User:X. --Thinker78 If I had responded to this by saying: We should not take into account T78's !vote, as there are problems with their editing history, then I would have been doing something wrong. This is a perfect example of you lacking the necessary experience. – Sb 2001  15:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Holy guacamole! If at work in a business meeting I would say "your hipocrisy" I would immediately be given a verbal warning for employee misconduct. You should really read and try to adhere to No personal attacks. Thinker78 (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * : I don't know where you live. My environment is different to that; we call each other hypocrites all the time. Regardless of this, it is not a personal attack to point out that what your have been saying is hypocritical. I am well aware of all the P+G needed to survive on WP: you do not need to direct me to specific parts. I am sorry if I offended you in any way, or if you felt as if I was making a personal attack. (Although, I suspect by your use of 'Holy guacamole' that neither of these apply.) Seriously, if this is pushing you, 'You ain't seen nothin' yet'! We all receive a full-on battering at some point. Your next thing is to survive that—if you do, you're cut out for the project. If not, reconsider whether this is the place for you ...  I shall be giving you a miniature one in the next couple of days about a few issues I have found with your editing. Some advice until I get round to that: lay of copyediting a bit. By all means do some, but there maybe a lot more work than is necessary created by you continuing with some of the things you are doing at the moment. (We have to go through each edit, systematically, to check that it is all right.) You are going to have to deal with me quite a bit in the near future, and—most likely—beyond that. I am one of the less offensive and aggressive editors WP has. Try to get used to how I am. Whilst I am by no means the most active of stylistic and copy editors, I am aware of those who contribute counter-productively to the project. Like some others, I start by trying to guide people in the right direction. Failure to respond positively (as I suspect you will) may lead to warnings, etc, being necessary. Those are reserved for the most uncooperative editors, though. I highly recommend that you spend some time at WT:MOS. That is where your 'type' spend their time. I do not recall having seen your name in any threads yet. Finally, you can always come to my talk page to ask any questions. I will be as helpful as possible. For anything remotely private, send me an email; I will get beck to your pretty quickly. By the way, this includes issues with other editors and feeling that you cannot find your place. I regret that we started in the wrong way. You were throwing your weight around and behaving in an administrator-like way far too quickly, and with too many problems with your own contributions; I responded badly to this, and felt as if you needed to be told to 'pipe down' strongly. – Sb  2001  18:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Rfc notice
More options have been added to the Rfc at Charles, Prince of Wales. You may want to put that article on your watchlist :) GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Succession to the British throne
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Succession to the British throne. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Municipalities of Luxembourg
WP:UE - lost. Editors ignore it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communes_of_Luxembourg&diff=809731313&oldid=809729721 77.180.0.106 (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Monopoly (game)
✅ – Sb 2001  14:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monopoly (game). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
✅ – Sb 2001  01:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Mogilev Conference
Hi, thank you for the copyedit! I have a couple of questions re this edit: It's not clear to me why "Bibliography" was changed to "Further reading". And what did you mean by "if you are referencing using content in the bibliography, you need to include in-line citations". The article appears to have inline citations in sfn format, unless we are talking about different things. Could you help me understand? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * : I changed 'Bibliography' to 'Further reading' as a bibliography suggests that you have referenced the article using the listed publications.  As far as I can tell, your referencing was done in the more common way—that is, through in-line citations.  If you would like to include the items in the bibliography as references, you should give some consideration to having ILCs.  PS:  there is nothing  with a 'bibliography', they are just increasingly rare.  I shall have another look at the article when I have a minute. – Sb  2001  12:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I"m not sure I'm following. The three sources listed (Blood, Beorn, and Förster) are cited in the article and were listed in the bibliography, as can be seen in this version of the article. In addition, the edit removed cited material, the participants in the conference. Compare:
 * Original version: "The speakers included: Arthur Nebe, commander of Einsatzgruppe B; Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, as the representative of Heinrich Himmler; Max Montua; Hermann Fegelein, commander of the SS Cavalry Brigade; and Gustav Lombard, commander of the 1st SS Cavalry Regiment.""
 * Edited version: "The speakers included Arthur Nebe, commander of Einsatzgruppe B, and Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, representative of Heinrich Himmler."


 * I'm having a hard time making sense of these edits. Can you clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * : regarding why the list of speakers was shortened—that is what copyeditors do.  It was too long and interrupted the flow of the piece.  You may wish to re-add the names into an efn; that is what I sometimes do.  Right.  The big issue:  if something is listed as an in-line citation, ie it is referenced within the main article text, it does not need to go in a bibliography.  Generally, 'bibliography' and 'further reading' should be interchangeable.  Some editors do use only a list of sources, but you have not done this.  I strongly recommend that you re-format your citations to include the information you have written in your bibliography in the actual referencing text.  At the moment, the bibliography is totally unnecessary.  I am leaving it there only so you may retrieve the information to place into the ILCs.  Continue to ask me if you have any further questions.  I shall try to get back to you pretty quickly.  By the way, I would do this myself, but it is 12.55 am now.  I suspect you will want it doing quicker than (at the earliest) noon tomorrow. – Sb  2001  00:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but there's no need. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Entertainment (Waterparks album)
Hi - in the future, if you need a page deleted for a page move, please tag it with db-move. ansh 666 05:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kiznaiver
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kiznaiver. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
✅ – Sb 2001  22:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin scalability problem
✅ – Sb 2001  11:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin scalability problem. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
✅ – Sb 2001  12:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility
✅ – Sb 2001  12:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If I may
Hi, earlier in October I complimented on how much better you have been doing in recent months. I still think the same, but let me express what I think Kudpung was trying to explain, which was very subtle although related to what have been expressed to you before. Regardless of age, background or qualifications, humility is necessary for all interactions. I don't find Special:Diff/816023370 to be an example of such humility when dealing with a prolific editor with far more experience. Doing copyediting is commendable work, but it is not equivalent to doing anyone a favor. Some specific thoughts about your comment: The text suggests it's a narrow but notable topic, not in risk of any "eventual deletion", and the nature of narrow topics means that "broader selection of sources" is not applicable. The part about "using content in the bibliography, you need to include in-line citations" was simply nonsense as it's already being done. Finally, Sb0001, I think you have reacted strongly to condescending tone of voices before; so why would you conclude your remarks, if I may paraphrase, with something like "come to me if you would like any guidance"? Just my unsolicited thoughts. Happy holidays. Alex Shih (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * : To be frank, I do not know why Kudpung really felt the need to involve himself.   acted poorly a few months ago—not just me.  I did not appreciate him leaving messages for other editors with the sole purpose of undermining my work.  Staying with him, I have stated before that he is wrong about my age.  It is poor for him to keep going on about this.  I am not prepared to list my qualifications (yes ... shock, horror ... I have some), because it does not matter.  I try to act without prejudice when interacting with others on Wikipedia.  That is, I ignore, completely, past experiences and experience when dealing with a new issue.  This latest person is an editor I have never previously encountered.  I did see that they had made 60,000-odd contributions.  The thing upon which I chose to place my focus was the request for copyediting.  I did this in exactly the way I would if any other editor had made a request.  Go through it—everything I did was justified, and improved the article.  After I had published my changes, I thought it polite to leave a quick note on the talk page, suggesting ways in which I thought the article could be improved; a genuine attempt to be helpful.  I suppose I should not have said that it risked deletion.  I am used to dealing with AfC submissions, where the primary concern is whether or not an article would pass an AfD.  I know that very few reviewers would accept something with only four or five similar references.  Passing off my comment about in-line citations as 'nonsense' is not really fair.  I shall clarify:  I was not focussing much on references, but noticed a list of sources in a bibliography.  On first glance, I failed to see that they were already covered by ILCs, so advised that they be transferred to this format.  I then realised that they were, so thought that I should leave a note for the editor to the effect that the section is not necessary.  I would have removed it, but wanted to allow them the opportunity to retrieve the text first.  I know that it is not a 'favour' to do copyedits.  I was a little dumbfounded when I noticed that every one of my changes had been reverted.  I questioned why someone would want to waste another editor's time when they thought their version was perfect already.  Further, I was quite offended that they did not even bother to leave me any sort of explanation.  The whole exchange with them on this page felt abrupt and was—in my eyes—quite rude.  When I spent a decent amount of my very limited free time working on something, it feels quite rubbish to have someone respond like that.  I would massively appreciate some sort of word from them to justify the reversion.  I do not react badly to a  tone, rather unsupported and untrue remarks about my age.  But anyway, I just left that in a robotic AfC-style manner.  That is what I say there: 'If you are encountering difficulties, or would like further guidance, leave me a message.'  Since I had offered recommendations on improvements that could be made, I thought I should make it clear that I was happy to clarify anything I said, and do some further work on it myself, whilst also expressing a willingness to carry out any further copyedits. – Sb  2001  02:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I mentioned anything about your age. Of course your comment was nonsense. You just said, you failed to see the sources used were already covered by inline citations, left a nonsense comment to ask for it before "realising". If you fail to see how problematic your robotic tone was, that is a problem. If you fail to understand copyediting is not equivalent to reviewing AfC submissions, that is a problem. The bottom line is that was a very poor copyedit, and requires no further explanation from the editor. If I see another copyedit like this one, I will ask you to stop doing copyedits altogether. Thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:C/E and WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to. You haven't been copyediting long, and it and AfC reviewing (I've also done both) are very different; many articles are accepted at AfC and tagged for copyediting. What concerns me the most, however, is your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in response to constructive criticism from experienced editors. As a GOCE coordinator, I'd rather that you copyedited backlog articles until you better understand what copyediting does (and doesn't) entail before doing requested articles—many of which are future GANs and FACs. All the best,  Mini  apolis  21:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summaries
If you are going  to  collaborate successfully, please consider taking  the time now to  read and understand  the the comments and messages from  other users about the tone of your  communications. We are a collaborative environment and those who wish to work in areas that  entrain  communications with  other users are expected to  maintain decorum - your 'hard work' will not be appreciated if you  don't. Please also  refrain  from  taking  others' comments out  of context and making  false claims in  your  edit summaries. Edit summaries are public, please keep  to  essentials (what  your  edits  constitute) and avoid making criticisms of other editors or making  non  essential  remarks. This is the last time I  will  talk  to  you, I'll  leave the rest  to  others. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
✅ – Sb 2001  12:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout
✅ – Sb 2001  12:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cary Grant
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cary Grant. Legobot (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
Note for anyone interested: I spoke with administrators about a clean start at the end of August. Part of my reason for doing this was because I feared that editors would keep bringing up past issues when they are completely irrelevant. I was talked out of it partly because of the need for recognition of the issues, and so those involved knew that it was me, and could assist in preventing similar situations occurring in the future. The fact that these have been raised again disappoints me. Its relevance to one particular copyedit is nought. I have had some time off, and have thought carefully about leaving. I am still unsure, but have decided to come back for a few weeks, with somewhat of a lessened presence. I shall re-evaluate whether or not to continue editing at the end of the month. Genuine feedback is welcomed. If you think I should have a more extended period of leave (eg a month or two), I shall listen to that. Similarly, if you think that Wikipedia is not for me, just say it. Off-wiki correspondence is appreciated, also. – Sb 2001  01:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Prize Island
I have found this from the WayBack Machine but it doesn't look good, removing it altogether looks like a good action to take. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) 11:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * : actually, it is purely coincidental that the link had expired.  I removed it because it was displaying square brackets that I could not hide.  Looks like it was a good job I did take it out :) – Sb  2001  17:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Times of Israel
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Times of Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi
If you find time for it could you take a look at my recent noms at TAFI Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. Would appreciate no matter what !vote as no one is attending the TAFI nom page anymore to give input. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Sb 2001  12:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you review my TAFI nom for Prisoner. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox country
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox country. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:A Wizard of Earthsea
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:A Wizard of Earthsea. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Military Sealift Command
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Military Sealift Command. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Marriage
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Marriage. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Moscow Paveletskaya railway station
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Moscow Paveletskaya railway station. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:African-American civil rights movement (1954–1968)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:African-American civil rights movement (1954–1968). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Flag
Hi, Sb2001. I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Would you please consider heading over to PERM and requesting it? (check the flag requirements HERE)

As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag. Of course, if it is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial. Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application. Cheers and thanks for helping out at AfC, —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that recent activity levels might be an issue as you haven't been active in the last 90 days (which is one of the criteria of NPR). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  13:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * : hello.  I am currently taking a break (I saw this appear in my emails), and intend to return around July--I will look at NPR then; there is not really any point in me having it now.  Feel free to remove me from the AfC list temporarily if you see fit, also.  Regards, – Sb  2001  18:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Germanic peoples
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Germanic peoples. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mark Weisbrot
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mark Weisbrot. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Banning policy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Milwaukee Bucks
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Milwaukee Bucks. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Motion picture content rating system
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Motion picture content rating system. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Slavery
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Slavery. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

== Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1 ==

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User access levels
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User access levels. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: WikiProjects and collaborations request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: WikiProjects and collaborations request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" 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 09:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Political endorsements&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" 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 22:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Category talk:Faculty by university or college&#32; on a "Wikipedia style and naming" 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 16:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)