User talk:Vaze50

August 2021
As you know, at the latest discussion here no consensus was reached. That means, per WP:NOCON ("In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. ...") the status quo ante prevails. If you wish to challenge this, you need to restart the discussion, and stop edit-warring on numerous articles. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The reason why your proposals have failed & will fail again, is because there's too many editors involved in that topic area, who have opposed & likely always will oppose, the addition of the UK in British bios infoboxes. Trust me, I've been through it. In other words, if enough editors say that 'red' is 'blue', then the result is 'red' is 'blue'. GoodDay (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel you're right, I'm still daft enough to give it a go again for some reason, but I am not optimistic. Vaze50 09:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Give an example, up until a few years ago, I tried to have constituent country added in the intros of England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, to help further (and more accurately) describe them. Roughly the same editors, kept opposing me & so it was never adopted. But at least we got "...part of the United Kingdom" in their intros, which in the early years wasn't there. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Confrontational editing
Hello. Just a word to the wise that your recent edits on the subject of UK place-names read to me as being very confrontational. I have closed the discussion you started which I hope will mean you feel able to take a break from the subject and move on to an area you find less frustrating. Please remember to be civil and that Wikipedia is not about winning. As you've seen from the template message above, these areas are under discretionary sanctions. Your behaviour is quite close to the line of those sanctions being applied. Regards, The Land (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

If I may Vaze50. Recommend you take a 6-month break from the topic. This isn't a hill that you want to die on. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021 2
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

A very final warning
Look, Vaze50, the only reason you're not blocked right now is because your misconduct isn't as egregious as last time. But it still isn't great. You need to stop assuming bad faith and stop casting aspersions on your fellow editors. This WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct is, ultimately, unsustainable. If this behaviour continues, the likelihood that it will lead to the temporary or indefinite revocation of your editing privileges is a near certainty. I also get the sense that there's likely an unwillingness to respect consensus and/or (if applicable) live up to the maxim of WP:ONUS, but I've yet to confirm that (I suspect doing so isn't a necessity at this early stage). Thank you in advance for your close attention to this matter. El_C 19:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , It does feel deeply unsatisfactory that a discussion which I note many people remain interested in, and which contained a particular inconsistency which would be worth addressing on this website, has simply been closed on this occasion. You are correct that I have cast aspersions on a very tiny number editors, including, though not limited to, . I appreciate that this is not in line with the standards you refer to above, but I cannot lie or pretend that I do not strongly believe the actions of this tiny minority of editors to be motivated by political opinions, rather than a desire to see the website be improved. I understand that this is not something said minority of editors like to have stated, but I cannot deny that is what I think about their actions, because I have seen no evidence to the contrary. This is not an attempt to be deliberately disruptive or rude, rather to state an honestly held view point. That said, I will aim to adhere to WP:ASPERSIONS in future.


 * I do not believe that this topic is a mere frustration however, I really must say that I believe quite sincerely that there is a political attempt by some to maintain a particular outcome on this website, something which I find very difficult to tolerate. I would be grateful for your views or advice on how this could be mediated in a different way, if there is such a thing, without breaching WP:ASPERSIONS, as you evidently know more about how to progress such things than I do. Vaze50 15:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Vaze50, you may well hold this view sincerely about these editors but the point of WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS is that you could easily be wrong - such is online communication and ascribing motivation to others gets in the way of paying attention to what they are actually saying. I’m a case in point. You called me a “bigot”, “Anglophobe” and “politically motivated” when we “met” on this issue last March. I’ll tell you here and now that (a) I’m English (b) anti-nationalist (c) have what might be termed a “conservative’s view” of the UK (d) in the thread that you opened I put forward the view that i was neutral on the issue and didn’t care either way. The reason I reverted you back in the Spring was that you were editing against consensus. But you were so sure in your opinion of my motivation that what WP:CONSENSUS/WP:ONUS says went over your head. Focussing on editors’ motivation as much as you do is a cul-de-sac. And, by the way, leaving an edit summary like this an hour and a half after (presumably) reading warnings from two admins about WP:BATTLEGROUND really suggests you haven’t got it. DeCausa (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly interested in a lecture from you on tone. Edit summaries have run far, far more terse, rude and rougher than that from far more well-established editors than me, and nothing is said about those. Consistency is important. Your motivation is absolutely bizarre to me, if you hold the views you say you do, then you would be attempting to establish a consensus to correct it. Vaze50 21:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But I’m not attempting to do that and don’t think it’s the right thing to do. The fact that you don’t understand my “motivation” and find it bizarre should tell you that you are not very good at understanding other editors’ motivations. That’s an excellent reason to not opine upon them. DeCausa (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you describe yourself as English, rather then British? GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You see this is exactly where the problem is . You’ve previously said at first you didn’t want to see the UK acknowledged because there was no consensus on it. In fact you’ve just said that adding it is “not the right thing to do”, in other words that you are not simply defending a non-existent consensus, but you are in fact an activist on one side of this argument.


 * And why do you hold that view? There are only a couple of plausible reasons. 1) You think the UK is not a country (objectivity false), 2) You have a political objective to advance by removing the UK, 3) Some other reason that isn’t immediately apparent. What actually happened was that the UK was already on most relevant articles before a mass removal took place (without consensus I might add!) and for no clear reason. You have identified yourself as an activist here, so you can’t complain when other people point that out now, can you? I’m sure would agree. Vaze50 22:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Vaze50, it's a not hill worth dying on. Maybe 'someday', there'll be enough editors to over-ride those who continue to push against using the terms British & UK, in the bio article intros & infoboxes. But for the moment, that doesn't seem to be the case. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed that  suddenly went quiet when they accidentally revealed their bias on the topic and their belief that the UK is not a country? How can anybody seriously say that this website is acting in an impartial way when a tiny number of blatantly politically motivated individuals are allowed to bully their way through? What can we do about this? Vaze50 14:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've proposed "constituent country" for the intros of England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland several times, years ago, in order to help defuse the potential confusion for readers, on the status of the four places. Was rejected every time. What can one do? :) GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Vaze50, firstly, of course the UK is a country. What of it? Secondly, have you read WP:STICK yet? Your attitude is a carcass I was happy to back away. That was the reason I did not reply. Your personal attack with ping has induced me - no doubt foolishly and pointlessly - to return with this post. My intention is for this to be my last response. Thirdly, going back to your penultimate post, the reason I hold the view you find so incomprehensible is the third option you give - except that it is apparent because I explained my reasoning in in the thread that you opened at MOS talk page. The fact that you are blinded by your obsessive belief that this is all some sort of politically motivated conspiracy is why you find it so difficult to understand. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I notice many things, concerning the topic-in-question. I just don't post about them, like I've done years ago. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It is immensely dissatisfying, to say the least, that pages on this website will remain inconsistent and incomplete because of the attitude of a tiny number of editors, including yourself sadly . However, that sums this website up to a tee. A small number of people establish a consensus among themselves that they are happy with, and anyone who challenges that consensus is bombarded and abused. Typical behaviour. Vaze50 14:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Block
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for disruptive editing. Vaze50, you continue to cast aspersions on other editors' motives and characterizations. Even though possibly this was partly provoked, in light of my very final warning to you above, you've crossed the line this time. Please note that this may likely end up being a last chance saloon block, so you should ensure that you're able to comport yourself with due moderation whenever matters become heated. If not, walking away and taking a breather would be my advise. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. El_C 21:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Not forgotten
Good to see, you're still semi-active on the 'pedia :) GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Chrystia Freeland
Hi, I noticed in revision 973684990, you removed the citation that gave her birth name (Christina). As you're probably aware, Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please be more careful in the future.

As well, it's not clear if the removal was intentional based on the edit summary ("... tidied up intro (removing some unnecessarily long sentences) ..."). If it was, please indicate that sort of thing in the future. Thanks. — W.andrea (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. ITBF (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked from editing
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for edit warring and incivil characterisations about other editors and their motivations (edit summaries 1 & 2), as you did at Peter Dutton. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)