User talk:Dsuke1998AEOS

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: the Arab–Israeli conflict India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Hello, Dsuke1998AEOS! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello, I'm Ohnoitsjamie. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Oops, yes, not intended for you. Sorry about that! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THE LACK OF INTELLIGENCE ON THE SUBJECT DOESN'T RESOLVE FUTURE ISSUES IN COMBAT. DR. ROBERT DUNCAN INVENTED THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT PEOPLE ARE INDEED TARGETED WITH. 137.103.143.242 (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance at the various RFA venues. I have to wonder, though, how you managed to edit all of those pages within seconds of SilkTork closing the discussion, given that it was closed half an hour earlier than planned. Primefac (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was expecting for

Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:R from codename and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 24#Template:R from codename until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Just on the off chance you're using a script that is somehow borking, Special:Diff/1131492808 put the wrong date which caused the section to be immediately archived. Primefac (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for noticing. No, I didn't use any scripts, I added the timestamp manually. In any case, better for me to let

Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah. User:Anomie/unsignedhelper.js makes it a bit easier, saves having to find and/or type out the date. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll test later. Thanks,

Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Apologies, I've made a request to revert my move

Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

Hello Dsuke1998AEOS. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Philip Cross

Would you mind

@

Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

[Thank you for the

☖ 18:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Request for clarification on closure

Read your close, and even if we set aside 2:1 as "slightly more" (?) I'm wondering how you weighed the policy argument vs all the expressed subjective opinion. - jc37 03:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

their merits

, but rather by the editors' perception of them being a net positive/negative. As a result most comments on both sides were subjective to some extent, and it wouldn't be right for me to give more weight to those opinions whom I agreed with.

The strongest policy-based arguments for deletion came from Scyrme, who posted a personal account of their experience with ANI which can be considered evidence of the redirect being "discouraging for new users", but it isn't so extraordinary as to overrule the vast amount of "keep" !votes.

Of course, if you still aren't satisfied with my explanation, you are free to go to

Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Pointing to DRV on the first response? lol, no worries, this isn't adversarial. It is what it is: a request for clarification.

And I noted at the top that there was "...all the expressed subjective opinion."

For the most part, it was "This is inappropriate for reasons" vs "We don't care, we want to say what we think about the place, for reasons".

And everyone who wanted to

This is not a pipe

. (shrugs)

But I also agree that there were a few standout comments, like the one you noted, or like NYB's "Redirects are not meant to be used as a vehicle for editorial comments about aspects of the project.".

But all that aside, I was asking you about policy (and guidelines). A closer doesn't only weigh the "us vs them" subjective opinions in a discussion, they also need to weigh the discussion in relation to the broader policy. (Especially when discussion is mostly ILIKEITIT/IWANTIT.) There were several policy-related comments, even though some did not link to a specific shortcut. And then some that did link to policy/guidelines. And I'm also curious if you went to go look at the principles and finding of fact of those two arbcom cases that were quoted. - jc37 19:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, I apologize if my comment sounded confrontational, and have struck out the relevant part – I had jumped to conclusions based on your comment that largely sparked the AN thread.

That said, I don't see how the two arbitration cases that you mentioned have much relevance to the redirects. One had revolved around an editor who caused a lot of drama for chronic incivility, while the other was about an administrator who made a remark widely perceived as a personal attack and even as xenophobic. These cases are not in any way comparable to linking to a snarky and semi-humorous shortcut in a non-personalized context, mostly to make rhetorical points. Not even close. The existence of these redirects is only a by-product of so many editors perceiving ANI as an unpleasant place. That many of these editors want for it to not be a "cesspit" should serve as a refutation of the argument that the redirects are an extension of the toxicity they describe.

Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I won't argue that I experienced more than a little lack of

good faith

there, especially by those who apparently missed that I pinged everyone, not just those that opposed...

So, no, I'd like to think that I'm not what others may have wanted to portray me to be - c'est la vie I suppose.

And you don't need to apologize, all things considered, your response was and has been quite

civil

, and appreciated : )

Anyway, for the next part of your response, I do think you're teetering close to "supervote" territory, in that you seem to have accepted the argument that attacking a place where people come together is not an attack on the people who come together there. There was a disagreement on that in the discussion, to be sure, but you as closer probably shouldn't be making that determination on your own. Same for you accepting that it was "mostly" a rhetorical point that people were making. I might argue that actual usage might disagree with what the opposers were aver-ing about how they felt about AN/I. (See also User talk:Floquenbeam#Why_ask_for_objections? (not pinging at their request) for some possible additional thoughts on the subject of AN/I.)

As for arbcom, the applicable sections in question: Etiquette, Good faith and disruption, Fair criticism, Offensive commentary, from the one. And Decorum, and Scottywong's manner, from the other.

All of which would suggest that editors shouldn't be doing what the commenters were saying they wanted to do with these redirects, in the way that they wanted, nor for the reasons they stated that they wanted to.

And finally, I'm still wondering about what your thoughts were on the applicability of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Reasons_for_deleting point #3. - jc37 02:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

Just wanted to thank you for your closure here. It's a thankless job and I think you handled it well.

––FormalDude (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

"

Socking" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Socking has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 14 § Socking until a consensus is reached. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement appeals

One stage of the appeal process is to "request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN")". I noticed you moved a discussion from AN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1198920978 but you did not put the reason in the edit summary. Was there a reason for this move? Peter James (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

"

Thomas Castro" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Thomas Castro has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 28 § Thomas Castro until a consensus is reached. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read the

Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]