User talk:StellarHalo

Hi StellarHalo. Many of your recent posts at the reference desks have bent or broken the rule against "requests for opinions, predictions or debate". Could you exert some additional care in filtering out questions that are more likely to results in opinion and debate than fact-based answers? Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, if you persist in spamming reference desks with more nonsense like this [1] I will be calling for you to be topic-banned from the reference desks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump Ok then. Please try to enlighten me on how was that in any way nonsensical? Don't tell me you are triggered by a mere list of questions and background info? StellarHalo (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My warning stands. I am not going to engage in debate with you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump So no evidence then. You are basically just casting aspersion on me. StellarHalo (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a topic ban.-gadfium 19:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll add to this that I'll happily impose a partial block from those pages if that pattern continues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the same thing,

WP:ANI, thus wasting more of the time of editors who could be doing something better (added to the time StellarHalo is already wasting with point-making rhetorical questions). A simpler action would be to page-block SH from the Reference desk pages, which I am also prepared to do if the "debating" questions or other disruption continue. Bishonen | tålk 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC).[reply

]

Hi StellarHalo. Since I last commented here, two of your reference desk questions have been at least borderline rule violations. There was this question, about the Israel-Palestine conflict and then this question, about both the I-P conflict (later struck) and ongoing sanctions against Russians. It's not impossible to ask a legitimate ref desk question about these sensitive topics, but I believe your questions were open-ended ones that naturally invite opinion and debate. The first did result in some acrimonious back-and-forth, and the second has users questioning the POV of your assumptions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the first question was "acrimonious back-and-forth"? I asked about the legal basis and reasons for why the international community including the allies of Israel would choose to view the Israeli occupation of the West Bank as illegal, specifically if they have ever explained their reasoning and justification in any official declaration or if they have ever engaged with or debunked the position of Israel on the issue. Then, people tried to give answers, albeit none of which successfully answered my question. There was no debate on any of the facts I used as a context to the question.

For the most recent one, I was expecting people to know why "human rights" are called that and what they entail. It is not my fault if I specifically indicated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and someone did not at least skim it before second guessing me. StellarHalo (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that any "part of the first question was 'acrimonious back-and-forth'", but that it was a result of the question. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a debate-style question about one of the most sensitive geopolitical topics of our time would lead to debate, some of it impolite. On the recent question, I don't care to engage in the debate with you. Are you taking no responsibility for the resulting debate? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the first question, what debate are you talking about? Which part of that conversation was acrimonious or impolite? I asked for info on the reasoning behind a long-held legal position of the international community and everyone else gave their two cents on what that might be. If you are referring to Mathglot's initial response, he just pointed out the obvious and then missed the fact that my questions were narrow and only concern a specific aspect of the topic. My response to AnonMoos' initial answer was due to the fact that it only addressed the positions of Arab states rather than the wider international community.

For the recent question, I should have realized that other people would have their own presumptions about human rights and privileges. I should have made more effort to assuage and mitigate any possible concern they might have. I take full responsibility for being inconsiderate and not sufficiently concise. StellarHalo (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the first question, I'm referring to AnonMoos's comments and the replies by Of 19 and Lambiam. Of 19's comment was then removed by Mathglot in this edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:03, 6 February 2023 (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) 01:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know much about international relations but I suspect a big part of it is slippery slope. Like how they spent a lot of resources keeping His Royal Highness Napoleon I from escaping again instead of painlessly executing him. Never mind the implausibility of a similar thing happening to their country/head of state or the amount of deaths and trouble Napoleon/Palestinians caused, the idea of a people ~90-99% evicted from X in the past (no matter how severe, endless and un-karmic their persecution) evicting one that lives there now (no matter how uncompromising, asshole-y, and wiping out-y to the group above) makes countries nervous. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Many of the sources used are not reliable and interviews are not independent.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Chaitanya Raj Singh and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, StellarHalo! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! S0091 (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your move. I think it was first moved to exodus here without discussion. Do you think the original title should be restored? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore it to the "Flight" title if you want but the move to "Exodus" was not exactly controversial. Any controversial move has to be discussed in a move request and someone contested it in the talk page. StellarHalo (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You have recently edited a page related to the

contentious

. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you might be able to review the Extended-confirmed-protected edit request I have made regarding your recent change to 1992 Buenos Aires Israeli embassy bombing#Responsibility? 2A00:23C6:EE8E:1:8475:7B78:39:629E (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]