User talk:Wugapodes/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

When you retargetted Phil Gould to the DAB page

@Narky Blert: Thanks for the note! I don't create disambiguation pages often, so there's a lot I don't know. I'll be sure to fix back links next time this happens, and in the meantime, I've fixed the outstanding problems you linked me to. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The more one digs beneath the superficial and publicly obvious levels of reading articles and of writing those new essential articles and of adding vital information to existing articles, the more one notices that there are all sorts of specialists and specialist collaborations working largely unnoticed behind the scenes, who know for certain that their contributions are essential to the success of the project. It's even possible that one or two of them may in fact be partially right.

So much of Wikipedia is about knowing who and where the experts are; and also who they aren't. For example, I have a mental list of WikiProjects ranging between "knowledgable answers within minutes" and "might as well talk to the wall". Narky Blert (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

15:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi—I'd like you to reconsider, or at least offer some more explanation on your no consensus close of the requested move on

@

WP:NAMECHANGES isn't really meant to handle professional wrestling, and that the frequent name changes which come with kayfabe plots make determining an enduring name difficult. Developing some kind of criteria for handling name changes in professional wrestling would resolve the wider problem you point out. Hope that helps. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 22:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd point out that multiple reliable sources using Brodie Lee were provided. I don't think any post-change reliable sources still using Luke Harper were provided, were they? Winter's Tulpa (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Winter's Tulpa: Opposers were not convinced that the provided sources were reliable. You provided two sources in the nomination. One was to a Forbes sites article which multiple previous discussions, including one this year, have agreed are generally unreliable. The other is to a CBS sports article which includes both the new and old name. Participants specifically brought up that fact and said that it shows the new name has not gained much traction since the old name is still needed to identify the subject. Another editor linked to a Bleacher Report article in their support comment while simultaneously saying that "it may be a couple months early" to rename the page which lends credence to the editors saying the weight of sourcing is not sufficient for a rename. In the discussion section, you link to that same Bleacher Report article as well as a New York Post article. The New York Post is a tabloid that is considered marginally reliable. Given all that I believe the opposers when they say the sourcing is unconvincing. Did the opposers provide a list of links that call the subject by the status quo name? No. Am I going to assume they're lying about knowing their subject area? Also no. Opposition was based in policy, so I see no reason to disregard them. Did the supporters also have valid arguments? Yes, which is why the result is "no consensus" rather than "consensus against". If you still disagree and think my close is incorrect, you can request a move review. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

18:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hard to believe it's been nearly 3 months since this. I haven't been terribly active, but it's been nice to see your name around quite a bit. I hope all is well with you. Cheers, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your absence has been felt, but hopefully you've been enjoying the break! I've been trying to distract myself from the quarantine by helping out where I can, and luckily there is no shortage of crises. It's been quite an exciting three months, and I'm still discovering weird-but-useful tools; a few days ago I learned that +sysop lets me change the content model for a page, which made resolving this problem very simple. I don't think I ever properly thanked you for the nomination, but I do greatly appreciate it! No doubt it was a major factor in my success, and hopefully when you're back at full capacity, we'll see more editors lucky enough to have your vote of confidence. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You're more than welcome; as the !voting pattern showed, it was a position you were very ready for (for instance; I haven't the faintest what you're referring to on that talk page...) I'm actually hoping to be back to "normal" levels of activity starting this week; let's see how well I can stick to my plans. See you around. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes,

Recently you closed a movepage discussion on Republic of Ilirida and moved the page to Ilirida. I had a look at the talkpage, and it now has the talkpage from the old Ilirida page [13]. During the renaming, the page names were swapped, but not the talkpages. As the Ilirda talkpage is from long ago, the talkpage that is relevant to the topic is this one [14] after the page's revival under a slightly alternate name of Republic of Ilirida. Is it possible to make that the current pagename? Or would it require a merger of both talkpages, or is neither option possible and they have to stay that way? Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Resnjari: I've moved the talk page. Thanks for letting me know about this! — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thank you for fixing it up. Much appreciated. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Request to re-examine the request for semi-protected status here. The article has been disruptive edited multiple times over the past month by a user with a clear conflict of interest in the article. That user was warned multiple times and seems to have created a separate account in order to avoid a ban. More information about that can be found here. Request to revert the page back to this state https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_V._Mastriano&oldid=953575094 and place the article under semi-protected status to stop further disruption. Hyderabad22 (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hyderabad22: To me, it looks like a content dispute. F&INerd has sourced content they wish to include, and you don't want it included. The way to resolve this is by discussing it with the editor on the talk page and coming to a consensus on what to do. In my opinion, changing the name from "Controversy" is probably a good thing per Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies, and I'm wouldn't be surprised if multiple people over the years had problems with it. F&INerd has valid points, and I encourage you both to work together to improve the article; I'm willing to help too if you'd like. But given what I've seen, I don't believe protection is appropriate right now. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: The sources and the content are highly editorialized. Examples from this edit include statements claiming Mastriano has publicly addressed accusations against him. The linked citation from his own campaign website does not state that. The section discussing HIPPA has no citation for what was added that section is again highly editorialized (and as an aside refers to Dr Levine as a "he" something that DrWillow also did in their edits). Both users seem to be the subject of the article in question. The edits made are not good faith edits based on the continued blanking of sections, removal and editorializing of content and other disruptive edits. The user across both accounts had ample opportunity to disclose their conflict of interest and engage in discussion on the talk page. Something they did not do. They avoided the three revert rule by simply editing back in their content. here and here to make the most recent version of the page. Again request for this version of the article to be restored and semi-protected status be added Hyderabad22 (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As an additional aside maybe check the existing biography of a living person discussion for this article here Hyderabad22 (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@

a sock puppet investigation clerk. As far as page protection goes, you've given me enough reason to doubt myself that I would rather have another administrator with fresh eyes look at the request. I'll ask around for a second opinion. Until then, some friendly advice I have for you is to only start one discussion at a time. It is very difficult to look into these matters when information is scattered across multiple pages. When you do start a new discussion, it is important that your first post contains links to all the other relevant discussions. Based on the RfPP request, it seemed like an obvious content dispute decline, but over the past few hours I've slowly gotten more information that would have been helpful from the very start. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 06:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@

article talk page, the sock puppet investigation(which I've recently updated), and the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Hyderabad22 (talk

) 06:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Likewise sir, thank you for your time. I will also implement your recommendations. Your work is much appreciated!

F&INerd (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure if this should go under "Bugs" or "Limitations", so I'll let you decide, but I wanted to report this behavior when using Capricorn on redirect pages. This applies to redirects that go to any of these anchor types: {{

1. The redirect target field does not populate with anchors that are not section headings.
2. When trying to save a redirect update that goes to an anchor, an error message appears on first save, but it will still take on the second save. Examples:
   1. {{anchor}}: Error: The target page "Isotopes of terbium" does not have a a section called "Terbium-140". Try again to proceed anyway.
   2. {{
      vanchor
      }}: Error: The target page "Humble Bundle" does not have a a section called "Android". Try again to proceed anyway.
   3. <span id>: Error: The target page "Humble Bundle" does not have a a section called "Humble Monthly". Try again to proceed anyway.

If not a bug, it's probably worth a mention on the page somewhere for awareness. Thanks for the tool! Regards, 2pou (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Now that I look carefully at the error message, it looks like there's a minor bug in that Error message itself. There's a typo in there: "...does not have a a section called..." -2pou (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the message 2pou! The anchor issue is a known bug. My best idea for implementation would be to search the entire page's HTML for the given ID which sounds expensive. I'll add it to the bugs section for now so that it's clearer, and also fix the typo! — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

write an article about Indian Blogger Jayasurya Mayilsamy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.51.240.147 (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I sent you a message before about my intention to bring Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt to FA status. I have since added a "legal background" section. Could you review it and, if necessary, change it or leave some feedback for me? I'll still be expanding the 'Supreme Court' section, after which I'll request a copy-edit and then nominate it. --MrClog (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
• Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
• The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
• Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
• MX
  with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• WP:GS/COVID19
  .
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

Hi, and thanks for shutting down the edit-warring at Template:Welcome-retro.

A propos of that: Can I get template editor access? I am in the ironic position of having created {{Welcome-retro}}, and being unable to edit it now because it's template-editor protected (as it should be), and I had a specific change I wanted to make. I've created some templates before, and modified quite a few others. I'd say I'm an advanced beginner or intermediate template editor: I use parser functions and param substitution, but I don't do template-generating templates and complex syntax yet. Most of the ones in this list of my contributions of new templates are just redirects or nav templates, but there are a few more serious ones, such as {{To USD round}}, {{Welcome-anon-summary}}, {{Glossary term}}, {{WikiEd banner shell}}, and others. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:TPEGRANT. It seems most of your contributions are to non-template protected pages, so if this is the only template protected page you'd like to edit, I'd much rather lower the protection to ECP. If you were hoping to expand your work to other template protected pages, I'd be more willing, though you may find this user group more useful in the long-run. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 23:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Um, what am I missing? "It seems most of your contributions are to non-template protected pages..."—that's by definition, right? I would have edited others, but I don't have the right to do so, which is why I was asking. Mathglot (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant sandbox pages of template protected pages. Regardless, I thought about this a bit more and given you want to work on Welcome-retro, that's enough to satisfy me that it would be useful. Sorry for the run-around, I haven't granted TPE before so was perhaps overly cautious. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries; appreciated. You're just doing due diligence, and that's to be commended. I'll pay more attention to sandbox pages in the future; perhaps my frustration about editors using the testcases pages incorrectly (for runnng tests, instead of how they ought to be used, namely to enumerate cases that ought not to break with future template changes) spilled over into using my own sandbox instead of Template sandboxes, where such things more rightly should live. Anwyay, thanks much! Mathglot (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Wugapodes. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.Enterprisey (talk!

) 05:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: Was just about to email you myself. I've replied; I'm also on IRC — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm writing to you because you've been helpful with scripts, and you were the last one to edit {{DYKsubpage}}. The issue is that nomination pages containing slashes are not properly categorized. Normally, a pending nom would be in Category:Pending DYK nominations and Category:DYK/Nominations, but a nom subpage with any slashes, such as {{Did you know nominations/Snooker world rankings 1988/1989}} is not. This, I believe, is because {{DYKsubpage}} uses SUBPAGENAME, which for the example returns "1989" rather than "Snooker world rankings 1988/1989". I think this issue can be fixed by replacing SUBPAGENAME with something like #titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}}||2. Thanks for looking into this. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mandarax: Thanks for the very detailed report! I tracked the problem down to Module:NewDYKnomination, and it should be fixed. If there are still problems, let me know! — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. However, that's a separate (although related) issue, which was going to be the next thing I was going to ask for. The result of that bug is something I can fix myself (as I had done for my example). I asked for this one first since I can't really take care of it myself. For example, if I manually added the categories, I'd have to watch the page and manually change them when the nom was promoted or rejected. So {{DYKsubpage}} still needs to be fixed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I've hopefully fixed that too now! — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks again! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A different DYK script issue, again involving SUBPAGENAME: the links added to article talk pages are incorrect when the nom page name is different than the article's name. For example, see here or here. My preference would be to remove the This review is transcluded from <nompage>. You may review or comment on the nomination by clicking <here>. line entirely from {{DYK conditions}}. I know you added it in response to a comment at the bot task approval, but it's really completely unnecessary, as the very next line on the nom has a "Review or comment" link. If you must retain it, the {{SUBPAGENAME}} should be replaced with the correct value, which is in the "nompage" parameter of the {{DYK nompage links}}, although I dunno how you'd easily get that without adding a parameter to {{DYK conditions}}, and please don't do that. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mandarax: I'm fine removing the line from DYKconditions, but wanted to ask why you'd oppose adding a parameter to it? I like the notice because, for newer editors, it may not be clear how the transclusion works if they click "edit section" and just see {{Did you know nominations/Foo bar}} It seems like we get the best of both worlds if we have DYKconditions take the nom page as a parameter and modify line 18 of Module:NewDYKnomination so that it includes ${NOM_SUBPAGE} as an argument to DYKconditions. That way it's guaranteed that the page link is correct while still keeping the notice line for less experienced editors. It seems like a low cost, but I'm interested in your perspective. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

People are always moving nom pages, in spite of being told not to. Afterwards, they occasionally attempt to fix the templates, but they almost always do it wrong. Whether they try to fix it or not, I'm usually the one who ultimately goes in and actually fixes it. Adding another unnecessary parameter would just be adding another thing to fix, for an almost negligible benefit. If the line is to remain, it could just say that it's transcluded from the template linked to immediately below, with the "Review or comment" link. Or if you really prefer it to appear in its current, redundant form, it could be done instead in {{DYK nompage links}}, where the nompage parameter is already available. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a nudge in case you forgot about this. There are four options mentioned above to choose from: remove the line, replace it with text but no links, display the line in the other template, or add a parameter. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done thanks for the nudge! — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments there. I have come to the same conclusion about the consensus. (I was misled by the one editor constantly framing the opposition as if it was coming from just one person.) You might find a discussion on my talk page interesting. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, I think full protection was a reasonable response. There was a note at

WT:LANG) so it helped bring more eyes to the article which is a net positive. I also left a note on Kent's talk page about signatures, so hopefully that completely unrelated issue gets resolved. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 20:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a third time for the help with my signature. And, just to summarize my shouts in the wilderness: I agree that the text doesn't belong in the article provided that the article's name is changed to

Nominative-accusative alignment to represent its overall content. Furthermore, the entire first paragraph should be deleted as it relates archetypally to Nominative-accusative language and not sub-topically to Nominative-accusative alignment. So, I'm not opposed to eventual excision of the Sociolinguistics section; I'm not advocating its permanent inclusion. I'm opposed to its premature deletion pending the name changes still under consideration. Speaking as one who can't even manage a Wikisignature without assistance, I'd change the names and do the migration myself if I knew the proper Wikiprotocols. --Kent Dominic·(talk)

06:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes, and sorry, once again about this topic: it looks like the page move has taken the PP beyond its scheduled expiration[15]. Or is it intended for prolonging the cooling-off phase? –Austronesier (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

20:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I thought you'd want to know that the 01:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's due to something wrong with pywikibot, but I've managed to get it fixed. Luckily the problem was only with logging in, so all the data from the 01:00 run still exists; I've fixed it so that the report page uses the 01:00 rather than the data from 17:52 when it actually ran. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Wugapodes, I figured I could nominate one of the sketchs as Valued image on Commons. Commons only allows one image per scope as VI (in this case, I figured the scope would be SCOTUS oral arguments) unless multiple images in a set are necessary to understand what is happening (doesn't apply here). Which of the two do you think is best? --MrClog (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrClog: I'd suggest File:Waxman during Hyatt III sketch.jpg. The alternative, File:Chemerinsky during Hyatt III sketch.jpg, has some aspects that make the Waxman sketch technically superior. I don't like Kavanaugh's expression in the Chemerinsky drawing, and Chemerinsky's gesture points directly at it, drawing focus to Kavanaugh's face repeatedly (I think it's just the angle, I'm sure it's an accurate depiction of Kavanaugh in that position). His expression in Waxman's portrait is far more interesting. Waxman's posture keeps the whole image balanced, while Chemerinsky's lean makes the composition feel rather cramped. I also think the colors are rendered slightly better; the bench in Chemerinsky has a lot of blue undertones with hard edges that make it feel muddled, while in Waxman the blue undertones are better blended into the orange overtones making the bench coloring more even. That's not to say the Chemerinsky drawing is not good; it's actually a wonderful example of Lien's style. The postures of all the figures are natural and compelling. Chemerinsky's posture does a good job characterizing him and showing his nonchalance in the situation, and the bent finger is an interesting focal point in a composition with a lot of straight edges; Kagan's expression--especially her hand position--evokes pensiveness that doesn't come through as well in the Waxman drawing; Kavanaugh's expression is similarly enigmatic, and the emotions behind it are harder to pin down compared with the Waxman drawing. They're both good and you can't go wrong, but if I had to choose one, I would suggest the Waxman drawing on its technical merits since the stylistic aspects of the Chemerinsky drawing are also present in the Waxman drawing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I have opened a review at c:Commons:Valued image candidates/Waxman during Hyatt III sketch.jpg. --MrClog (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI: The Waxman sketch has since been approved as a Valued image and I have now nominated the set on Commons as a featured picture set. --MrClog (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I have been trying to ask you if you see the conduct of SPECIFICO which was part of the dispute which led to the IBAN. I have said that his comments on his talk page are evidence of incivility in the form of civil POV-pushing, particularly WP:CIVILITY 2.(d) lying. Do you see this?  This is essential to a full understanding of this event. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I have

WP:AN. I have said all I have to say on this matter, and will not reply further. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 19:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's unfair to tell me to drop the stick without acknowledging that you have repeatedly not addressed my question.  There is no oxymoron; I cited specific policy.

I am not trying to convince you of anything about my behavior; it is what you are apparently ignoring in this that concerns me.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not trying to convince you of anything about my behavior If that is the case then you are violating your IBAN which is why I am ignoring it. If you insist I not ignore it, the proper course of action is to block you for violating your IBAN after I clearly told you that this is not covered by

WP:BANEX. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 20:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe that my IBAN is inappropriately one-way, so my behavior is not the only thing to consider. I can accept this is the end of the discussion, but I do not believe you gave me due process. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I just read this:

WP:CIVILITY 2. (d) lying conduct I cited which shows that a two-way IBAN is more appropriate than the one-way you issued, and you have not addressed this. I am not asking for a reversal to an at-fault IBAN against him, but because I see no evidence that you have properly examined the dispute from both sides before sanctioning me, I believe a no-fault two-way IBAN is the proper resolution. Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk

) 01:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/956376465/956386743 — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel like the more I home in on the question I am asking the more evasive you get. A one week topic ban is four times less useful at preventing interaction than a one month IBAN. If there is to be an IBAN it should be two-way and equal, either no-fault or both at-fault. But again, your apparent failure to examine the evidence and refusal to engage in due process is grounds for you to reverse your action and recuse yourself. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, in case the ping doesn't work, I mentioned you here User talk:Yamla#Denial of appeal but already copied to AN [21]. Nil Einne (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Chemerinsky during Hyatt III sketch.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Waxman during Hyatt III sketch.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I defer to your judgement but a lot of these India-Pakistan conflict related articles are and have been a source of near endless POV editing. My usual approach is to just slap indefinite ECP on them per ACDS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh that's fine too; I'm still trying to get a handle on when and when not to use ECP so thanks for the note. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Just be sure to log it at

WP:ACDSLOG if you are invoking ACDS. -Ad Orientem (talk

) 22:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

NM. I see you already handled it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, please do not cast aspersions against me by accusing me of having a "long term pattern of" misconduct as you did here. The one-sided evidence you cited does not accurately represent these conflicts. Based on these accusations, your improper block[22], and your refusal to explain your one-way IBAN[23][24] per

Your complete lack of understanding of

tendentious editing that go beyond my ability or will to resolve. I have every intention of not interacting with you in any capacity, so please stop posting to my talk page. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 00:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)