User talk:Ikjbagl/Archive 2

Archive of talk page for the year 2020.

Your thread has been archived

Hi Ikjbagl! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How do I view a list of wiki pages with a certain template? E.g. "Confusing" pages, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sunshine District

With respect, I feel you didn't really consider my argument against the deletion of the Sunshine District page. I have difficulty understanding your thought process in claiming that an entity that produces talent considered to be among the best in the world on a regular basis as "not notable". And then to claim I only contribute to one topic is false. I'm not sure how barbershop music and golf are one topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazinwanga (talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bazinwanga: It doesn't matter how "good" they are if they aren't significantly covered in reliable, published secondary sources that are independent of the subject. That is what notability means (see WP:GNG); that is what you need to have an article. I searched for such sources and was unable to find them, so I !voted delete. It's nothing personal. I've watched articles I created be deleted through the AfD process, and I know it kind of sucks/feels bad, so I'm sorry about that. The best advice I have is to maybe take a short break and then come back to improve a different article. Ikjbagl (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Ikjbagl! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Can I propose a redirect page that was denied multiple times 10 years ago?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Geography stubs

Thanks for your efforts at the Cobalt Junction AfD. Although I think there's a strong argument to delete the places you added, they're not really suitable for a batch nomination since their notability (however slight) is still debatable and some editors will want to discuss them individually. In my experience geo stub batches work best when there's a set of similar places where the "unincorporated community" designation is obviously entirely erroneous, such as ranches or railroad junctions. If there's any evidence that there was some sort of settlement or community there in the past, I would suggest separate nominations.

Wikipedia has thousands of geography stubs that were mass-created from questionable GNIS date, and going through them is a huge task that a few of us have been active in. I can give you a few pointers if you're interested.

As for the AfD, I'm OK with others adding entries to my nominations as long as it doesn't get too unwieldy. I'll leave it up to you whether to remove them or let it play out. –dlthewave ☎ 01:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: Thank you for the advice, I'm a bit new at participating in AfD, and these geography stubs are numerous. It seems like you're right and maybe I should remove the ones listed. Can I just delete them from the AfD and remove the notices on their pages once I've started the process? That seems like it might be inappropriate. Ikjbagl (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to strike the entries on the AfD page, post a comment mentioning that you're withdrawing them and leave the article templates for the closing admin to take care of. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Lee Barnes (cook)

I figured since I have access, I could pass you what I have access to. Newspapers 1 Newspapers 2a Newspapers 2b Newspapers 3. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: Thank you, that is very helpful. Are these links stable/permanent in the sense that they will remain free and accessible? My only concern is that they don't appear to be legible without clicking on the image to open a new page, and I can't get the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine to save the OCR text portion of the page. Do you have advice on archiving these pages to ensure lasting access, or are these pages themselves designed to be permanent archives? Thank you, Ikjbagl (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Newspapers.com says it lasts/is permanent until I delete it, which I won't. As far as anything else like OCR reads, i'm not sure. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: wow, I had no idea there was such a thing as a Wikipedia Library Card. Thanks, I really appreciate it when experienced editors share tips! Ikjbagl (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

warnings response

Hi there, I know what vandalism is. And no, I was not trying to just make my edit from a personal opinion on RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 4)'s page, if you look down on the edit history you would be able to find why I did it. The contestant Monét X Change was highly praised on episode 7 for her perfomance on the challenge and literally had NO negative feed back. However as you are assuming that my edit was with not so good intentions, may I ask you, why do you think she should not be categorized as "High"? --♤MS♤ (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@XxMoonSpellxX: Sorry, I must have edited too quickly; it looked like vandalism at first glance because those pages have been vandalized a lot recently. I don't know what the right answer is, I was just trying to revert the cases of obvious vandalism where people started changing information in an obviously incorrect way and adding names that weren't even in the competition. You are likely correct. Ikjbagl (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI

While this close Talk:Oscar Wilde#RfC on lead image (April 2020) went with the bulk of the discussion the pic that was in the infobox was supposed to be moved into the body of the article and the use of the Sarony pic in the America section needed removing so there wouldn't be two of the same pic in the article. I've taken care of both of those items. I know most RFC closures are fairly straightforward but some have more to them than the basic question. Best regards and stay safe. MarnetteD|Talk 23:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I read back through the talk page and I don't see a consensus for switching the photos or moving one down into the article as you suggest here (you mentioned it in a comment or two and someone else said they wouldn't object, but that was not part of the RfC and nobody was asked to comment on it (nor did they)). The RfC was exclusively about which photo to use in the lead. Nevertheless, I have no objection to you including the picture. Aside from that, I want to let you know that I found your edit summaries including my username and accusing me of forgetting things to be of the kind that could ruffle one's feathers. I appreciate your much friendlier tone here. Thank you for helping improve the encyclopedia, Ikjbagl (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You need to take the whole conversation including the thread that was not part of the RFC into account and the previus edits from last month into account. That way you wouldn't have left the Sarony pic in the America section. Edit summaries are to be kept brief so there was no attempt to ruffle ones feathers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

——Serial ^# 19:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The above boils down to: do not make comments about other users, particularly in the way you brought up the ArbCom decision as a method of attacking Cassianto. You will end up at ANI sharply if you continue in that vein. I’ve archived the thread so stop it boiling over into any more personal attacks or silliness. - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I don't see how that was an attack. Cassianto accused me of being obsessed, so it seems pretty relevant to state matter-of-factly that Cassianto is the one who has had problems with this in the past. I don't think that pointing out others' behavior constitutes an attack; I didn't comment on it in a positive or negative way, I simply stated what anybody can read. I also firmly disagree with archiving the entire discussion. Deleting the last couple of comments would be fine, but archiving the entire discussion just seems to further your goal of not wanting to have the infobox shown. Ikjbagl (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You can agree or disagree as much as you want, but don’t try and guess my reasons for doing it: you’re wrong on this point entirely. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

For context, SchroCat was also at least peripherally involved in the incident regarding discretionary sanctions on infoboxes. See the list of involved parties at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_in_infobox_discussions#Involved_parties. Ikjbagl (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Well done for stating the obvious. I’m sure the next ArbCom can find space for you if you want to keep pressing this particular button. As it is, I was included because of a silly grudge held by a third party. There were no findings against me and no action taken against me. You need to stop focussing on the historical actions of other editors. - SchroCat (talk)

If you want to bring me to arbitration over plainly and uncritically stating facts that provide context to a discussion, then I would tell you that it's likely a waste of their time, but you can do it if you really want to. Otherwise, please stop threatening me with it and stop commenting on my talk page. Thank you. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I have not threatened you with anything, so thank you for another misreading of the situation. I have tried, unsuccessfully it seems, to point out that the last ArbCom case was an attempt to remove the personalisation of the debate, and to focus editors’ attention on the policies and guidelines. So far you have raked up the personalisation point several times, despite requests and warnings not to do. You have not ‘plainly and uncritically stated facts’: you are using a personal history you do not understand as a weapon in a discussion. That is unlikely to work well for anyone. This is my last post here, unless I see further dubious behaviour by you to be addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arc Héré

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arc Héré you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yakikaki -- Yakikaki (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arc Héré

The article Arc Héré you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Arc Héré for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yakikaki -- Yakikaki (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

You are also guilty of edit warring, so leaving a warning on my page is a tad hypocritical. WP:OWN is also a policy, and one you show signs of with this article. This was utterly inappropriate, as were your reverts on the article last night. When edits are being made in line with accepted policies and guidelines, you should not remove them back to your preferred version, particularly when the original version is poorly done. - SchroCat (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

That edit was not inappropriate. Fixing grammar and adding back specificity because I watch a page I created does not mean I "own" the page (I am well aware of the OWN policy). I was unaware of some of the MOS rules like punctuation being outside quote marks (considered incorrect in my profession), which is why I said on your talk page that the BRD policy exists for a reason--a brief discussion on the talk page could have informed me of rules like that without you starting an edit war. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, there's no reason for your rudeness. "Poorly done" and "second rate" are clear insults when we both know I wrote the source material. I can see why people have questioned your civility; you appear to be quite bellicose. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was inappropriate. There is not one shred of justification in undoing the edits that were done to the page and making it worse as a result. Why breach guidelines like ENGVAR? Did you think that two editors and a bot were deliberately making it worse? And to use an untruthful edit summary as justification is even worse. (And punctuation being inside or outside quote marks is nothing to do with a profession, it's stylistic or geographically-based).

I use the term "second rate" to refer to the article, not the individual and, as it is applied to an inanimate object that, you say, you don't own, it is amiss to say that it is an insult. If I had referred to the people who wrote it, you may have a point, but as I wasn't referring to any individual, the attempted slur is laughable. There is no need for you to personalise the disagreeent by name-calling. If you wish me to revert in kind, I will do, but there is little point in me lowering myself to the level you have already gone to.

It takes two to edit war, and you were equally culpable. You could or should also have gone to the talk page to discuss, particularly when I was giving you an indication of the sections of the MoS that were applicable. I have no idea why you thought it appropriate to edit war when being informed of the sections of the MoS that were applicable. – SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you. Stop commenting on my talk page. Ikjbagl (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)