User talk:KlayCax/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Your GA nomination of Rachel Amber

The article Rachel Amber you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Rachel Amber 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

My account- Man-Man

My account is u/Tough-Big-8758 Contact whenever you need Man-Man122 (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inequality in the United States.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inequality in the United States.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Source distortion

Could you fix this distortion, please? Thank you. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Responded on religion in the United States page. The source itself states that it's the predominately perspective. (e.g. The article is trying to revise the common perception)

Although I agree a better source is needed. KlayCax (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Anglosphere again

Hello there I deleted your second attempt to add the term "Anglosphere" to this article. There was a RfC on the issue and there was no consensus for its addition. Thank you. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Foreskin RfC

Hello. There is an RfC about the Function section of the Foreskin article. You can participate in the RfC here. Prcc27 (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Hello, I'm Estar8806. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict, 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. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict

As we're all subject to 1RR on WP:ARBPIA articles, let's discuss the issue of WP:UNDUE in the lead of the article. I think it's OK to mention the support voiced by Iran and other Middle Eastern countries, but per International reactions to the October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict, the number of countries supporting Israel is far larger. Thus to maintain due weight, we will need to include language in the lead reflecting that. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, my apologies. I was under the operating assumption that country's support/opposition should generally be included in the leads of conflicts.

I didn't realize you reverted my edit. My apologies. I thought several editors made comments at the same time so the edit got overruled. KlayCax (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, it does definitely appear you are over 1RR. Consider this a friendly reminder. Andre🚐 01:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• OK, this edit[1] is definitely after that warning. Andre🚐 01:08, 8 October 2023 (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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:KlayCax reported by User:Andrevan (Result: ). Thank you. Andre🚐 01:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas

That edit on Hamas, that was not helpful. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Drmies:. The recent changes delete a significant portion of information about the organization. For instance, the original Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist and militant organization in Palestine. is a much better descriptor than is an Islamist political and military organization currently governing the Gaza Strip of the Palestinian territories. A lot of the information is cut out. That's why I believe it should be discussed on talk first. KlayCax (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, the edits were "explained", so that edit summary didn't make a lot of sense, but this one did, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm generally fine with the edits made by @Iskandar323: — although in my view some of the information should be retained — it's the changes in the lead that are overwhelming problematic. KlayCax (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Accidental deletion?

Hello,

In this edit[2] you seem to have deleted some text outside the section you were editing. Was that an accidental deletion? If so, please restore that text.VR _talk 04:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. That was placed in at the same time I was editing. Restoring now. @Vice regent: KlayCax (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured. Thanks! VR _talk 04:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 Israel-Hamas war

Hi, thanks for making your edits on this article. I noticed you reverted my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1179907843

My edit was the result of a lengthy discussion on the article’s talk page. When making major changes, please discuss it on the talk page first and try to achieve consensus. Happy to discuss improvements to the lead section with you there! Merlin^sorca 06:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Accidental deletion again?

Hey,

I noticed you accidentally deleted text here. Then I notice you restored stuff, but forgot to restore this "when 245 Palestinians and 32 Israelis were killed in clashes." VR _talk 18:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there's multiple edits going on at the same time. Feel free to revert it. @Vice regent:. KlayCax (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Canvassing warning - October 2023

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Prcc27 (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic alert for the Arab-Israeli conflict

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours per page for pages within this topic. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Weller talk 07:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

1RR

You violated the one revert rule, you made two reverts not just one. Your first removal was a revert. Kindly self revert your second or you may be reported to arbitration enforcement. nableezy - 11:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You actually have gone wayyy past 1 revert, these are all reverts within 24 hours:

• 10:42, 14 October 2023
• 10:35, 14 October 2023
• 10:06, 14 October 2023
• 09:57, 14 October 2023

Just calling something your one revert does not make all the past reverts somehow not reverts. Please do not continue reverting so much. You've already been reverted for the last set of changes so you cannot rectify that, but if you continue to revert in such a manner I will be asking for administrative attention. nableezy - 13:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy Let me know if I'm around. Which I will be for several hours. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I actually came here to say the same thing; 1RR violations are taken seriously and violations can result in immediate blocks. Please be careful to avoid making more than one revert in 24 hours in the future; for our purposes the definition of revert is: The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. BilledMammal (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Canvassing revisited

Any reason you pinged Man-Man122 at the Genital modification and mutilation talk page? They do not appear to be involved in that article, and they were not a participant in the last conversation we had about the Danish College of General Practitioners. This is yet another reminder about WP:CANVASS; I do not want to have to escalate this to an Administrator’s Noticeboard. Thanks. Prcc27 (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Because he was involved over the wording at circumcision, @Prcc27:. KlayCax (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that he was? I do not see any comments from him on the Circumcision article discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit war warning

FYI, you are 1 edit away from a WP:3RR violation on Genital modification and mutilation. Canvassing and edit warring on an article is a bad look. Prcc27 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring revisited

Once again, you are 1 edit away from WP:3RR on the same exact article. The next revert on that page would be an edit warring violation. Please discuss at the talk and get consensus. If discussion ends up being a stalemate, there are other alternatives to moving the conversation along, like a third opinion noticeboard. Prcc27 (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• I will also note that you can be edit warring even without violating 3RR- which is only a bright line to cross. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Speaker Johnson edits

You stated that material had been deleted when it had not. Instead, the paragraphing was edited.sbelknap (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Multiple editors were writing at the same time, @Sbelknap:. Apologies. It was totally deleted when I started reverting. KlayCax (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

YEC

Can you please remove the section until there's consensus to include per WP:BLP. Thanks Nemov (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Saying that he represented Answers in Genesis is not a violation of WP: BLP. He has openly and repeatedly stated he supports the organization. Tag me on talk and we can discuss.

Apologies, by the way. I realize I accidentally came across as combative.KlayCax (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax No worries. Feel free to debate in the TALK section. Until there's consensus to include, the section must be removed. I'm just attempting to avoid a needless edit war. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you specifically objecting to the section? Or any mention of Answers in Genesis in general? Multiple reliable sources have mentioned it in his Speaker bid. KlayCax (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax Again, I'm not here to debate you. There's a TALK section and multiple editors have expressed concern with the section and you restored the content without support. Nemov (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I got rid of it, @Nemov:. It's now partly merged into the legal career section. The rest is removed. KlayCax (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax you really should just remove it and explain yourself in the TALK section. Find consensus to to include it in a different section. You're making this way more difficult than it needs to be. Nemov (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Editing Dispute

I would like to present the entirety of Johnson’s beliefs on the LGBT matter so a complete understanding of his position can be understood. Can we reach a settlement on this? LeonDias19 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll respond on talk now. @Leondias19:. KlayCax (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hey, I agree with your comments at November 2023 Ohio Issue 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), however, you've already violated WP:3RR (and the other editor could likely also be blocked for edit warring in general). I would stop reverting on that page immediately and let other editors help. Or if you're concerned about a lack of attention, raise concerns at one of the notice-boards like WP:NPOV/N (for neutrality concerns), WP:RS/N (for concerns regarding reliable sources) or WP:AN/I (for user conduct concerns/incidents). Please tread carefully going forward and if you're going to edit the article further, make actual edits and not just undo/revert. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @Locke Cole:. It was my understanding that three reversions per 24 hours are allowed. Did it get knocked down to two? But thanks for the heads-up. :) KlayCax (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I count four: 2023-09-23T15:04:57, 2023-09-23T16:06:42, 2023-09-23T16:17:26 and 2023-09-23T16:20:11. The content and who is being reverted doesn't (generally) matter for WP:3RR (there are a handful of exceptions but they must be obvious to be relevant, things like obvious vandalism for example). 3RR is a bright-line rule, and the only prerequisite is that you've been warned (which I see multiple people have issued the standard template further up your talk page). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s not an entitlement. And I also see 4. Oops, wrote this a couple of hours ago, didn’t save. Doug Weller talk 20:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Johnson Lead

You have been warned several time and blocked recently for edit warring. When you add something to a WP:BLP and there's an objection you're not supposed to simply ignore direction and revert. You were directed to find support at TALK. Since this is a biography and article about politics you could be blocked for edit warring since it's a contentious topic. I am asking you to revert your edit and find support for your change or this could escalated further. Thanks Nemov (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

What are you objecting to? @Nemov:. I removed the AiG stuff. Another editor reinstated it. Feel free to. (I won't revert.) KlayCax (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, I see that you added Salon as a source for Mike Johnson's article. [3] Please avoid doing so, on WP:RSP it says There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Please try to stick to green-rated generally reliable sources. starship.paint (RUN) 13:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, please familiarise yourself with WP:DUE. You’ve repeatedly added a blockquote which you did not source with a reliable secondary source. As such there was no basis for that particular paragraph to be featured over any other paragraph in the primary source. We rely on reliable secondary sources to identify what quotes are important. starship.paint (RUN) 03:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring 2024 United States presidential election

Hello. This is a friendly reminder regarding WP:3RR given the current edit war going on at 2024 United States presidential election. Thanks. Prcc27 (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit war warning: Ethics of circumcision

You are once again 1 edit away from a WP:3RR violation, this time at Ethics of circumcision. Please discuss at talk, instead of reinstating your BOLD edit.Prcc27 (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I responded on talk. KlayCax (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Great, in the future you should do so sooner. Prcc27 (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

3RR is not an allowance, and your behavior across a wide array of articles is disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Dixiecrat shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Not sure right after being back from a block you should jump back into waring. Moxy- 02:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I already messaged on the talk page about that. @Moxy:. KlayCax (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: Ayaan Hirsi Ali

New edits seem fine

Uh, what? You might want to look closer at the edits you just restored. It's an intentional distortion of the long term stability of the biography that now recasts her as the "central figure of New Atheism" and disrupts the chronology of the lead by moving her so-called "conversion" to the top, intsead of its proper place in the third paragraph where her history of atheism and religion is discussed. That's for starters. How is it that you are not seeing this? Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The only distortion I found that Starlight made (and our past interactions are not positive) is the notion that Hirsi Ali escaped a forced marriage. That's been discredited (she admitted that she lied about that) and I reverted it.

However, Hirsi Ali is widely considered to be a New Atheist and historically one of its prominent voices. See this for just one source saying this.

Biography leads don't have to be 1v1 chronological. KlayCax (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

You don't appear to have understood anything I've written. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't. Hirsi Ali was widely considered a leading voice in New Atheism. KlayCax (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

You still don't seem to get it. The lead was previously stable and discussed all the encyclopedic topics in order, in reference to their weight, in proportion to their coverage. That has now been abandoned, in favor of duplicating material in the lead, creating a false juxtaposition between her New Atheism and her reversion to religion, and removing material about circumcision. I think it's pretty clear that not a single one of these edits that you restored improved the article. You are clearly tag teaming to help push a POV. I think we're done here. You support a series of horrible edits that now distorts the topic, repeats information multiple times, and deletes material because the editor "doesn't like it". Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

creating a false juxtaposition between her New Atheism and her reversion to religion How is this a false juxtaposition? Traditional, mainstream Christianity and Atheism are incompatible. Do we have evidence that she's not actually theistic? What evidence do you have to suggest that she doesn't hold "traditional" Christian beliefs on the subject? We can't do original research on the matter. I haven't seen any evidence to support this statement, either. I think it's pretty clear that not a single one of these edits that you restored improved the article. The FGM + moving to the Netherlands at 23 is an improvement.

I disagree with many of the changes. You're dramatically overinterpreting my reversion. I agree that the new edit introduces problems. KlayCax (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't really want to continue this discussion because it appears you aren't really familiar with how articles are written, so I'm basically wasting my time as you don't understand what I'm saying. There's absolutely no connection or justification for adding "Ali was a central figure of New Atheism; she announced her conversion to Christianity in November 2023" to the lead like this. It's called POV pushing. It might be fine for FOX news or Breitbart as a soundbite, but it's not what we do here. If you look at the previously stable version,[4] her religious experience is explained in detail, meticulously explaining in a single paragraph about religion (that's what we do on Wikipedia, we contextualize; we don't create verbal soundbites). The previous version explains how Ali was a former Muslim who became an atheist, and who now identifies as Christian. We don't highlight this in the first paragraph, because the lead has a distinct structure. The first paragraph tells us what she is notable for, and she is not notable for being an atheist or for being a Christian. She's notable as an activist, a politician, and as a critic of Islam, and for the subjects and topics related to that notability, none of which have to do with atheism or Christianity. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

1.) I'm not Christian or conservative. I'm a Social Democrat and Atheist.

2.) Reliable sources state that her involvement in New Atheism is a notable part of her character. (Although I agree that it doesn't necessarily need to be in the first paragraph.) KlayCax (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

No idea why you feel the need to talk about yourself, as I haven't addressed you. I am addressing where the POV pushing comes in. When Starlight made these changes, they weren't the least bit concerned with how Wikipedia writes things. They came to this article because they just got finished watching FOX news, which led with "Ali, former atheist, now identifies as Christian", to excite and titillate their evangelical Christian base that is addicted to their 24/7/365 propaganda and disinformation news feed. The fact that Ali was an atheist and is now a Christian is all they are talking about. But that's not what we do here on Wikipedia. Ali is not notable for her atheism nor her Christianity. The old version of the first paragraph made this clear. Only right wing media thinks she is notable for those two things. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring 2024 United States presidential election Revisited

The onus is on you to get consensus per WP:ONUS; when your BOLD edit is reverted, you should go to the talk to discuss. Starting an edit war is disruptive, and you have been warned about this several times. Please discuss at the talk and wait for a consensus to develop before restoring your edits. Prcc27 (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Your RFC with Rockstone35

Hey, @KlayCax:. I did a non-administrator closure for your RFC (along with Rockstone's) on the United States.

There is a lack of consensus for any of the listed to be included in the lead of the article. Per WP: ONUS, all should not be included in the lead at the present time, although several editors in the RFC believe that some merit inclusion. (Without a clear agreement on what those things are.) Aquillion, KlayCax, and Rockstone all gave good arguments for inclusion/exclusion, although none of their arguments seemed to be particularly more convincing than the others. Editors have widely expressed concern that the lead has grown far too long. However, there was no consensus on how to fix the issue, or essentially any other forms of agreement among editors beyond this

I recommend that editors submit another RFC if they wanted these changes reinstated. (Preferrably one at a time.) Thanks! There were also recent expansions to the lead which further made it worse. I don't have editing privileges but I recommend that both of you guys work it out. Thanks! StardustToStardust (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Added. KlayCax (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

You're the 1% of the 1%

I think you're the only editor to declare your voting patterns! Respect! MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much, @MatthewDalhousie:! :) I try and be neutral in how Wikipedia covers political-related articles.

Increasingly, I've noticed an increasing POV-skew in these, and I've attempted resolve some of this stuff in a neutral matter as best as I can. KlayCax (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I've seen a few articles you've been part of. Seem balanced to me. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, @MatthewDalhousie:

Is there any articles in particular where you thought my contributions improved the article? KlayCax (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought you made the material on The Daily Wire far more balanced. Very tempting to find a dozen sources that rip that news platform apart. But you went with tempered language which, in my view, makes the whole article far more valuable.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Javier Milei article

You said: “He's an anarcho-capitalist. We don't need to throw 50000 different alternative ways of describing it into the article.”

Javier Milei has been described in multiple ways by the media, including the terms far-right, right-wing populist and ultra-conservative. Putting only the terms you like is not neutral. All perspectives must be put.

There are too many reliable sources that have described Javier Milei as far-right, right-wing populist or ultra-conservative as you can see below:

Comment

I await a response from you on this. Esterau16 (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @Esterau16:. I'm not disputing that some sources have stated this. It's not just a universal consensus. They're also using it in a way different from how Wikipedia defines it.

It's a WP: BLP scenario and we can't throw contentious labels in the lead of the article because of that. KlayCax (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel RFC closure

I very strongly recommend you undo your edits to Israel and your close of the RFC. You have been involved in this topic area and as such you should not be closing an RFC within it. We have plenty of uninvolved users to do that, it just needs to be requested at WP:ANC. nableezy - 23:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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 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 2023 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

United States history

Thanks for working to clean up United States, but your recent edit seems to have removed segregation. You mentioned that The consensus a few months ago (which I support) was to establish the article upon works that were published as part of the Oxford History of the United States. Would it be possible to build a kind of outline on the talk page, possibly from chapter titles. This will allow editors to lean on a reliable source to determine WP:DUE weight for topics. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Responding on U.S. talk. KlayCax (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was my preferred plan. Using sources (with named references + numbers) such as The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789, Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789–1815, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848, The Republic for Which It Stands: The United States during Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, 1865–1896, et al. from the Oxford History of the United States series as citations within the article. I can see why some editors have objected — the series leans towards "moderate" historiography, which a lot of Conservative, Marxist, and revisionist historians object to — but generally reflects what you'd see in a standard, reputed academic environment. As an IP editor pointed out: despite how viewed/visited the U.S. article is, it's difficult to find a consensus summary of the country that would be accepted by even historians. (They famously place widely variant emphasis on different aspects of American history.)

I think segregation does belong in the article. (And I thought it was left in, implicitly.) I'm just not sure how to keep it concise. Maybe something like: African Americans endured a period of heightened, overt racism following Reconstruction, a time often called the nadir of American race relations, particularly in the South, where there was formalized discrimination in the form of Jim Crow laws. (Wording probably needs tweaked.) The article was rapidly trending in the direction of a majority (~50%+) of the images/history section revolving around race... Which seemed heavily WP: UNDUE considering the articles of other countries such as Brazil, Germany, Japan, Turkey, Russia, France, et al., as other users pointed out on the talk page. (e.g. For the same mention that Japan's article doesn't bring up Unit 731. Just that there was mass killings and atrocities.) I'm presently busy with residency for my urology program. However, I'll try and get something scratched out within the next couple of weeks.

I hope that answers some of your questions. :)

Let me know if you have any other, @Rjjiii:. KlayCax (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the in-depth explanation. I think a lot of material already in the article can be cited to better sources. I'll begin working from that angle but am not opposed to more substantial rewriting. Good luck with your residency! Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

3RR violation - 2024 presidential election

If I am not mistaken, it looks like you have just violated WP:3RR at the 2024 United States presidential election article. I suggest you quit edit warring; I would even self-revert if I were you.. Prcc27 (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, again. That was an accident.

Do you oppose mention of the fact that many nationalist conservatives and progressives oppose military aid to Israel? That seems entirely WP: Undue. I'll revert - but I'm starting a RFC if a consensus can't be reached. KlayCax (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The WP: ONUS for the other edit was for a two-party description to be added. I'll revert. But could you remove Republican/Democrats from the infobox until a consensus is reached?

Thanks, @Prcc27:. KlayCax (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Prcc27 (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax: You seem to have lucked out this time, especially since ANI is usually for persistent unmanageable behavior. But there is no doubt that you would have gotten a ban if I reported you at the edit warring noticeboard. Lucky for you, I was nice enough to give you the benefit of the doubt that your edit warring was unintentional. But next time, I will not hesitate to report you for 3RR. Please keep track of how many reverts you are making in a day. Sometimes a successive edit ends up being 2 separate reverts if a user slips in an edit between two changes, so please be mindful of that. Also, a continuous pattern of canvassing will increase your likelihood of a ban, I hope you will refrain from inappropriate tagging moving forward. Prcc27 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Henry Kissinger has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Kissinger was a fucking piece of shit. is clearly unnecessary. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Culture of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American Music.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic designated as 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.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Democratic & Republican parties

Howdy. The Democratic & Republican parties fall under Arbcom ruling, which restricts those pages to 1 revert per 24 hrs. You're currently in breach of that 1RR limit. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, apologies. I wrote on talk. Interested to hear your thoughts. KlayCax (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

24-BRD violation at Joe Biden

Hello KC. With this diff, you violated the 24-BRD page restriction at the Joe Biden page. When an edit you made has been challenged by reversion, the editor is required to go to the article talk page to seek consensus for the original edit and additionally to wait 24 hours from having initiated such discussion. Please self-revert the offending change. SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi KC. Just seconding SPECIFICO's point here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This was reverted by another editor, so you can no longer self-revert. Please keep the 24h-BRD restriction in mind moving forward. You're already aware that American politics is a contentious topic area, and page-specific restrictions are common. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KlayCax (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello. This was simple miscommunication between editors. I believed at the time that I only made one reversion to my edits and was willing to revert my edit once I realized I went over. See here and my edit displaying my uncertainty here. This was a legitimate error and not a deliberate violation of the rule. Is it permissible for my editing privileges to be restored? Thank you. KlayCax (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You seemed to be aware that it was at least possible that you were violating 1RR but did so anyway. Yes, you invited people to roll it back, but in formally designated contentious topic areas (as editing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is) great care needs to be taken. While you haven't been warned specifically for the Israeli-Palestinian topic area, in the other warnings above it is stated "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". You are only blocked from editing the single article that is named, you are free to edit on the talk page of that article, as well as other articles(as you are already doing). 331dot (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Andre🚐 05:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Your recent editing history at Poland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. E-960 (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Pbritti (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Please note that this notice is not strictly a warning, but a sincerely meant notice. You edit a lot of controversial, high-traffic pages and using an edit summary can easily stave off debate and confusion. I get that editing in these spheres can inspire a desire to fire off the edit as soon as it's ready to prevent edit conflicts, but a summary is a very important aspect of any good edit. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Five Nights at Freddy's (film). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Mike Allen 01:41, 27 October 2023 (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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:KlayCax reported by User:Nemov (Result: ). Thank you. Nemov (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Added Apartheid contrary to RFC to Israel

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1187180723

You added the apartheid sentence despite no consensus in RFC (by the way a majority of editors opposed adding the sentence in RFC)

Can you self rv? Homerethegreat (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I also saw you closed the RFC and said "clear consensus to include mention of apartheid" but it does not appear to be this way from the RFC. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:CON: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Opposers have failed to base their arguments on any WP policy, but rather to personal preferences. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't evaluated the RfC enough to have an opinion on the reasoning of the close, but I'm in agreement with nableezy (in an section above) that you were too involved in the article to close the RfC. Sometimes consensus is so clear that even involved editors can close an RfC, but that was plainly not the case here. In determining your involvedness, I was most convinced by this October edit and this edit made minute before your closure. I am confident that a closure review would lead to an overturn/re-list/vacation, and I urge you to save a bunch of editor time and energy by self-vacating. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Homerethegreat (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Not just the article, but this or this show involvement in the topic area. You had a choice once upon a time, edit in this topic or perform administrative tasks like closing discussions. You chose edit. nableezy - 14:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Although I am convinced that something needs to be in the lead, I would say that the process has further to go before we can say that there is clear consensus for that so undoing the close seems the way forward here. Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier:, @Firefangledfeathers:, @Nableezy:: What is the WP guideline defining involvement? User made two or three edits that do not seem overly biased. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It isn't two or three edits, see the list of edits at 2023 Israel-Hamas war. But it is WP:INVOLVED (referenced by WP:NACINV), Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. If you get involved in editing in this topic area, you may no longer close discussions in it absent it being some obvious SNOW closure. nableezy - 14:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: “ Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.” Do we have evidence he was involved in any disputes or conflicts? Because as you said this is how involvement is defined. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you click the link? This is really basic imo, and you dont want to be arguing for this because you support the closure here, it can so easily be turned back around on you in another discussion. Ive told another editor the same thing when I did not support the substance of their closure, this is not something that should be allowed at all. People who have edited in the topic area should not be performing administrative tasks in it. Full stop. If you really need a specific dispute, here. You do not get to edit in a contentious topic area and then also close discussions in that topic area, the end. nableezy - 14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The RFC was supposed to be about whether phrase "...condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians, including the accusation that the state is committing the crime of apartheid" should be part of the introduction, not about whether accusations of apartheid should be mentioned in the introduction, that's how I understood it. KlayCax closed the RFC with this last view in mind and unilaterally put a sentence in the article that was not discussed, isn't this kind of reinterpretation of the purpose of the RFC illegal? Mawer10 (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn the RfC closing. Not only the closer was involved in editing very same page and the subject, but they have changed the page in a manner that is different from one proposed at the RfC [5]. That last edit/diff also shows a strong bias by the closer. I think a couple of uninvolved admins should look at the RfC discussion and properly re-close. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn as well. I second that the current RFC be reopened and reclosed by an uninvolved admin. I would strongly advise the closer to self rv, but they may also choose to defend their close at WP:Closure review. In my opinion, it would be a waste of time. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  You guys realize this a user's talk page and not a vote right? nableezy - 17:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Bold is fun though! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  I understand, its just a lot more obvious what we mean if we put it as a standard vote. And bold is indeed fun! Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Overturn , I second @CapnJackSp Homerethegreat (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's been about a day and a half since this section was started. KlayCax has not edited anywhere since then. I am hoping to hear from them soon. I plan to start a close challenge in another day or so if we hear nothing. It wouldn't be unreasonable to start one sooner, if someone else is so inclined. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  Nah, Im just reverting this close and requesting a new one at ANC, this is a blatantly involved improper close and IAR applies imo to reverting it. Ill do it so that if somebody wants to complain its only my already sullied name that faces the consequences. nableezy - 14:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  No complaints from me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Unblock

Is it my understanding that @KlayCax will be unblocked then on January 15th? I do not know how to check when a user is unblocked? There feedback on an RfC would be welcome, and is unrelated to the block that they received, so I am just checking in on this if anyone sees this message and can let me know. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: If you check a blocked user's contributions (here's KlayCax's contributions), you can see the date of block with the length of block. The block will expire Jan 15. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

ok, i think they should be unblocked now from what i can tell. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Question

As you are currently under block, I wanted to raise something directly with you before I brought it to a forum that would be prohibitive to you responding. I've noticed a lot of overlap in interest between you and ShirtNShoesPls, with this very new editor spending roughly 40% of their editing on articles and talk pages that you also have frequented. These include three separate contentious topics: current American politics, genitalia/circumcision, and Pope Francis's policy towards LGBT issues. An overlap log is visible here. Additionally, editing hours appear very similar (you, SNSP). At least one other editor has noticed behavioral similarities. If you have any relationship to this other account, I'd encourage you to declare it. I apologize if there is no relationship–you have frequently edited in a good-faith manner and have been civil towards me. I don't want you facing accusations without sufficient notice. I will be beginning an SPI in the coming days and will be sure to notify you when it happens. Courtesy ping to ScottishFinnishRadish as the blocking editor. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I have opened the SPI. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Upon completion of a CU and review of additional evidence both within the investigation and on my own, I believe that I recognized a sock but mistakenly attributed you as the sockmaster. I apologize in full for this error and wish to extend my most sincere hope that, following the end of this block, you are welcomed back by the editing community and are able to continue making positive contributions to the project. Please have a happy new year and, again, I apologize. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@ShirtNShoesPls: isn't me. Apologies for the late response, @Pbritti:. I've been busy with residency and have been pretty burnt out with editing. Thank you. :)

I predominantly don't have time to contribute anymore. I'll still be active, but less so for the foreseeable future, if indefinitely. KlayCax (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

John Adams

Hello. I have reverted your changes to the lead of the John Adams article. Please see my edit summary for why. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm checking out your response now. Apologies with the late response but I've been extensively busy with residency. KlayCax (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)