User talk:PPEMES/Archives/2019/March
 | This page 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. |
Landgraviate of Alsace moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Landgraviate of Alsace, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Case on Wikipedia talk:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board
Dear SMcCandlish, Laurel Lodged, Marcocapelle, TonyBallioni, Andrewa, Necrothesp or Cuchullain, with whom I have occationally collaborated! After some years of activity here on English Wikipedia, I have attempted to address a prior permanent block issue of my account on Swedish Wikipedia which still endures. It seems I could use some help, if anyone of you would be willing to? Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Swedish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Block_issue. If anyone of you do not wish to be addressed here, let me know and I will delete your pings. Thanks. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- I will help in any way I can. But from a selfish POV, I value your input at enwp as you know. And I actually have a very tricky issue to resolve here that needs a third party opinion from someone competent in both English and Swedish, and in which I have nor involved you to date, because frankly it's a real stinker. So Swedish Wikipedia's loss may be our gain. But I know (from experience) that it's not easy to be rejected. Illegitimi non carborundum. Andrewa (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Andrewa: Thanks a lot for the encouragement. I had hoped for more positive response on my request, so I could really use that positive feedback. That's appreciated! What do you need help with? I will help if I can. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Andrewa: I am not sure I understand how I can help. However, if you contend that I could be, please do explain. That said, as you probably understand, I would wish to minimilise any conflicts I participate in around the border of English and Swedish Wikipedia. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I was blocked on Swedish Wikipedia some time ago and I don't miss all the controversy there, where as you know they have no conflict resolution guidelines of any kind, no WP:3O, no rules against outing, etc. If you tell yourself you don't need Swedish Wikipedia, check your watchlist there and only go in there as an IP once in a while to fix little things which you are 100% sure will benefit that project without controversy, won't you feel better?
I too am willing & able to help User:Andrewa with that mysterious "real stinker" being mentioned here and there, and have also recommended User:Bishonen. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Badge of honor? (I did not create it.)
 | This user is Proud but disillusioned to be a Swedish Wikipedian in exile. |
--SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- @SergeWoodzing: Thanks for your comments. I regret your unpleasant experience. As for any such badge, though, I'd decline. I suppose my request hasn't been closed yet. I am still seeking the goodwill of the adverseries. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- On an additional note, my request of unblock of my talk page on Swedish Wikipedia has now been accepted, so I would regard this issue as resolved. Thanks for the support. And let me know if there is anyway I can help anyone of you above. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Andrewa:, @SMcCandlish: I'd like to thank you for your support. My user account on Swedish Wikipedia has now been recovered. Regarding the issues of Andrewa and SergeWoodzing, let me know if and how I can be at help in an open, forgiving, transparent manner. Thanks! PPEMES (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm taking a (possibly indefinite) Wikibreak from that specific issue, thanks. One of the important lessons of Wikipedia is, you can't do everything and be everywhere, and particularly with high-angst exchanges it's often best (and gentlest) just to say "stuff you" under your breath and find something more constructive to do. I have an off-the-web attack page that I will probably never publish, neither Jimbo nor Serge nor you are on it but there are some quite high-profile Wikipedians there with lots of evidence of gross misbehaviour, and I find keeping it up to date quite therapeutic. (;-> (It's also instructive in that some really annoying people come out a lot better than some relatively innocuous ones when you put the evidence all in one place. I recommend pbwiki, we were building the cloud there long before the term was popularised, just as we were using structured programming long before that term was popularised by Niklaus Wirth, who doesn't even get a mention in that last but one article as far as I can see. I had some contact with Wirth in the late 1970s, and it's interesting to see how different history looks to historians compared to how it looks to those of us who were there.) Andrewa (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Andrewa:, @SMcCandlish: I'd like to thank you for your support. My user account on Swedish Wikipedia has now been recovered. Regarding the issues of Andrewa and SergeWoodzing, let me know if and how I can be at help in an open, forgiving, transparent manner. Thanks! PPEMES (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
What to write...
You asked what you should write in this matter. Sorry for a late reply, but I was working and could not write too much doing so. I understand you, because it is not an easy task and it might be your only chance. I will give you some advice here, and I hope you do not feel offended or so . For those who read here and do not understand Swedish (to read the long discussions on svwp), this is a try to help. I have aided before on svwp in disputes between users (by mail, but with the rest of the comunity knowing I was the medler). I have also been a help off-wiki for the late User:Obelix, mentioned by Yger, who became my friend before he passed away when he neede to discuss (also known by the comunity). I was also one of the users who voted for a permanent block of Chick...
- Check the history to remember what happened and why you were blocked. Think carefully what you could have done instead to avoid the blocks. (The last block was too bad, start arguing again directly after a 6 month-block...)
- You have to say you have had contact with me on enwp and discussed this issue. That is no secrete!
- You were in too much conflicts in two subjects: Right-wing extremism and the Catholic church. Say you will (if unblocked) refrain from editing in those subject on svwp. (That is one of the main things)
- Explain you understand sourcing better now, and if there are any slightest posibility that the source is not good you will not add it, but ask on the discussion page for that article or...
- ...say that you are willing to have a mentor during a test period (for example 6 month), whom you can ask about sourcing and if you are in doubt and want to have a second opinion before you write when it is a discussion. (Obelix had that after he had his long block.) I am willing to be that mentor (but I understand very well if you do not want me, and you could then ask someone else that the comunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chicbyaccidenttrusts. No matter what - I will not "vote" yes or no this time on svwp because I am now too involved in this discussion, but I will of course answer in the discussion on svwp)
- Say you will avoid all articles that are easy to get in conflicts, and that you will obey a concensus when that happens.
I think this is a good start. It is up to you to choose from this and I wrote this as a help and not as a way to make you feel bad. If you do I apologize now. Best regards, Adville (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Adville: No stress. No offense taken. I acknowledge that negative feedback on Swedish Wikipedia tended to relate to religion and in some instances to political sciences. As for sourcing, if I made any mistake I am happy to repeat my regrets for that. As one of my main adverseries, I certainly appreciate you sharing your thoughts in hindsight. Yes, I guess without you willing to vouch for me vis-à-vis the couple of other contenders that sort of vetoed against my previous request, chances are indeed slim. If you insist that the above stated conditions collectively would be a prerequisite for such an amnesty, and with yourself as a token, then I would accept that. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think it makes it easier for you to be accepted if you conditions your comeback yourself. Then, when it is working and you are more familiar with the svwp-system (working good and is smaller so it does not need the same structure as enwp - I know some who are not thinking like that, because they were blocked, but the same thing would have happened here too if the same behaviour was noticed) the conditions will be loosened, and finally gone. (We do not like to have users with topic ban, if it is not because of COI because you are too much friend with the topic)
- By doing like this I think you have a fair chance, even if I will be neutral in a vote.
- Actually one thing that made me write tips for you in the first place was that you rejected the "proud Swede in exil"-thing you were offered, and why. It shows you understand some why you were blocked and have an insight what to do. Do not be too confrontative and think everyone else is wrong and you are right, and if someone ask why do not say "you have grudges against me", when it is the topics discussed. Keep on the topics discussed, then you will have a good chance to stay on svwp, also if you keep off things you have a conflict with (church and the extreme parties). Br Adville (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Adville:, @Yger: Thanks. However, still not sure how to go about this. I mean, nothing new has happened on Swedish Wikipedia since last time. Applying the same criteria as last time, how could the rejection not be repeated, please? I'm afraid I still need more help on how to proceed. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Adville indicates correctly what is needed:
- that you aknowledge the reasons that you, in the end, got blocked. What you write here above is not correct. We (I) spent nine months and endless number of entries explaining this, you just have to reread these comments on your talkpage
- that you indicate a strategy you intend to follow, not to get into the same problem. Adville mention examples of this, but I think there could be other strategies as well.
- And that you state these two parts on your discussion page.Yger (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- And to help, the reasons were:
- that your entries especially on catholic church in mediaval Sweden were in several cases controvercial, and in some cases againt the view of all/a majority of collegues on svwp
- that you when the consensus was against you entry/view, you got aggressivee, breaking our rule on edit war, etiquette and also that you never accepted the consusus but demanding a never ending disscussion on the subject
- Yger (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- And to help, the reasons were:
- Adville indicates correctly what is needed:
- @Adville:, @Yger: Thanks. However, still not sure how to go about this. I mean, nothing new has happened on Swedish Wikipedia since last time. Applying the same criteria as last time, how could the rejection not be repeated, please? I'm afraid I still need more help on how to proceed. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear Adville and Yger, thank you for your comments. I assume responsability for occational sloppyness including naïve too WP:BOLD mistakes, as well as proposing Roman Catholic Church#Name English Wikipedia consensus contrary to the one on Swedish Wikipedia. Would you accept a consession to your condition to not edit talk pages nor article realm pertaining to Roman Catholic Church? I don't expect to be able to extend much more contribution to Wikipedia altogether, yet it would be appreciated. So please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- As you still seems not to understand or aknowledge what got you into trouble, I do not see it worthwhile for you to start up again on svwp. Theoretcally there could be restrictions but I do not like it as a solution, if you are not aware of what edits from you are probematic. You completly leave out the process part of your edits that got you from just being of a different opinion and into hard conflict. The conflict was not of your views, but that you did not respect consensus and that you got inte a rage.Yger (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Yger:. Thank you for your reply. Sorry if the attempted summary of shortcomings wasn't precise and/or exhaustive enough! Please let me know ways to improve it. The only specific example I could find of "rage" attribution was you here, citing WP:POVPUSH (translated from Swedish): "aggressively promoting one opinion", "too many posts in too short time", "attrition", "provocative", "tactical posts" that "drained the energy" of other editors. You administred the block "minimilised to two weeks since mostly about talk page content". I do apologise for that. Concurringly, I affirm there were more instances that you deemed "problematic", not respecting consensus or similar to "hard conflict". Please let me know could any of these other individual arguments use a reevaluation and/or apology. I'd be happy to. Restrictions I wouldn't mind accepting since I don't expect to be able to contribute significantly more anyway. Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Apologies are of no use. Noone is angry at you as a person. We noticed though that you stole our energy, and thta you did not react contrutivly on our remarks. And th~ere is a worry that this will be the case agian if you would return. I have nothing more to say how you should fomulate yourself on our talkpage to get success and an unblock.Yger (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I hope we keep in mind that blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive, and they're not forever (unless it comes to a community ban, and even those can sometimes be undone). After a lot of time has passed and an editor has demonstrated plenty of constructive editing at a project next door, without similar problems arising, it is probably a safe bet that the editor will work out better at .se WP when given a second chance. I see a lot of contrition and understanding above. The bullet-list of instructions above seem fairly clear at first, but on a deeper read seem a bit game-playing, in that the editor is being asked re-state a bunch of contrition but to do it just perfectly by some subjective criteria that aren't really very clear except to their author. It's like "see if you can guess how to smooth our feather back down, and if you guess wrong, too bad!". This doesn't seem necessary or productive. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- The discussion to lift the block on svwp is to be held at svwp not here. Last time I myself gave the opportunity for C to ask for it, and it was rejected at once by som other then me. So I am actualy trying to help C for this not to occur again. But if my comments here is seen as bad I will of cource stop write here immediatly.Yger (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I hope we keep in mind that blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive, and they're not forever (unless it comes to a community ban, and even those can sometimes be undone). After a lot of time has passed and an editor has demonstrated plenty of constructive editing at a project next door, without similar problems arising, it is probably a safe bet that the editor will work out better at .se WP when given a second chance. I see a lot of contrition and understanding above. The bullet-list of instructions above seem fairly clear at first, but on a deeper read seem a bit game-playing, in that the editor is being asked re-state a bunch of contrition but to do it just perfectly by some subjective criteria that aren't really very clear except to their author. It's like "see if you can guess how to smooth our feather back down, and if you guess wrong, too bad!". This doesn't seem necessary or productive. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Apologies are of no use. Noone is angry at you as a person. We noticed though that you stole our energy, and thta you did not react contrutivly on our remarks. And th~ere is a worry that this will be the case agian if you would return. I have nothing more to say how you should fomulate yourself on our talkpage to get success and an unblock.Yger (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Yger:. Thank you for your reply. Sorry if the attempted summary of shortcomings wasn't precise and/or exhaustive enough! Please let me know ways to improve it. The only specific example I could find of "rage" attribution was you here, citing WP:POVPUSH (translated from Swedish): "aggressively promoting one opinion", "too many posts in too short time", "attrition", "provocative", "tactical posts" that "drained the energy" of other editors. You administred the block "minimilised to two weeks since mostly about talk page content". I do apologise for that. Concurringly, I affirm there were more instances that you deemed "problematic", not respecting consensus or similar to "hard conflict". Please let me know could any of these other individual arguments use a reevaluation and/or apology. I'd be happy to. Restrictions I wouldn't mind accepting since I don't expect to be able to contribute significantly more anyway. Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- As you still seems not to understand or aknowledge what got you into trouble, I do not see it worthwhile for you to start up again on svwp. Theoretcally there could be restrictions but I do not like it as a solution, if you are not aware of what edits from you are probematic. You completly leave out the process part of your edits that got you from just being of a different opinion and into hard conflict. The conflict was not of your views, but that you did not respect consensus and that you got inte a rage.Yger (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Adville: Thanks again for unlocking my talk page there. Thanks also for the advices provided by you and Yger. However, none of you rejected my prior request without consideration - it was rejected by a couple of other users. I have told you that I am OK with any of the conditions you have proposed above. Sorry for writing to you here again but I'm still not sure how to go about filing the request without merely repeating the sequence of the previous attempt. Thanks also to SMcCandlish for taking the time to comment on this issue. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- sorry for not answering. I have had rhe flue (still) and too much at work... Ill try to give a good answer soon. Best regards Adville (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- I understand. Take care and get well soon. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- I stumbled across this more or less by chance (after seeing their edits on everything and anything related to Norse people and history), and decided to take a look at what had happened at sv-WP (I'm fluent in Swedish), and, well, the kind of editing that Chicbyaccident engaged in at sv-WP, and their general behaviour there, would have led to an indef here too (for WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE, which seems to be pretty much what they were blocked for on sv-WP...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Dear Thomas.W, thank you for your comment. I partly adressed your comment here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Norse_history_and_culture#"Viking"_naming. Please let me what edit you are referring to and I will try my best to improve it accordingly. Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- In accordance with your answer here, I assume this was a complaint about former discussions that happened years ago on Swedish Wikipedia. Thank you. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Dear Thomas.W, thank you for your comment. I partly adressed your comment here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Norse_history_and_culture#"Viking"_naming. Please let me what edit you are referring to and I will try my best to improve it accordingly. Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Adville: @Yger:, excuse for pinging you again, but I just want to make sure that I haven't missed any opportunity to hear from you regarding my request for unblock that I am about to file on my talk page on Swedish Wikipedia. Please let me know if there is anything else you can do to help me to not just have the request result in plain refusal without giving it any consideration. Thanks. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for a late answer. I just married and am on a honeymoon/ worktrip to Italy. Only checking fast now and then on wiki reverting junk on svwp. Saw you wrote something on your talk page on svwp, but have not had time to read. Best regards, Adville (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Now that's very nice! Make sure to enjoy! In any event should you have the time to reply, though, please consider it on Swedish Wikipedia for convenience. Have a great time! Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- It was a wonderful trip to Brescia, Verona, Padua and Venezia (and great robot training too). As you saw I did answer and it seems to be 50-50 right now. Discussions going slow due to the Holidays. Happy new year! Adville (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Understandibly - thanks for your kind assistance. Sounds great, have a blast! Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- It was a wonderful trip to Brescia, Verona, Padua and Venezia (and great robot training too). As you saw I did answer and it seems to be 50-50 right now. Discussions going slow due to the Holidays. Happy new year! Adville (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Now that's very nice! Make sure to enjoy! In any event should you have the time to reply, though, please consider it on Swedish Wikipedia for convenience. Have a great time! Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for a late answer. I just married and am on a honeymoon/ worktrip to Italy. Only checking fast now and then on wiki reverting junk on svwp. Saw you wrote something on your talk page on svwp, but have not had time to read. Best regards, Adville (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Unblocked on Svwp
Congratulations! Use next year to show that I and Yger did the right thing to believe in you. Happy new year! Adville (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Dear Adville and Yger, thank you for extending your help in this. I do hope there will be fewer inconviences. I wish you a Happy New Year! PPEMES (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Glad to hear this is finally resolved. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is not finally resolved. Only if the user avoids POV-pushing in the future this will be a permanent solution. Tostarpadius (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Glad to hear this is finally resolved. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Tostarpadius: Welcome! Why don't you share your arguments for the Swedish WP:CONSENSUS here on English Wikipedia? You are a skilled and determined Swedish debater on the matter. That merits sharing in the article realm here too for the sake of a better Wikipedia. Thanks! PPEMES (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the invitation! I have no interest of that. My only intention here was to tell the users that you have got a chance, but that your contributions are carefully read because of your history. Tostarpadius (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hej. Kolla min engelska historik, om pingen misslyckades. Mvh Adville (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Alternative WP tasks
Greetings! I have avoided conflicts on Wikipedia by contributing with article assessments. These are helpful for other editors working on an article in their area of expertise.
Most mornings I focus on wikiprojects that I'm interested in. Afternoons I help on Category:Unassessed biography articles which has 90,000 + article backlog. A very useful tool for helping with talk page assessment is Rater script. On article pages, add or remove stub notices as needed. Also add "Subject bar" template & "Authority control" or missing "Defaultsort".
I don't know if you would like to help with assessment but for me it's an interesting and rewarding way of contributing. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. The best way to avoid conflicts on Wikipedia is obviously to avoid Wikipedia altogether. Conversely, conflicts will inevitably occur sometime along the way. This regards us all. Most of us will pay little or no attention to the positive merits of fellow contributors - that is, before we discover an edit or some edits with which we don't agree. Only then do we provide feedback: negative feedback. This isn't anybody's particular fault, it is part of the voluntary system. While contributors pay with their time and efforts, as for myself I like to try to keep this in mind when discovering an edit I disagree with: that most of the contributions before and hypothetically afterwards will tend to be positive. Although I have no reason to expect from other user but for the benefit of Wikipedia and for users to keep bringing positive contributions, I would hope and like to think that many other users also keep do this in mind. PPEMES (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- I would certainly avoid starting move/merge proposals, which should only be a small part of an editor's work. One thing I'd suggest is updating the images on less-viewed articles. These have often not been looked at for years, and Commons now has far better choices. Not so true for popular articles. Or of course, many articles have no image, but now could, from Commons. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Blocked
Dear Adville, I am sorry. I missed the prerequisite of no participation in any meta discussions. If this would have been clear to me, then of course I could have avoided this too on Swedish Wikipedia. In fact, when I saw the renewed blocking discussion about my user account, I searched for "meta" in the previous one but was unable to find any such condition. Ironic, since my very meta discussion was precisely about a proposition to enhance transparency of such blocking conditions. Nontheless, I appreciate your helping hand in the attempt to have the blocking relieved. Ping also to SMcCandlish, thanks for the help but unfortunately the block was reverted again on Swedish Wikipedia. PPEMES (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I did what I could, but the memory from your last time made it very hard for you. Those who were involved in the last time did not want a new marathon... but you can still edit here. And there was nothing more I could do. BR. Adville (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Adville: Is it your view that I deliberately transgressed a clearly stated condition about non-participation in meta discussions? Again, I searched for that condition in the discussion but couldn't find it. If this condition would have been clear to me, naturally I could have avoided this too like the plague, just like I did with the condition that was indeed clearly stated. The way I interpretated it is that they did ask for your position on this issue. As long as the discussion is still fresh, you are the one who could bring about some sort of relief to this unfortunate story, if only time limiting this block with the gross misunderstanding and the original grace in mind. If you see what I mean? As the mentor you kindly offered to be, does this make sense to you? I have faith in you and should you prefer to talk externally for the sake of confidence to stand up for another human being, I would do so happily. Thank you! PPEMES (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi. I understand that you are disappointed. Unfortunately I have been to involved in you in this matter, so my opinion is more POV. However, I can answer you here:
- As Yger said, and someone more: you should not dig into the old marionett-history. Noone cared, and as you see on your svwp-page there is no banner showing you have had marionetts.
- Trying to start metadiscussions about changing our policies about blocking a user, just 2 weeks after you are allowed to come back (very hard to get the permission), is not the best way to show your humble intentions.
- The blocking policy change you started was started looking like a defense to Tostarpadius, while it was clear you ment your own old block. But even here, to get involved in a very hot discussion about one of the users that was fighting hardes to get you blocked last time, and not unblocked this time, was no good idea...
- @Adville: Is it your view that I deliberately transgressed a clearly stated condition about non-participation in meta discussions? Again, I searched for that condition in the discussion but couldn't find it. If this condition would have been clear to me, naturally I could have avoided this too like the plague, just like I did with the condition that was indeed clearly stated. The way I interpretated it is that they did ask for your position on this issue. As long as the discussion is still fresh, you are the one who could bring about some sort of relief to this unfortunate story, if only time limiting this block with the gross misunderstanding and the original grace in mind. If you see what I mean? As the mentor you kindly offered to be, does this make sense to you? I have faith in you and should you prefer to talk externally for the sake of confidence to stand up for another human being, I would do so happily. Thank you! PPEMES (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
These things made it too much for those who were against you from the beggining this time, and made it hard for me to say:Stop, give a chanse, because you were there on very hard conditions. Sorry. Br Adville (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Adville: Well, there were still accounts blocked with reference to me prior to my inquiry. Now, I would have agreed to forget about that, but now these precise accused marionette abuses were renewed as part of the qualification for the permanent blocking again. About meta participation - that is the second blocking qualification it now seems - would you mind helping me how this condition was clear? Again, if it was, I could have avoided it equally and retained the user account. PPEMES (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- All this seems petty and unnecessarily bureaucratic, but I don't know if the WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY principle has an exact analogue at se.wp. Wikipedia policy (at all Wikipedias) is created by editors, not handed down from on high (aside from a handful of legal policies dictated by WMF). "You don't get to be among policy-crafting editors, because you're newly returned" is rather ...unwiki. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I could have accepted refraining from that as a condition if it was clearly stated. This is was what my inquiry is about. Someone could have said "the user wasn't aware of the restriction from any meta editing but is now warned", or "should not edit in meta and is now warned". I would have accepted any of these solutions, just as I accepted the original subject restriction that was clear to me from the beginning. PPEMES (talk)
- What are the "marionetts" in question? ——SerialNumber54129 19:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: Sockpuppets; seems to be a translation glitch. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Re "I could have accepted refraining from that as a condition if it was clearly stated" – Yes, this brings us back full-circle to the issue in the earlier discussion here: a supposed "failure" to comply with conditions that are basically secret and arbitrary. "See if you can guess what we want, and only then will we let you back." It's like something out of a bad fantasy novel for children, a pale shadow of the Bilbo–Gollum "riddles in the dark" scene. If the editor's been long-term productive at the largest Wikipedia (and the one with the biggest pile of rules, albeit more explicit ones) it's a safe bet that the editor will be productive at the other Wikipedia. Lots and lots of editors have some issues when they are newbies, and they get over them. Otherwise they don't last at any of these projects. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dear Adville, Again, thank you for your kind assistance. I hold no grudges against you. However, do you think it would be too much to ask for whether you think the META restriction was clear enough as a precondition reportedly transgressed, which saw my unblock rescinded? For my goodwill with this project, please feel free to consider manhours spent. PPEMES (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I know you know I did my best. Right now I am not so very active on enwp. But about this. I think it was pretty clear you should avoid interacting in the discussions. I can not right now say exactly where, but you were on the edge not even get the unblock, then it is better to not at all interact in discussions where there are some irritations. You needed to work up you not so good reputation first. Your edits here on enwp are nothing that affects the svwp comunity, even if I saw your answer to one ex-svwp editor and that made me say yes, I will defend your come back. You could have done as the user T. is doing now. He has a self made discussion ban for 2 month, and only answering when asked for. Now he is productive with articles, and those who think he is overdiscussing things might fell they can relax.
- {{u|SMcCandlish]], I'm sorry to say you are wrong in the statement that "they don't last at any other projects". There are banned editors from svwp that succeed to "fly under the radar" and do POV edits about for example Swedish conditions or so, but the enwp community is so big that they are not seen. When someone from svwp tries to say "hey, look, this is not good" we are the once that are messing things up (even if it is not true). Is been very hard to make the enwp community see this sometimes. I don't want to write too much about that kind of issue, have had enought of it on my enwp discussion page, and it has nothing to do with PPEMES. All best, Adville (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Adville: Well, according to the best of my understanding, as you were kind of a designated mentor, didn't they in fact ask for your opinion before they returned to the permanent block? Also I tried to ask for your help on my talk page before the blocking demands were repeated. If you look at the contributions carried out after the unblock, can you really identify anything seriously problematic? As I was about to decrease the activity over hte board, I tried a humble proposal to make the policy more clear in order to hopefully not risk repeating misunderstanding for other future users. With that, I was accused for "vibes" and criticising "under the belt". I asked how, but with no explanation. Then the permanent block was repeated. In hindsight, sure, I'd rather participate zero in any meta discussions than get the permanent block repeated. So what's the idea now? Do you really think this situation is fair? I'm afraid you missed correctly pinging SMcCandlish with the code. Anyway, if the discussed restriction of not participating in any meta discussing would have been clear to me, I could have avoided that as consequently as the other condition that I did follow, didn't i? After three years of blocking, would you say this concern is completely illegitimate? For reference for SMcCandlish, please refer to the Swedish user talk page (with automatic translator of choice). Thanks. PPEMES (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm. Adville's position seems to be that PPEMES has been a "bad apple" on en.wp, too, but no case has been made that demonstrates this. I know that PPEMES has detractors, but everyone active and editing in even faintly controversial topics gets into some, well, controversy. Anyway, I'm not going to get too deeply involved in this; I'm not a regular at the Swedish Wikipedia, I'm not involved in PPEMES's editing here, either, except incidentally. I was mainly commenting on the strangeness of the return conditions and various assumptions that seem to be being made, as a general-principles matter. I'm not PPEMES's "wikilawyer". LOL. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Adville: Well, according to the best of my understanding, as you were kind of a designated mentor, didn't they in fact ask for your opinion before they returned to the permanent block? Also I tried to ask for your help on my talk page before the blocking demands were repeated. If you look at the contributions carried out after the unblock, can you really identify anything seriously problematic? As I was about to decrease the activity over hte board, I tried a humble proposal to make the policy more clear in order to hopefully not risk repeating misunderstanding for other future users. With that, I was accused for "vibes" and criticising "under the belt". I asked how, but with no explanation. Then the permanent block was repeated. In hindsight, sure, I'd rather participate zero in any meta discussions than get the permanent block repeated. So what's the idea now? Do you really think this situation is fair? I'm afraid you missed correctly pinging SMcCandlish with the code. Anyway, if the discussed restriction of not participating in any meta discussing would have been clear to me, I could have avoided that as consequently as the other condition that I did follow, didn't i? After three years of blocking, would you say this concern is completely illegitimate? For reference for SMcCandlish, please refer to the Swedish user talk page (with automatic translator of choice). Thanks. PPEMES (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dear Adville, Again, thank you for your kind assistance. I hold no grudges against you. However, do you think it would be too much to ask for whether you think the META restriction was clear enough as a precondition reportedly transgressed, which saw my unblock rescinded? For my goodwill with this project, please feel free to consider manhours spent. PPEMES (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- What are the "marionetts" in question? ——SerialNumber54129 19:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I could have accepted refraining from that as a condition if it was clearly stated. This is was what my inquiry is about. Someone could have said "the user wasn't aware of the restriction from any meta editing but is now warned", or "should not edit in meta and is now warned". I would have accepted any of these solutions, just as I accepted the original subject restriction that was clear to me from the beginning. PPEMES (talk)
- All this seems petty and unnecessarily bureaucratic, but I don't know if the WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY principle has an exact analogue at se.wp. Wikipedia policy (at all Wikipedias) is created by editors, not handed down from on high (aside from a handful of legal policies dictated by WMF). "You don't get to be among policy-crafting editors, because you're newly returned" is rather ...unwiki. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Order pro merito Melitensi has been nominated for discussion
Category:Order pro merito Melitensi, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Archives
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Excuse, I could use some help with why the rather cluttered user talk page does not seem to archive as normal, does it? Did I miss anything? Thanks! PPEMES (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
coortng
diff I make the same kind of gypos. Nice! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)