User talk:CandyStalnak

September 2022

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

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cullen328 (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The line between good faith attempts at improvement by discussion, and Talk page disruption

Hello CandyStalnak, I've been somewhat following the discussions at Talk:List of dignitaries at the state funeral of Elizabeth II, where you have raised several related Rfc's or discussions such as § RFC - More complex that the NZ question - What criteria should determine if a Realm country has a separate section?, § Should all citizens and subjects be listed under the country or just the delegation, and § What is the official name of NZ?, some concurrent to the earlier Rfc here, and procedurally closed, about how to organize the list of visiting dignitaries including especially New Zealand and nearby island entities like Cook, and Niue. While you seem to have plenty of enthusiasm about the topic, which is great, and a seemingly endless supply of ideas about how to improve the article (also good) there's something which is not so good, namely, you don't seem to be hearing or perhaps internalizing the responses of other editors who seem either to disagree or who have had enough.

There is no bright line or strict definition about what exactly constitutes WP:DISRUPTION. You have received some pushback and some rapid Rfc closures at that page, and it's also a bit of a yellow flag that the term disruptive has been mentioned eight times across various discussions by editors who may be starting to get a bit frustrated or annoyed. I don't think you are setting out to be disruptive, but merely mean to improve the article, so your intentions appear to be good. I'd just ask you to consider the feelings of other editors at that page, maybe step back and evaluate what the majority opinion is there, and also what the tone of the discussion is, and decide how you want to proceed going forward considering both the best outcome for the article, as well the maintenance of good, collegial relations with other editors as you work towards that goal. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply on your talk page. CandyStalnak (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Even though I have a bordered box at the top of my Talk page that contains, If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, ... that doesn't appear to have been enough to do the job, so I may have to think about making it bigger/louder or something... Be that as it may, I'll move your comment here, so any discussion can continue all in one place. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of your comment originally at User talk:Mathglot#Disruption versus good ideas.

Thank you for your kind advice.

No disruption is intended. In fact, cooperation is intended as I present several ideas that are not exactly what I think is perfect but addresses some of the concerns raised.

In fact, GoodDay is very stubborn (which is disruption) in that he/she insists that New Zealand has been a country under Queen Elizabeth during her entire reign therefore that justifies a separate section. Such odd criteria is not cited anywhere in any reliable source as important. In fact, several editors have said that NZ should not be given special treatment.

Perhaps in an attempt to beef up the NZ section so that this can be used as a reason, GoodDay repeatedly tries to enlarge the list of names. He/she even includes Cook Islands and Niue, which are not provinces or counties of NZ but are separate countries with their own embassies in other countries. Even other Wikipedia articles acknowledge this. True, there is a free association between Niue or Cook Islands and NZ but so does the Republic of the Marshall Islands has a free association with the USA but is not a part of the USA. This is actually insulting to Cook Islanders and Niue people but their population is small so few, if any, edit Wikipedia.

I realize that being precise and explaining all aspects of a problem may be thought of as disruption, but true disruption is the many times that others just change an edit with no talk page discussion.

CandyStalnak (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Mathglot § Disruption versus good ideas

Hello again. I've moved the discussion here, so you'll see my response, and be able to refer to it later if you wish to; it will eventually get archived on my Talk page and will become hard for you to locate.

Regarding your latest comment: I don't wish to get into the merits of the content of the article here, as the appropriate place for such a discussion is the article Talk page, where anyone can see it. Article talk pages are for talking about article content (not user behavior), and user talk pages are for talking about user behavior (not article content). Hope that clarifies things. As far as User:GoodDay's behavior, my user talk page isn't the right page to discuss that, either (and neither is this); their page is (although given the current situation at the article, I don't recommend it).

I can't tell you how to deal with the conversations at the article Talk page, but rightly or wrongly, the discussion there doesn't seem to be going the way you'd like it to. You seem not to be achieving any consensus there. If you still want to pursue the discussion in an attempt to sway the article the way you'd like, maybe check out WP:3O, WP:Dispute resolution, and WP:Moderation, which may give you some ideas. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay has been previously banned by the Arbitration Committee and has been blocked about a dozen times. So far, all other editors have been reasonable. They have suggested good compromises and I have changed my views to accommodate those compromises. GoodDay is a bit stubborn. CandyStalnak (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only editor that opposed any changes you proposed at that page. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I have changed my opinions to allow a consensus to occur. Nobody else, except you, has stated that Niue belongs to NZ so the Prime Minister of Niue should be listed under NZ and not even a sub-sub-section heading will be allowed. You firmly stick with no Niue sub-sub heading and sticking him under the NZ PM. That is very disrespectful. Is it because you want the NZ section to be big? Or another reason? CandyStalnak (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're posting about, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

I only just noticed that no one had officially welcomed you yet, so: Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, CandyStalnak! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

You're also welcome to contact me at my Talk page anytime. Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Your recent editing history at Elizabeth II 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no edit war. I talked on the talk page. I have citations, not wild theories

. Some other people did not. CandyStalnak (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at Elizabeth II is against your suggested inclusion. Please do not add it again. DrKay (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is NOT true. I did not suggest an inclusion. CandyStalnak (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]