User talk:Combefere/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Combefere. 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. |
| Archive 1 |
Combefere, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi Combefere! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC) |
Welcome Combefere!
I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Sincerely, S0091 (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
Killing of Tamir Rice
I saw you added and then removed an argument that Shooting of Tamir Rice should be renamed. I encourage you to make a move request. If you aren't going to, let me know, as I might myself. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers I removed it to make the formal move request, which I have just created. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 21:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Per this you cannot participate in this move discussion till you reach 500 edits Shrike (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
"Lord Dunsany (redirect)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Lord Dunsany (redirect) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 2#Lord Dunsany (redirect) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
February 2023 Labour Edit-a-thon
| 2023 WikiProject Organized Labour/Online Edit-A-Thon | |
|---|---|
 |
Hello, Combefere/Archive 1! During the entire month of February there will be an ongoing edit-a-thon on all labour related projects across English Wikipedia and sister projects. Register to track your edits and sign up on the edit-a-thon's project page as a participant. To invite other participants paste {{subst:WPLABOR/2023}} on their talk page! This event is organized by WP:WikiProject Organized Labour |
~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
March 2023: rm copyvio tags
Hello, I'm WikiWikiWayne. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Killing of Tyre Nichols have been disallowed by an edit filter as they did not appear constructive. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. If you believe the edit filter disallowance was a false positive, please report it here. Feel free to ask for assistance at the Teahouse whenever you like. You removed copyvio tags. {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 07:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- You have been blocked from editing Killing of Tyre Nichols pending the closure of the case at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. You are welcome to edit other pages instead. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Stifle I'm unsure there is copyright problem, hopefully a clerk will get to this soon as I don't see why a page specific block was necessary for this user. The editor that added the copyright notice to the page and a listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 March 20 has yet to provide an actual URL to the copyrighted content. And earwig's copyvio tool, leads me to believe that this isn't an issue. https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=&oldid=1145650546&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0
- Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with PN99. Combefere should be unblocked. The existence of a pervasive copyright problem has not been proven. starship.paint (exalt) 15:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I understand another admin has unblocked, and given the discussions elsewhere I agree with it. I apologise for any inconvenience caused to you all. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with PN99. Combefere should be unblocked. The existence of a pervasive copyright problem has not been proven. starship.paint (exalt) 15:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bowler the Carmine | talk 08:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Killing of Tyre Nichols, copyvio?. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
RNC
What is "only homicide by RNC"? I didn't want to ask to much at Talk, in case it's a distraction or your typo. comp.arch (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- RNC is an abbreviation for rear naked choke. Combefere ★ Talk 17:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Please step back from the RFC for a bit, then limit your participation going forward. You've made around 80 edits to the RFC in the past few days, and someone is going to have to read through all of this to close it. If you find yourself having gone back and forth with someone a half a dozen times and neither of you is convincing the other, it's best to just let it drop and move on. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Combefere, I'm glad you were there to refute some of the fringe arguments with policy based reasoning, and I actually learned a few things from the back and forth! But yeah, I hope .Raven can drop the stick and we can all move forward with the RfC. Thanks for your participation. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Appreciate the reminder, ScottishFinnishRadish. I did recognize this behavior as it was happening, but sometimes it's a bit difficult not to get dragged into it. I have limited my responses to one or two which I felt were strictly necessary over the last 24 hours, and I don't intend to "get back into it" over there.
- On the flipside, I do want to mention that a large reason that I felt the need to be so vocal on this RfC is because when the first RfC closed, the supporters' position was both miscounted in quantity and misrepresented in content. The majority position in that RfC can be accurately summed up by one comment:
WP:BLPCRIME would prevent us from calling X a "murderer" since he wasn't convicted of murder in a court of law (at least not yet), but it wouldn't prevent us from stating a plain fact acknowledged in reliable sources: that X caused the death of Y through his actions.
- This argument was supported explicitly by twelve editors (WWGB, LoomCreek, Fustucalex, 72.14.126.22, Combefere, Skynxnex, Davey2010, voorts, Sangdeboeuf, PriusGod, A. Randomdude000, and Kihara Noukan). It was nowhere to be found in the closing summary. The closing summary instead characterized the supporters' argument by saying:
I have down-weighed the argument that the possibility that Penny is notable affects the application of BLPCRIME.
- That argument was only made by three editors on the supporting side (Nemov, Jerome Frank Disciple, CJ-Moki).
- Perhaps if the argument of twelve editors had not been so overlooked in the closing summary of the first RfC, I would not have felt the need to make it so conspicuous in the second. For what it's worth, I would have been happy if you had simply understood and acknowledged our argument, even if you ruled against it. This whole ordeal has been long and tedious, but maybe we can all take something away here. Combefere ★ Talk 16:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Closing statements don't normally go into too much detail, and as someone who has closed a large number of contentious discussions there's a fair amount of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" that comes up in closing statements. I normally try and pick out a couple things that demonstrate why I read the result as I did. In this case I covered the argument I down-weighed and what I saw as reasonable rebuttals of some of the arguments for supporting to demonstrate why I read no consensus, despite a numerical advantage. If something isn't mentioned in a closing statement it's safe to assume it was read and considered.
- A close will very seldom explain every argument made, and to do so leads to just as many irked editors and challenges as not enough detail. It's a difficult line to walk to write a statement that avoids that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I can appreciate the difficulty of the job, and the thanklessness of it. And I really do appreciate you painstakingly going through that whole tedious discussion to close it. Still, I think when closing a contentious discussion against majority, it would be wise to acknowledge the position of the majority. Combefere ★ Talk 17:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Killing of Banko Brown has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
gobonobo + c 05:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Please, see
User_talk:Lepricavark. There is no need to persuade everyone, and a neutral vote is not an oppose, so it hardly matters in the scheme of things. Cheers. starship.paint (exalt) 16:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed! I was a bit confused by the formatting of that comment, and it appeared as though two independent users were being swept up into the Randy Kryn reality distortion field, so I just wanted to clarify (plus I felt that somebody really needed to highlight his wild AOBF toward you on the MOS RfC). But yes, I have definitely stopped engaging on any repetitious points over there. Combefere ★ Talk 17:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, I did see that RK's comment earlier. I didn’t think it was worth replying to since I didn’t even participate in that RfC. Compiling 70 diffs is certainly enough to nearly exhaust my patience on the topic. starship.paint (exalt) 23:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
May I humbly suggest two possible replies: “Q.E.D.”, or just “.” You may ignore this message. starship.paint (exalt) 05:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- While I genuinely like both options, I'm just going to leave it. Minor clarifications to third parties notwithstanding, I meant what I said about not engaging over there anymore. That editor can scream into the void all they want. Combefere ★ Talk 05:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Good choice! I didn’t want to tell you this time not to respond :) starship.paint (exalt) 06:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Just a Monday thought
Hey Combefere, I know we have occasionally sparred, but honestly, I think we agree more than disagree. I simply wanted to say I appreciate your efforts even when we don't see things quite eye-to-eye. Have a nice day! Dumuzid (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words, Dumuzid. I do find your thoughts and manner of discussion very constructive, even when we disagree. Cheers! Combefere ★ Talk 18:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)