User talk:Mesocarp

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Mesocarp! 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:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! — The Earwig (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For you

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Thanks for working to improve Wikipedia. We hope you stick around. Wikipedia needs more good editors like you! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for 3O on Shivaji

Thanks for providing a Third Opinion, and for the long and well researched reply. I have left a reply for first point of dispute. Please let me know if you need more information / references for this particular point of dispute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shivaji#Introduction_Section_Needs_Changes

My pleasure and sure thing. 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 21:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything you are doing on this 3O process.

I have replied to your last comment on first point of dispute. It should be easy to find if you search for

"Thanks, I think we are making progress on this point. I think that we are in agreement that Shivaji was Founder of Maratha Empire.".

You have put in considerable effort into this, and I really appreciate that. Nonentity683 (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, sorry I went quiet for a bit there! I started to feel kind of embarassed. ;^^ I'll come by and reply. 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 04:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for third opinion

Despite how it seems to be going downhill, I'm still thankful for your help.

I would now like to ask you about whether I should proceed to WP:RFC or to WP:DRN if I want find more help to solve the ongoing dispute. Wikipedia bureaucracy is still too confusing to me. Azure94 (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at WikiProject Hungary#Agressive edit war on Hungarian topics because I think that's a decent forum to try to work things out in right now, given that this spat seems to stretch across a variety of Hungary-related articles. I don't think it's really clear enough yet what the various points of dispute are for you to start an RfC or go to the DRN and have a lot of hope for a productive conclusion.

RfCs are for when you like, have a very specific point of dispute about something, you feel like local discussion isn't really approaching the issue well, and you think the best thing to do to improve the discussion would be to draw in distant, uninvolved editors. It's kind of like 3O but more elaborate. Writing a good RfC is a bit of an art, and if you're not familiar with them it's worth reading through some past ones, keeping an eye on the current RfCs for a while, etc. You could also read User:Beeblebrox/The perfect policy proposal, which is about the highest-level, most bitterly-contested RfCs, the ones that are about broad policy changes. Most RfCs aren't as intense as the ones that essay is about, but it gives you a feeling for how bad they can theoretically get, things to consider when drafting one, and what a healthy mindset can be to approach them through.

RfCs can bring a dispute to a pretty conclusive end. Sometimes they don't come to a clear consensus, but if they do, most people will defer to it after that. Often the only thing that can convince people to abandon the conclusion of an existing RfC is another, newer RfC that comes to the opposite consensus. So, for content disputes, often an RfC is the tool of last resort. If you want to pull in a wider pool of editors but you don't want to go all the way to an RfC, or you really want editors with a particular kind of expertise on a topic instead of random ones from across Wikipedia, another thing you can do is go to a Wikiproject and link to the talk page thread where the dispute is taking place, saying that the dispute might be of interest to people there and you'd like some uninvolved input.

DRN allows you to bring a dispute into a moderated setting, where an uninvolved editor will impose a formal structure on the conversation to keep everyone on-topic and working towards a conclusion. It can be helpful if you're trying to settle a specific point, but other people in the conversation keep straying onto unrelated matters or arguing in a confusing or scattered fashion or whatnot. The moderator won't take sides, they'll just try to keep the conversation tidy and focused and maybe recommend next steps at the end. Of note, everyone in a DRN discussion has to be there willingly; anyone who doesn't want to participate doesn't have to, so it works best when there's mutual exasperation all around, and yet a genuine desire on the part of all parties to work things out amicably. DRN only brings things to a conclusive end if everyone comes to an agreement when it's finished.

Of note, if you feel like the real problem is with another editor's behavior, neither of these is necessarily the right approach. These are tools for resolving content disputes. When the problem is truly with the other user's conduct, and you haven't been able to work things out with them despite your best efforts, your best option may be to get the attention of an admin. Be forewarned, though, that any admins that examine the situation you're bringing up are liable to examine your behavior as closely as anyone else who's involved.

(P.S. It's not really much of a bureaucracy despite its appearances; these aren't "departments" so much as "customs," in the cultural sense. I think it's easier to understand and interact with them if you think of them that way. Wikipedia is light on true rules and regulations, but has lots of ritual and etiquette and all that.) 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 17:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed response. I'll wait to see how things turn out on the talk page for WikiProject Hungary. But I don't have high expectations. It's hard to stay on the topic, when he keeps derailing the debate with half-truths, lies-by-omission and personal accusations. Just now I've learned that I'm apparently a Slovakian, since apparently only those people would ever disagree with him. How am I supposed to respond to that without divulging personal information about me? In the end, I fear that this will only be solved by admin intervention. One or another way. Azure94 (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's going better and better. We may yet see the conversation to a successful end. I encourage optimism and good faith and all that. As a side note, if you do want to know my answer to "How am I supposed to respond to that without divulging personal information about me?", I don't think it really needs a response at all. It's not relevant, right? The only things you really need to address are the things that impact the articles themselves. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 04:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For diligent work to resolve 3O dispute regarding Article on Shivaji. Nonentity683 (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Debt-trap diplomacy

For Debt-trap diplomacy, it turns out that User:KirklandWayne and User:AriaNowen have been banned for sock-puppetry, so reverted back to Sept 14, 2023 version before their edit war. However this may have had the unintended effect of removing your contributions so I apologize, you may add them back in. OneWordWonder (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would have been okay to put my things back, but I guess I agree with JArthur1984 that it probably makes sense to move forward from where the article's at now. I wasn't watching closely during the time AriaNowen was involved but I do remember that I thought some of the KirklandWayne edits I saw were all right given the prior state of the article, and some of them I thought only needed a bit of extra work for me to feel all right about them. So, y'know, even if it's from socks, it's not necessarily all useless content. "Improve over remove" and all that. :P 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 19:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]