User talk:TheKurgan

Archived Information

See Archives called User talk:TheKurgan/Archive1.

Sarnia Good Article Nomination

I updated the historic pop chart, but it still requires sources for the population counts. Also, I renamed "famous people" to "notable people" to match the other cities wikipages. But you need a short paragraph here giving just a few of the most notable people instead of a link with no context. Mattximus (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Added a couple of people in a paragraph.TheKurgan (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus, thanks for helping me with the Sarnia article. I've been working on it so much it almost feels like "my article" :) Good Article or bust! Thanks again.TheKurgan (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help with the review a bit, but not sure if I have time to help with the actual writing of the article. To keep things organized feel free to use these symbols Template:Done in the good article review. Mattximus (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

APRIL 2012

Thank you for your good article nomination on Sarnia. Improvements for it are on the talk page of the article. --Chip123456 (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chip and Mattximus. I put in three hours making changes this morning and am worn out. If you could both find the time to do a couple of the improvement edits you suggested, I'd be very appreciative. Thanks again!TheKurgan (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I review and give advice on what is needed to improve the article. Unfortunately, I can't engage in the article in improving it when I am the reviewer. --Chip123456 (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. How is it looking?TheKurgan (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on my talk page. Please keep discussions together in one place. I am watching your talk peg so will see when a question is asked and will reply to questions in due course. --Chip123456 (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CONGRATS on reaching a GA rating on Sarnia, amigo! Well done! PK T(alk) 17:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on getting that GA rating. You certainly put a lot of effort into it.Silverchemist (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Chip123456 (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Chip123456 (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chip123456,

I've finished all the corrections/review suggestions you made, with one exception. See the GA discussion page for Sarnia (short version is Canadian Census will charge me for the info and I don't have the dough for it)TheKurgan (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there Is a problem with one if the refs on modern history, more info on the review page. I would fix it usually, but Im not allowed!--Chip123456 (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Have put one more improvement for the article. The thread is the GA review bit! Chip123456 (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chip...

Mattximus put a bunch of reasons why the article should not be GA but only B-Class. I wondered if you agreed with him or with my refutations. Let me know. I've spent close to 40 hours total on the article and want that GA so badly I can taste it! Thanks for all your help. TheKurgan (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Great job in bringing the Sarnia article up to GA level. Moxy (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto! --Chip123456 (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Editors (including PKT, Moxy, and Silverchemist)

I am thinking of nominating Sarnia for FA status and wanted to get your opinion. Let me know what you think. I looked at Hamilton, which is FA, and thought my article on Sarnia is at least its equal.There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarnia peer review

Due to commitments I have not been able to continue the peer review in the past week, but hope to make some progress this weekend. Brianboulton (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it, Brian! You said there might be delays, so I expected delays. My end goal is to get Sarnia to FA status, not to get it there in record time. I look forward to your help. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally finished the review. The link is here; there does not appear to be a link to this part of the review on the article's talkpage, Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarnia FAC

Hello,

I noticed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sarnia/archive2 exists, but no one is reviewing it. This is because you haven't transcluded it at WP:FAC. I would have added it for you, but I see that you haven't edited in a week, so I thought I'd leave it for you to do when you have time. You'll probably want to update the date stamp on your introduction, too. Maralia (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I've seen the FAC nomination, but I want to see comments from other editors before I contribute to the review. I shall be watching. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing accessdates??

Hi TheKurgan - I noted that you removed accessdates from several references in Sarnia today. Why?? Please don't. If you haven't done so already, please read WP:linkrot to understand why they may be useful in future. PK T(alk) 20:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the reference types to news and journal, and the accessdates were causing errors in the references list. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I saw the issue you're referring to. PK T(alk) 14:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up anyway, PKT. BTW, it's good to see you around again! There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairest of the Fair

My reason for removing The Fairest of the Fair from Category:American marches was that it is already in Category:Sousa marches, which is a subcategory of the American marches category, so the double categorization was redundant. I'm well aware of Sousa's American-ness. :) Trivialist (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarnia climate

Last time when I edited the climate section on Sarnia, you reverted my edit when I introduced the more accessible source saying "The link provided by the editor does not show Sarnia data". I did not had a chance to explain it though I realized that the link went to the 1971–2000 data instead of the 1981–2010 data. I did reintroduced the link with this edit and checked that it provides a link to the 1981–2010 data. The reason that I added in that link is due to the link showing the climate data in a more accessible and easy to read format than the csv file, allowing for all the numbers to be verified easily in the case that vandalism occurs. However, I kept the csv file since environment Canada records wind chill values to the closest 0.1°C, not the closest 1°C (should be to the closest 0.1°C for consistency). As well, the csv file includes extra data that the more accessible one does not have. I hope that clarifies any misunderstandings from my edits. Thanks. Ssbbplayer (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/11&oldid=866998401 -->

Proposed deletion of File:Algorail Under The Bluewater Bridge.jpg

The file File:Algorail Under The Bluewater Bridge.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Sarnia From Space.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sarnia From Space.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sarnia From Space.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sarnia From Space.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really shouldn't have to tell you this...

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Ethnic groups in Latin America are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. While I believe you're commenting in good faith, I suggest that you get you up to speed as to the use of these terms. They are archaisms in the English language, but we are not dealing with subject matter in the Anglosphere. These descriptors are alive and very much in use as the common terminology in the Latin American world, and they do not carry the pejorative weight you are ascribing them. The reliable sources we use for the content of Wikipedia articles are what we follow, not our own WP:PPOV: Wikipedia is strictly WP:NOR. Please make certain you know your subject matter before you make generalised observations without knowing the ethnic lexicon for specific areas of the globe. Thank you for your attention and understanding. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Man, the entry of "condescending" in the OED must have a picture of you next to it. I am not a child. Don't ever speak to me that way again. If I'm wrong, fine. I'll take the gig, but you can take your condescension and smarmy, "Thank you for your understanding," and toss it in the trash heap where it belongs. You describe yourself on your own talk page as a "dried-up old biddy with absolutely no sense of humour, irony, or satire," so I responded as directly as possible to you. To paraphrase your own words, "Please make certain that you know with whom you're dealing before you make generalized, condescending comments." That being said, I am sorry to hear that you're sick. I hope you get better soon.There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise sincerely for being appallingly and offensively condescending. After re-reading this guff, I plead guilty as charged. I honestly thought it to be courteous to explain why I'd removed the comment, but the result truly was an abysmal exercise in finger-wagging. Embarrassing stuff for all involved. Erhem, would you let it pass as a senior moment thingy? If not, feel free to trout me for not thinking it through! Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology. I have my own senior moments. Blog on.:)There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you ever need a hand, feel free to ping me. I may not be of much use to you for anything of substance, but - if it's ever of any use - I do know my way around policy and guidelines. Happy editing! Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raising children?

Do you have any basis for saying you can't raise children?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The correct version, of course, is "reared," but modern usage, particularly among young people, considers raise and rear to be interchangeable. Typical. So, feel free to revert if you are so inclined. I checked the entry from the AP Stylebook, which says, "Only humans may be 'reared.' All living things, including humans, may be 'raised.'"

There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Textbroker International LLC (May 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Theroadislong were:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Textbroker International LLC and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Textbroker International LLC, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheKurgan! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm not a new editor.There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Textbroker International LLC

Hello, TheKurgan. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Textbroker International LLC".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hello TheKurgan. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to International Symphony Orchestra, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:TheKurgan. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=TheKurgan|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. You have stated here that you are a member of this orchestra. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The audacity of this is beyond comprehension. PAID ADVOCATE? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Don't I wish! Paid advocate. PFAH. You have a lot of gall, let me tell you that. Your personal talk page says that, "This user is polite." Horse-hookies. You are among the least polite people I have encountered. I should have erased that comment about me being a member of the orchestra. I am not currently a member any longer. Incompetent leadership that treated me like utter shit after my wife died forced me to take a leave of absence. And, after a combination of the pandemic and that incompetent leadership, the orchestra is, basically, done. So, you know what you can do with this entire "paid advocate" nonsense. AND, YOU are the one who did not do your due diligence regarding Robert Silverman and Shane Cook, calling them "not notable" when they each have their own Wikipedia pages. And, don't you threaten me. "Do not edit further." PFAH. Well, this is the answer you required before I'm "allowed to post again."

If you had BOTHERED to look at my user page, you'd see that I did disclose a conflict of interest regarding this very situation with another article for which I WAS paid. That article was deleted for not being notable, and I AGREED with them regarding that decision. Again, you did not do your due diligence. You just assumed the worst. I'm quite frankly surprised that you have as many stars of recognition as you have if you're not even bothering to DO your due diligence in the simplest of matters. You're nowhere near as notable as you think you are.

You know, you could have just ASKED me if I were paid for writing the ISO's page. No, instead, you climb up into your supercilious ivory tower and try to intimidate me. Well, it hasn't worked. You are boring, and I have already given up trying to keep you and Floydian from making Sarnia's page worse. "Over-the-top puffery," you called a legitimate review I posted in response to another editor asking me to provide supporting citations as to the quality of "Fries Under the Bridge." Pal, the only "over-the-top puffery" involved is stuffed inside of your shirt. The No. 1 rule of WikiPedia is to assume good faith. Ever since you started reverting my hundreds of hours of work on the Sarnia page, you have never assumed good faith. And, might I add, that I am not even MENTIONING the elephant in the room. So, regarding Sarnia, the petrochemical page linked on the Sarnia page, and the page for the ISO, I wash my hands of it. You may do with them as you will. I will no longer oppose your butchery. Take out notable people just because you can. Remove important things. Erase First Nations history. I will close by paraphrasing Darth Vader: "The power to flex your muscles by reverting good-faith WikiPedia edits is insignificant next to the power of me no longer caring."

Oh, and because I'm old and crotchety, and because you have angered me with your *CENSORED*, I'm telling you to "get off my lawn." Stay off of MY talk page. You are no longer welcome on it.

There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my response at ANI.There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello @TheKurgan, I won’t make any pretenses as to why I am here on your user talk page. I saw the recent dispute at Sarnia and I looked at the AN/I case reading each diff and wanted to stop by to just offer some thoughts that I hope you will consider. Btw, I am not an admin nor do I wish to be one. Just a fellow editor and human being.

First of all, the work you have done over the years on articles like Sarnia is amazing and greatly appreciated. @Brianboulton is one of my favorite editors to read about and he is sorely missed on this project, and I see you worked with him on the GA process for Sarnia. First Nations and Native American/American Indian subjects are so difficult to discuss because not a lot of people truly understand the importance of these tribes to the local area’s they inhabited prior to European colonization nor the terrible ways in which the tribal histories have been suppressed, even in Wikipedia articles. You appear quite knowledgeable on the subject, among many others, and one of the editors involved in this issue has said as much. I don't believe anyone involved can adequately question your experience in editing Wikipedia over the years or discredit the value of your contributions. I wanted you to understand that I am so grateful for you and that I am in no way attacking you because I can understand how you feel as a result of this latest dispute.

Now, I need you to understand my position. I am indifferent towards the article itself. I think both @Magnolia677 and @Floydian are amazing editors in their own right. However, I'm here to appreciate and support you. I’m not going to use all these wiki-links because you are not a new editor and I think that would be just plain disrespectful to you so I expect you understand the policies I may reference. Inclusion doesn't necessarily have to be solely policy based. A consensus of editors reviewing a particular discussion based on their interpretation of policy is enough to maintain what is written or alter what is written because content policy is often very vaguely written on purpose to allow a consensus to form.

What is not vague is Wikipedia's behavior policies. Being “old and crotchety” is understandable. Hell, I’m a grouch at times myself. That doesn’t excuse me being uncivil even when others are. We are expected to remain civil even in the face of, what we may deem, great provocation. I know you are angry and frustrated but I hope you take the time to cool down and see that remarks you made do not help your cause in any way, they only hurt it. We are not required to be kind or nice, but I believe a certain level of kindness goes together with civility to aid in collaboration. This entire issue could have been avoided had all parties took a step back and maybe tried to understand the position of the other. Kindness and understanding are why I took the time to write you. We are both human being’s and I wanted you to know that I empathize and relate with your frustration and anger whether we agree on the content or not.

I think you also know that collaboration is the road by which the encyclopedia is written, and consensus is the engine that gets us there. You’ve been involved in many collaborative consensus building discussions over the years so there isn’t much reason to spend long on this point. While you may have written most of a specific article and you may have done most of the "heavy lifting", as it were, an article does not belong to you, it belongs to the community by way of the WMF. We may not always agree with every policy, and there are ways to change policy, but community consensus has held that these policies are critical elements of the encyclopedia. Without them we don't have Wikipedia. There is no way around that, and so we can't just choose to ignore it because we think it's wrong.

Thank you for your time and feel free to delete this if you want to. I just wanted you to know someone appreciates you and wanted to take the time to discuss things with you, respectfully. Something I feel should have been done from the beginning. --ARose Wolf 19:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is how people should behave. Thank you for being great. I bristled at the accusatory tone Magnolia, and to a lesser degree Floydian, used with me as if I were some kind of spoiled child. I would never delete your message because it's the way things should be done. There is no need to discuss the matter further, however, because I have washed my hands of the Sarnia article and its associated articles. I simply won't engage with them any longer because my mental health and blood pressure are far more important to me than being "right." Those other editors, however fabulous they may be, are right fighters, and I choose no longer to engage. Thank you, however, for treating me like an adult human being with feelings. You are to be commended. Cheers, ARoseWolf!There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheKurgan. I second ARoseWolf's word, and hope my comment hasn't been the source of any grief. It can be extremely hard dealing with those we disagree with, and very emotionally draining. I hope you return to Wikipedia at some point. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I will still be on Wikipedia. I just won't be engaging with those two editors or the articles in question. :) It was not the disagreement that cheesed me. Rather, it was the automatic assumption that I was doing something nefarious combined with the, "You don't know what you're talking about," vibe.There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I expected any, but after two days, there has been no answer on the ANI page from either Magnolia677 or Floydian, despite the fact that, as a magnanimous human being, I apologized to them both. By them ignoring me, they have shown their true colors. Both have been active since the May 6 dustup. Truly, their actions make Wikipedia a disagreeable experience for everyone who doesn't conform exactly to their ways of thinking. You, at least, treated me with dignity, along with ARoseWolf, so I have no quarrel with either of you. On another ANI case, Magnolia677 used the phrase, "Are you familiar with the phrase 'quacks like a duck?'" The irony of that approaches the size of the universe itself. Have a great rest of the weekend ActivelyDisinterested.There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]