Criticalus

Welcome!

Hi Criticalus! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Kj cheetham (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a FYI

There is a new general sanctions placed on articles relating the Russo-Ukrainian War in between when you placed for a request of closure for the 22 September 2022 RM of the annexation article and when the new RM was opened. One of the sanctions is the restriction on non-extended-confirmed editors on participating in internal project discussions, which RMs are one of such. Ordinarily, your comments/vote in the new RM would have been struck out given that your account is currently not of extended-confirmed status yet. However, they are not as it is not consistently enforced, and as per my closing, even striking your comments, it would not affect the consensus that's been developed.

Nonetheless, before participating in internal project discussions on the related pages that has the sanction enforced, do clock the required edits/time first to gain the extended-confirmed status. – robertsky (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, @Robertsky:, I wasn't aware of this change and will refrain from involvement in these discussions going forward until gaining the extended-confirmed status. It does make sense that this change would occur, as I see many attempts to influence the course of these substantive discussions by anonymous users. Thank you for not striking out my edits there as well, I feel they added substantively to the conversation that led to the consensus, and I am pleased at the closure of the matter. I have some general gripes at the ongoing shift in Wikipedia against IP editors - I was an IP editor for over a decade, in which I made probably thousands of edits, and only made this account to keep track of those edits as it became clear that the weight of your take was no longer solely determined by the validity of your words but that account history and other factors were starting to matter more here even though policy-wise we claim that IP editors and account editors have the same value to the wiki, but these ancillary points are neither here nor there and have little to do with the matter at hand. It does frustrate me that the sanctions extend to internal discussions outside the mainspace on this topic, too, but again, I can see why there is a need for such a control given the sensitivity of the topic. At any rate, I appreciate you resolving the RM. Criticalus (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

AFDs

Hello, Criticalus,

You are welcome to participate in AFDs, despite your limited experience, but please make a contribution to the discussions you participate in. Please examine the sources in the article and ones that are mentioned in the deletion discussion, evaluate them and be specific about which ones you think do or do not help establish notability. Don't just say you agree with another participant. Do your homework and do not just offer an opinion about the current state of the article. Your contribution in a deletion discussion demonstrates your knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guidelines surrounding verfiability and notability and offering a throw-away remark will cause it to be dismissed by the discussion closer. Look at the participation of other editors and try to match their level of thoroughness. It's a demanding area to contribute to as an editor. Thank you for your contributions to the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Request to pick your brain!

Hi! I've been engaging with the Colleen Ballinger article, and there's a comment you made waaay back (a few days ago lol) that's been on my mind since I read it. Anyways, now that you've jumped back on the Talk Page, I thought I'd ask for advice regarding said comment! You put forward the idea of presenting the accusations in a more holistic synopsis of the patterns at play, and I think I agree, but I'm wondering if you could point me towards an example of, or framework for, how that could be written? Thanks for your help, here and over there. I just started editing like a week ago after I wound up sick at home instead of on a cottage trip -- wikipedia is a lot more intense then expected, at least Ballinger's article, and I feel a bit like Bart in the Rear Window Simpson's episode lol. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, Goodlucklemonpig! Yeah that article got sort of nuts. I am no expert, but in general, I think the article is suffering because involved editors are approaching with biases. That is, they are either supportive of, or antagonistic towards Ballinger, and then those feelings bleed into both which information they want to retain or remove, and how they word and present the information that is there. The goal should be a neutral article that is neither for or against Ballinger, which does not take a position but rather outlines the relevant and verifiable facts, and then allows the reader to interpret it themselves without implying any interpretation with its tone. Here's a framework to get there. First we need to sort out all the potentially pertinent facts with their sourcing, and see which ones there is a consensus for including. Then I imagine for each there would need to be some back-and-forth between various editors to reach a neutral and balanced wording and smooth out these unintended biases. Once these are all generally agree, it can be structured into a proposed text that can gather the necessary consensus. This is a process that does not have to be step-by-step or in order, it can be complex with different steps being done in parallel, but that is essentially how I think the full protection can be lifted. Criticalus (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Just popping back in to thank you for helping out with everything over there. It's had more than a few frustrating moments, and I truly think your participation in the conversation definitely helped insure a neutral text emerged in the end. Honestly, I was feeling a little nuts, so it was really so validating to have an experienced editor jump in and see what I was seeing :) Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:G4

Hey, I noticed you brought up G4 in the Spirit Air deletion nomination. For future note, G4 only applies to "sufficiently identical copies" of the article before deletion, so it's unlikely to apply here given the new acquisitions of aircraft. Cheers! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding a sentence with a single new fact does not substantially alter the funadmental article. They signed a letter-of-intent to buy six planes, none have been paid for or delivered...I really don't think the "new acquisitions of aircraft" amount to anything as of yet. But your point re: G4 is noted. Criticalus (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

A little ask about cleaning up an article

Hi! I've been cleaning up the article on One Thousand and One-Second Stories. I was wondering if you could take a look at whether I've done enough to remove the tone template? As a newb, I wanted to get a 2nd pair of eyes on it, and after our work together I trust your opinion! Any advice would be much appreciated :) Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed the tone template from that article. Nice rewrite. Criticalus (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Sweet! Thank you *<:^) Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dab (dance), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quality Control. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)