User talk:DeCausa/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

DYK for Donald McGuire (Jesuit)

On 2 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Donald McGuire (Jesuit), which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Mother Teresa defended Jesuit priest and child molester Donald McGuire against sexual abuse allegations? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Donald McGuire (Jesuit). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Donald McGuire (Jesuit)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 14,414 views (608.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2021—nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Reverted Unduely

Joseph_Kallarangatt

Your edit on Joseph Kallarangatt was reverted. Ezhuth (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate Reverting

Sir, This always happens from SUN EYE 1 whenever accuracy is made on the date, place and publications in the page Joseph Kallarangatt. I have copy pasted the comments from my talk page.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Joseph Kallarangatt has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. - SUN EYE 1 15:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I like the rhythmical usage of the words "inadequate, inaccurate, inappropriate". What i did is explained in the edit summary. I think you are not aware of all doctoral degrees granted by foreign universities. For eg. STD (Sacrae Theologiae Doctor) Take some time to tour in wikipedia itself. Don't feel that i have misspelled the word in STD. In fact, it is Latin. It is good to have an open mind to knowledge/reason rather than keeping a prejudiced mind to intimidate with words like blocking.Ezhuth (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You express your ignorance when you demand reliable source for books. In fact you would have to ask for the ISBN number. I have the ISBN of the list of books i have collected. Since i don't see ISBN number in similar pages of renowned writers i just skipped it. When it comes to your interventions it seems all funny.Ezhuth (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Ezhuth (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Revert Question

Hello,

I saw that you reverted my minor change to Covfefe as "not an mprovement [sic]". In my mind it is an improvement to use the template parameters as intended instead of manually including the file in the name parameter (kind of the whole point of templates) so that any future changes in the template are reflected. Is there a policy this edit was breaching that you could point me to? Forgive me if so, I'm primarily a Wikidata and Commons editor. If there isn't, would you mind undoing your reversion?

Many thanks --SilentSpike (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

There’s no mandate to use a template such as that. Longstanding WP:EDITCONSENSUS on that article is to use something that actually looks like the original, as opposed to one that doesn’t. DeCausa (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't really follow the logic in this instance, but appreciate the reply and link to WP:EDITCONSENSUS nonetheless. Thank you --SilentSpike (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The Pollster's breach of TBAN

For your consideration, seeing your involvement in the latest clash with TP. I pinged you there already, but you may be interested in directly knowing from myself that I've brought this issue to ANI. I saw your first intervention in reverting and addressing TP privately and I wished to wait until seeing whether TP's reply acknowledged the TBAN and gave a reasonable explanation on his behaviour, but after seeing this awkward situation I felt like I had little choice. Impru20^talk 16:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, this was quick. Impru20^talk 16:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Impru20: thanks. Very bizarre. If they genuinely thought that was ok this is just going to continue when they come off the block. DeCausa (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Jesus Article

Thank you for reverting the unecessary edit made by User:BakedGoods357. Frankly I see no reason to alter the introduction as everything it states is factually correct. --Thebighomie123 (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Followup

Hi DeCausa, firstly happy holidays to you and yours! I wanted to followup on the account that reported yesterday, as I found some interesting edits from them.

In addition to mostly adding unsourced info in Ali Kemal, with giant violations of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:UNDUE, they used a well known denialist source in another article. Here for example, they edit-warred and added Justin McCarthy as a source, a well-known Armenian genocide denier with extreme bias and COI to Turkish negationist positions. I don't know whether there are WP:RS supporting McCarthy's view in that particular article (I doubt), just wanted to show the kind of author/source user added in other articles. I didn't want to mention this in the edit-warring noticeboard as to not clutter it with info, but I thought you might be interested. Best, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#DeCausa. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsynylmztr (talk • contribs) 23:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Result: Hsynylmztr warned. DeCausa (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

James Rowe Stats Source

All JR stats from Gloucester City and Chesterfield are listed on Soccerway website, including FA Trophy.

Just need to scroll back and all results are listed.

Soccerway is a reliable source. Immersive01 (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

See GiantSnowman’s response on article talk page. DeCausa (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Principality of Wales

It seems the ' Pen y bryn' edit was reverted, please give a decent reference to prove this, because the references in the article prove this is the site of the Royal palace. Cltjames (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

What “references”? there aren’t any. Hence why in my edit summary I said it was unsourced. That’s the point. And even if this non-existent reference(s) existed it would still be an WP:EASTEREGG problem. Issues like this should be brought up on the article talk page not here. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, thanks for insight, I'm only trying to help. Happy New year! Ps. I'm reading daily and working on additions to the Principality article. tbc... Cltjames (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I said happy new year with intentions of keeping this conversation calm and collected. I'm sorry but I don't understand why you are defending such a poor article, can you please start talking and stop reverting. Cltjames (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I’ve explaine it to you. You need to listen. DeCausa (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

How can you explaine.... Pun intended. Please refer to the Talk:Principality of Wales. Your user page says your in London, I hope your not being rude towards Welsh people. Cltjames (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that’s verging on a WP:PA. Stop right there. Secondly, keep this is one place. it’s now in 3. Thirdly, there are three levels of citation needed tag. An overarching one were an article has no citations or virtually none. That’s not approprite for this article - it’s got 41 citations. A section tag - that could be appropriate for some but not definitely not most sections of this article. An a tag for individual sentences or paragraphs - which could also be relevant here. But, in my opinion, tagging is sub-optimal behaviour. It is much better and more productive to do the work to actually add citations instead of just lazy tagging. DeCausa (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I'm not replying at WP:ANI, since action seems moot. Anyway, the insult of "Sun worshiper" applied to monotheists is like publicly telling someone they have an IQ below 68, instead of calling them "moron". tgeorgescu (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Who calls monotheists that and why? DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Read the diff I have provided. You need to read very attentively in order to figure out what they mean: they mean that everyone who follows a Sun-based calendar is a Sun worshiper. It is somewhat hard to parse those words, but that's what they mean.

They explain the meaning of solarian religion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#New_moon_+1_Gender_balance,_+1_Global_perspective,_+1_Non-solarian_religions,_+1_scientific_anti-scientism.

And by lunacy they do not mean "madness", but "Moon-based calendar". Cults often redefine usual words to mean something altogether different. "Moderate madness" makes no sense in that context, but "Moderate Moon-based calendar" means a lunisolar calendar. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

That would be now Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/Archive_13#New_moon_+1_Gender_balance,_+1_Global_perspective,_+1_Non-solarian_religions,_+1_scientific_anti-scientism. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

User:IagoHughes and Welsh pages

I’m at a loss. User talk:IagoHughes is just not listening, despite having been reverted across a range of Welsh history articles by at least four editors, and having three notices pinned on their Talkpage. I think we have an inexperienced editor on a crusade to right great wrongs, and I think they are unlikely to stop without intervention. KJP1 (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Nothing that I have added is historically innacurate. I have provided references to most of my edits yet even those are being removed by both of you, I will continue to add references to any of my edits that I havent already done so, as i am an inexperienced editor and only just realized my mistake. IagoHughes (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@IagoHughes: Yes, you are a new editor and because of that you are making numerous errors. It looks like you’re going to be blocked. Each article has a talk page for discussing proposed changes to the article. The best thing you can do is to stop reverting and instead put forward your arguments for your edit on the relevant talk page. Just to be clear: in Wikipedia, to change an article you need the consensus of your fellow editors, regardless of whether you think you have sources or whether you are “right”. This is explained at WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus can be achieved in two ways: firstly, you can make an edit and it sticks i.e. no one reverts you. that’;s implied consensus. But if you are reverted by anyone, that doesn’t apply. Secondly, if you are reverted then you can go to the talk page and ask other editors to support your change. If others do there can be an explicit consensus and you can then go ahead and make the change. DeCausa (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Plantagenet Alliance for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Plantagenet Alliance is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plantagenet Alliance until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Agricolae (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 21:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

European Colonization of the Americas

Let us talk this out. Quit reverting my changes. I erased settler but kept colonial this time. That is a fair compromise. I can give you my email address if you want to talk to me further but please talk to me first before you revert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 20:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cbinetti: until there is consensus for change the pre-existing text should remain. Read WP:BRD to see how this works. DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

But there was not consensus for the original text. Read my most recent change. I think you might like it better. If you can add the link to the Settler Colonialism page, I think everyone can be happy about this compromise. Cbinetti (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cbinetti: You need to self-revert otherwise you will get blocked. There was consensus for the original text. read WP:EDITCONSENSUS. You need to stop trying to change the article and start learning how Wikipedia works otherwise you won’t be allowed to edit here anymore. DeCausa (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

There is an Administrator's Board. Let us go to that Board to mediate this. You cannot block me by yourself. You are just a person like me. I was not part of this consensus. Did you read what I wrote? There should be an appeal process before I get blocked. What is to stop me from blocking you? Cbinetti (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Quit threatening me. You are one person. Let us go to the Administrator's board and talk this out. Cbinetti (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I referred this matter to the Administrator's Board and I referred the Board your name. Let us just talk this out and mediate it. You do not get to block our bully me because you do not want read what I wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cbinetti: (1) Read carefully the notice DougWeller put on your talk page. You’ve just made 3 reverts (and they are reverts). If you do it a fourth time you will be blocked. The way that that happens is that I or anyone else requests it at this noticeboard: WP:AN3. There’s a bright line rule that you can’t exceed 3 reverts in 24 hours. (2) The Administrator’s Board won’t mediate. Administrators on Wikipedia don’t have a mediation function. They police behaviour only - breaches of policy like edit-warring. The place to resolve the issue is the article talk page. The problem appears to be you don’t seem to read any of our policies (rules). DeCausa (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not revert three times. That last edit was not a revert. Won't an Administrator talk to me first before banning me. You are not an administrator but you are bullying me like you are one. You are edit-warring too. Why don't you get in trouble? Did you even read my new content? You are the agitator here. Cbinetti (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

He said he edits under his real name

So this isn't outing. [redacting anyway]. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Well yes quite possibly. But don’t see anything that changes anything. DeCausa (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. But he does seem to be telling the truth. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. That’s the annoying thing. He could be an asset if he just stopped to read a few policies. I noticed someone sent him a link to WP:EXPERT. If he read it (I’m doubtful) it might help. DeCausa (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I’ve taken his talk page off my watchlist. My blood pressure can’t take it. DeCausa (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Let your blood pressure simmer down.I know it sucks when you're part of it, but I think we all know how this is going to shake out. He's going to keep this up, and eventually run out of AGF, and get completely blocked. Then it will continue on his talk page, and eventually TPA will be revoked. You've been here long enough to know the pattern. Ignore it for now, and in two weeks you can watch the page again without the stress. You can take comfort knowing that every uninvolved person who's looked at it sees it the same way, and it doesn't reflect poorly on you. Keep up the good work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it's already done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: thanks for that. I should know better - the claims about discrimination just felt more egregious than the usual nonsense would. DeCausa (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, they definitely were more egregious, that's why I felt you might like to hear from someone uninvolved that they were bunk. Luckily, the while situation wrapped up without the usual two week back and forth. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Suppressed the links. I should have asked him to confirm his full name I think. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Topic: Islamic calendar

In the topic of Islamic Calender, there is an image used as a depiction of Prophet Muhammad. I would respectfully request Wikipedia to remove it due to following reasons: 1. The depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in any visual art, as per Islamic beliefs, is neither allowed nor encouraged. 2. Any painting or image is historically incorrect for the person whom the artists have not witnessed themselves. 3. As a Muslim, I honestly feel very uncomfortable by such content. 4. The presence of the image is unnecessary and have no impact or illustration to understand the Topic. 5. I do appreciate and respect the Wikipedia for its contribution. So that every human being regardless of his/her background should benefit, support and contribute such platform of knowledge, I would suggest Wikipedia should remain neutral on these issues. 6. It would be farsightedness of Wikipedia to remove such content so that it would be a collective platform of knowledge for comming generation.

Thank you for consideration 2.50.122.24 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you've posted that message here. It should really go to the article talk page. If the image distresses you HELP:NOSEE tells you how you can avoid having an image appear in your browser. But Wikipedia doesn't comply with Islamic beliefs and will always have images that some readers consider objectionable. See WP:NOTCENSORED. What images are included in an article is decided by editor consensus (not me) which is why I directed you to the article talk page. DeCausa (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries

With respect to this. I think it's pretty clear what's going on. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverting Darin Treaty

Any reason ? Aziz bm (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, per edit summary. The territories you added aren't in the body of the article: per WP:LEAD, the information should already be in the article not new information. So naming those territories is unsourced. Also, because it's a short article, having a longer lead makes it very repetitive. Unless the article is expanded the lead should only be a sentence or two. Lastly, if you have issues with an editor's edit you should raise it on the article talk page first so that other interested editors can join in. DeCausa (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, last thing, saudi-iran relations, How did you concluded that Saudi is still conservative ? Aziz bm (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Stop editing your original posts after I've replied to them. I'm not going to reply to that or the other questions here. Post them on the relevant article talk page. DeCausa (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Aziz bm (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

By the way I see you've recently come off a long block for tendentious editing and moving pages without consensus. The edits of yours I reverted today are similar. DeCausa (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

That’s why I’m starting to use talk page recently [1], I don’t want to get blocked again for the same reason Aziz bm (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Jesus Article

Once again User:Neplota is unnecessarily editing the Jesus article when the topic has been discussed extensively at Talk:Jesus/Archive 134. Once again thank you for your help in reverting but I am just letting you know that I expect this to continue as I have even warned the user yet they continue to edit without consensus. Thank you. Thebighomie123 (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all your thoughtful and helpful advice about the AN stuff, much appreciated, and I really mean that. But I also have a request, just a request, not a requirement. Please consider deleting "Step away, indeed." The comment works fine without it, and I expect that that last sentence will be used against me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. DeCausa (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Page move

I think you mean "List of rulers in Wales"? Peter Ormond 💬 21:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Important Note

Good Morning @DeCausa

someone recently made edits on both Saudi Arabia and Flag of Saudi Arabia, placing the main flag as variant while the other as main, I request your kind consideration to revert the edits as the flag is currently on a dispute situation and there's ongoing discussion over this issue on Wikimedia talk page which means any edits may affect the process.

Kind Regards 91.25.189.139 (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The RFC can be found here. Your input would be appreciated! HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 18:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@HapHaxion: thanks. I'm not really familiar with Commons policies and don't really participate there. The thread at Talk:Saudi Arabia is independent of any discussion or consensus at Commons and it's here that any binding decision on what flag should be used for the KSA article at en.wp will be made rather than at Commons. You're welcome to take anything I say there to Commons if you think it's of any use. DeCausa (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Mozart

I have no intention to enter any infobox discussion, but keep watching. What I saw in 2021 was Ian Fleming and Stanley Kubrick, with the closure of Fleming much to my liking. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

George VI, Elizabeth II & Charles III

Howdy. I don't like having "Head of the Commonwealth" at the top of Charles III's infobox, anymore then you do. But that was the RFC result of George VI & Elizabeth II. PS - If you want to open another RFC on that topic, I wouldn't object. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Reign of Elizabeth II

AfD with pleasure, but please finish the job. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Give us a chance! In the middle of doing it. I hate impenetrable WP processes!!!! DeCausa (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Now done. DeCausa (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Might I suggest the use of Twinkle? All becomes simple then.

I respect your choice to nominate it for deletion. I've left a comment at the discussion and will remain neutral 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. In 12 years I think I've probably nominated for deletion 3 times. When you do something regularly on WP it's all fine but as soon as you don't it feels like you have to spend a whole evening to work it all out. I never understand why everything has to be so clunky. Take the point on Twinkle - will remember to look at it when I do it next time...in 3 years. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Manual AfD is a swine!

I do commend to you nominating poor material for deletion. We have more rubbish than you can shake a stick at. A challenge when you do very few is getting the rationale right, but that ought never to matter, because others will likely propose further additions to it

This one's rationale looks fine to me. Watching and waiting will be fun. I genuinely have no opinion either way. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Change from 'create' to 'appointed'

Thanks for that correction, it took some deep diving on the net to find that created is appropriate for the situation. Tebrennan (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I've seen some editors say many readers won't understand the specialist use of "created" but the problem is no one has come up with an alternative that reliable sources also use. "Gave him the title of" is probably the closest. They don't use "appointed" which doesn't work because of its hereditary nature. DeCausa (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

A thought

I am thinking Wikipedia needs to create a system where there is a built in periodic review of topicbans, to consider if they are still needed, if their limits are reasonable, etc., that is either pre-established or at least does not require the person they are posed against to actively petition for their change. Because the current system is clearly not working as has been seen with what happened. The amount people insisted I could not even discuss anywhere even if a very borderline case was maybe within the scope of the ban, made it so I did not even feel I could turn to another editor for advice on the matter. Plus, the last time I turned to another editor for advice they told me it was best I not participate in the Arbcom discussion against me, and later on in the Arbcom discussion people justified their very harsh penalties in part because I had not participated, so it is very hard to figure out what editors may give good advice, especially when you live in mortal fear of asking, because asking amiss is a reason for people to attack for issues that go way back. I think at one ANI against me someone once brought up an issue that had occurred 8 years before that. I think I was unwise in the wording I used, but the biggest problem I have here is that no matter how simple the problem is I not only cannot fix it but not even in any way make any indication to others there might be something that needs to be fixed, and on long articles it is not enough to read the intro, and go through the categories and determine that none of them have anything to do with religion, but I have to read every single paragraph, even if the edit is something that is an obvious discrepancy between the lead and a paragraph. Looking back I should not have made this request at all, and I should have only focused on something very narrow, but punishing me with an indefinate block (that in theory can be appealed after a year) for bad judgement on how to ask for a change in a topic ban makes no sense. I say the appeal can be appealed after a year "in theory", because no one has explained at all what would change in a year to cause people to even consider lifting a ban. In fact, those who argue "this is good for his mental health to stop him from doing something he really enjoys", show no evidence they would ever vote to overturn. Ever. No matter what happens.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Then there are statements like " I dont particularly find your views on a number of subjects all that endearing," from people supporting. How is that relevant to anything at all here. Unless they think that we should have articles with categories that totally do not match the content of the article and directly contradict them, what subject view is at play in whether I should be able to edit Wikipedia? OK, maybe my biggest annoance is people can and are basing this whole process on things that happened months ago, that have resulted in more regulations of what I can do. Which does not seem fair to use that as a basis for regulate me off of Wikipedia entirely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Re: "badgering", the principles I try to follow are (i) not to repeat myself in replies to multiple !votes, (ii) not to repeat what another editor has said in response to a !vote, (iii) never to add multiple comments at the same level of a discussion, and (iv) when replied to, never to reply at greater length than the reply I received. While I'm sure I sometimes fail at each of these, I'm trying to follow the principles involved in BLUDGEON. Newimpartial (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are telling me about your principles. Either you accept the point I and the other editor made or you don't. From my point of view, it's very noticeable how often you feel the need to tell the opposers that they are wrong: 1 in 3 opposers have comments from you directed at them - a very high proportion for a thread with so many editors posting. To at least 3 opposers you played the same emotive card of 'would you let Jews/other minority be treated the same way': [2], [3] and more subtly [4]. DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do you see that question as an emotive card rather than a logical comparator?

More generally, I don't think my comments (apart from some repetition of that one issue) have involved making the same argument over and over, to different people - the key point of BLUDGEON. Indeed, I have tried to develop my thinking progressively and to avoid repetition as much as I can. Newimpartial (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a dog whistle to Reductio ad Hitlerum. But the main point is the repetition. I haven't gone through all your comments because that would require more interest than I can muster, but I very much doubt that was the only instance of repetition. DeCausa (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it seriously isn't the Nazi card, just because "Jews" were an example I chose. The idea that any comparisons to antisemitism are therfore a dog whistle Nazi comparison seems bizarre to me and vaguely offensive.

My point was simply to question whether certain editors were treating anti-trans rhetoric differently than they would treat antisemitic or racist rhetoric. Frankly I find it very hard to believe that members of the community would be promoting such WP:BURO concerns as "it isn't a pattern yet" if an editor (much less an admin) had said that we have too many Jewish, or black, or female administrators, while leaving a trail of a handful of related comments to verify that yes, this really is what the editor thinks. How my comment transforms in your mind into Reductio ad Hitlerum I have no real idea, and I'm not sure I want to know. Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Perhaps the best argument that you're not bludgeoning a discussion isn't engaging in a back and forth about it on the talk page of a user that said you're bludgeoning a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think moving a discussion to a more appropriate venue ever counts as BLUDGEON. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stop this

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

stop this. You've been told multiple times

You wrote this. This is not true. Please provide diffs of your claim.

On the other hand, you reverted without talk page discussion. Please do not do this. It is wrong and hostile. CandyStalnak (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Your user page says you are a lawyer! You can do better than that. Blanket revert is what dumb people do. You have good training and are capable of expressing your thoughts well. Please do it. I have confidence that you can! Good evening. CandyStalnak (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Here are the multiple times: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. You're completely clueless ("Blanket revert is what dumb people do") and have tried everyone's patience. Continue to edit war and to post ridiculous nonsense on the article talk page I foresee your time on Wikipedia won't be long. DeCausa (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

If that is the case, it is because some WP editors are very warlike and seek to punish and hurt others.

Instead, there should be civil discussion.

Buckingham Palace is clearly hiding something. It's likely because they want privacy, but that is still hiding something. This is NOT a conspiracy theory. Reliable source do write about the Palace being tight lipped. (See talk page for reliable source citations). Therefore, we must be very careful so we are not the mouthpiece of the Palace. We can do this by examining what they said. For example, they did not say she received any treatment. They only said that medical supervision was recommended. There are reliable sources that the Queen was not taken to the hospital. However, there are no reliable sources for the exact medical cause of death. There is a listed cause on the death certificate but there are scholarly citations that "old age" is not a medical cause. There is a way to satisfy both truth AND reliable sources. That is to say the death certificate list old age. Whether to add other information about listing old age is probably beyond the scope of this article since Wikipedia is generally not for really detailed scholarly knowledge.

Good evening. CandyStalnak (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Look at the stark difference between your behavior and DrKay's behavior. He shows maturity and insight in his talk page about the Queen. You threaten. That is not a sign of a good Wikipedian. Please don't be like this. CandyStalnak (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep your nonsensical ramblings off my talk page. There's nothing interresting or "scholarly" about your absurd conspiracy theories. DeCausa (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bro why did you revert my edit

I am new to wikipedia and I didn't know how to put a source properly in wikipedia. But I do remember putting the source at the end of the page. It is a very small yet interesting niche party in America. NO ONE literally talks about this. You may argue its relevancy but this is the only monarchist party currently alive in the United States of America so I think this should at least be mentioned in the Monarchism in the United States page. I hope you understand and thank you for reading this. Heneral Gregorio Del Pilar (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Heneral Gregorio Del Pilar: Hi, I appreciate you're new to Wikipedia. The text you added has a few problems in terms of Wikipedia's "policies" (as we call them, effectively they're the Wikipedia rules). I'll list them below as I think it may help with getting started with your editing here:

• You did put a source in, but it wasn't formatted properly (because of that one of the problems with it was it didn't appear in the citations list at the bottom). Have a look at Help:Referencing for beginners or Wikipedia:Citing sources which tells you how to do it.

• But even so, the source you used wouldn't be acceptable for the way you used it. One of the most important "rules" is that we must use only "reliable" sources. What these are is explained in two very important policies/guidelines which you will see often referred to by editors: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (often abbreviated to "RS"). Essentially, we should only use "independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The source used fails that because it was the website of the organization you wanted to write about. they could have said anything about themselves. What is needed is reliable mainstream media coverage or independently published books from a reputable author.

• The other problem is what we often call WP:UNDUE and is linked to the quality of the source. You should only give coverage to an organization (or any person/subject/fact/opinion etc) which reflects their overall significance to a topic - as evidenced by the amount of coverage they get in reliable sources. The amount of text you added about this organization was about a third of the length of the article. The fact that Washington was proposed as a monarch or that Hamilton favoured a monarchy are fairly significant facts. If the "United Monarchist Party of America" is one person in his basement in Idaho then there's no way that should get greater prominence (or even any mention). That's why we need independent reliable sources to judge how important it is in the overall scope of the topic - as well as getting the facts right. If that party has any sort of signicance it will be covered in the reliable media and may warrant a sentence or so about it. However, I have my doubts on that though.

• Probably the most important point is that you copied text from the website without putting it in quotation marks and making it clear that it was a direct quote. If you don't do that it could be a breach of copyright. This is a key thing for editing here - we must only use our own words unless it's a brief quotation where we make it clear that it is a direct quote. It's important that you read Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and WP:COPYVIO which explains this in more detail.

Hope that clarifies things - let me know if it doesn't. DeCausa (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright. I'll try to do better next time. Heneral Gregorio Del Pilar (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Wikipedia's rules arent straightforward and it takes a while to become familiar with them. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Please check the source I put before reverting next time

We haven't discussed the newly-cited source from the official Saudi embassy website which describes Majlis Ash-Shura as a legislative body. Descriptions of the system of governance should be stated as to what governments do. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@JohnnyPedro1998: Of course I checked your source. That's one of the reasons I reverted you. DeCausa (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

No clarifications given yet as to why you rejected the content cited from the government web page. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Surely it's obvious that the Saudi government isn't a reliable source for that? The North Korean govenrment claims it's democracy! There's plenty of RS that it's not a genuine legislature and naturally the Saudi government has a political incentive to present it differently to the world. DeCausa (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:FAPO. As I said before, the description of the system of governance should be stated as what governments proclaim it to be. The North Korea article still labels it a democracy with its own legislature, even though Saudi Arabia ranks better than North Korea in the Democracy Index. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"The description of the system of governance should be stated as what governments proclaim it to be" is your opinion and is neither Wikipedia policy nor fact. Our North Korea article most certainly does NOT call it a democracy. It would be ludicrous to do that and accept what the North Korean government says. Look at the infobox, it says: "Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship". That's because we ignore self-serving propaganda issued by governments (whether it's North Korea or Saudi Arabia) and reflect what reliable sources say. And reliable sources say that all legislative power is with the king and the Council of Ministers and the Consultaive Assemby is not a legislature. DeCausa (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It mentioned the fact it's a "socialist republic" which is what the country correctly identifies with, yet clarification was mentioned afterward. Going with your logic, the word "Democratic" should be omitted from the offical names of North Korea and the DRC since that's what they 'falsely' identify with. If a government says they identify as "X", Wikipedia SHOULD mention they're "X" regardless. Clarification can be mentioned later. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No. That's now how it works. "Democratic" is just part of it's official name, not a description of the country. We're not here to spout Saudi government propaganda. DeCausa (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Tomb of Casimir IV Jagiellon

On 19 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tomb of Casimir IV Jagiellon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that of 12 experts who opened the tomb of a medieval Polish king in 1973, 10 died prematurely? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tomb of Casimir IV Jagiellon. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tomb of Casimir IV Jagiellon), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 22,343 views (931.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Hi, if you are interested, if you could spare just five minutes, please join this discussion Talk:Joseph Kallarangatt#Promoting conspiracy theories. Your thoughts are much appreciated. Thank you. 117.230.88.250 (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Kingdom of Wales

I have just noticed that you have deleted an entire accurately sourced Wikipedia page that I published for the Kingdom of Wales, which was a historical kingdom on the island of Great Britain from 1055-1063, you did this on the basis that there is already a “King of Wales” page, despite the fact that the “kingdom of Wales” page was about the kingdom itself, not the title of its ruler, they are two different topics. The page should be reinstated. IagoHughes (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not a real entity. It was a title that was used for less than a decade. But the main point is you literally word for word just completely copied another article. It adds nothing to the encyclopedia. If you had created the page rather than edit a redirect it would have been speedy deleted for duplication.DeCausa (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Jesus Article

Hello my friend, you may or may not remember me. Once again the Jesus article is being edited unnecessarily without consensus when the topic has been discussed extensively at Talk:Jesus/Archive 134. I suspect this may continue and I may need your help once again. The user that made the initial edit was User:Ebasti so just be aware of them. Many thanks for your continued help Thebighomie123 (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Leicester Square

any fan would be more interested to know the snackbar was in Leicester Sq than "the West End". Short of getting a letter from Mr Gadd, how am I supposed to prove it? Geekpie (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about. You made a massive edit extensively changing the article and taking out 15kb of text. DeCausa (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Houston

See contributions and my warnings. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep. They're certainly on a "mission". DeCausa (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Indent on talk page

Hello, I was discussing protection level with on the Jesus page and have a question about a tip you gave to me. What do you mean by indent my posts? MayoForSam2023 (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I did link to this: WP:INDENT, which is explains it. Did you have a look? DeCausa (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom Case

There might very well be good reasons to have a case but I think you misread this? The article says there's no differences for the most part between the three different Wikipedias, that the main thing about all three version is that they all try to be "academic and scientific". Volunteer Marek 23:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC) BTW, that article is from 2016 so I'm not sure if it's particularly relevant to the present case. Volunteer Marek 23:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. There's arguments for "both sides" in that article. So as you said "it may be best to wait with analysis of specific articles till case is opened". That's the point. It's enough prima facie for there to be a case without pre-judging the outcome. DeCausa (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok, I got it. I'm the one who misunderstood. Thanks. Volunteer Marek 23:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Wolfgang von Polheim

On 20 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wolfgang von Polheim, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that on his wedding night, Maximilian of Habsburg had a childhood friend, wearing a suit of armour, stand in for him in bed with his new wife? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wolfgang von Polheim. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Wolfgang von Polheim), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Valereee (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 15,644 views (651.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to WP:CIII

Hello. Just in case you missed it, there's a task force up at WP:CIII which you may be interested in. There is, of course, no obligation to participate, but if you do, it is very much appreciated.

Best wishes, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened

Hello DeCausa,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

We live about 4700 miles apart

...but I still heard your jaw hit the floor.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Posting a coherent reply was completely beyond me. DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I probably should have been clearer in my opening statement... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The clues were there in plain sight in the thread. I thought it was just about...Picts and SYNTH and such...DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And now I've been intrigued enough to read it. Wow. I love this place. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Leo Frank

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Harry Sibelius (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Incorrigible

I suddenly became very paranoid that this comment might have been misinterpreted as snidely pointing out the typo. I'm sure you're a normal person and didn't think this at all, but I'm not normal and get paranoid and worry about this sort of thing! I actually didn't even notice the typo. Am I worrying about absolutely nothing? Probably. Have a lovely Sunday! — Czello ^(music) 09:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are being paranoid and worrying about nothing! I noticed the typo because of it but certainly didn't think you were pointing it out, snidely or otherwise! DeCausa (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

New Impartial disclosure

In case anyone comes here because of what I wrote in this edit summary. I messed up - I meant NI's talk page not mine. But because it's an edit summary I can't change it so putting this here instead. DeCausa (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Re:AN

Concerning this comment - I wanted to offer a clarification, since my proposal for WT:MOSBIO isn't based on what I really want to be able to do - if that were my animus, I would be asking for a carve-out for reverting vandalism to BLPs even in GENSEX cases, since I feel that invoking BANEX 1 provisions to do so could be perceived as GAMING the restriction, and that form of editing is what I feel the most urgency about within the topic area.

Rather, I am being straightforward and transparent in saying that I feel - as a number of editors acknowledged on "both sides" of the ANI discussion resulting in my ban - that I have institutional knowledge and P&G knowhow that would be helpful on WT:MOSBIO this yearI'll- and that, unlike vandalism patrolling of GENSEX BLPs, is a scarce resource on-wiki. I have already been deploying my P&G familiarity in the recent nationalities discussions there, just as I have discussed P&G constructively on other pages (such as a current discussion about FRINGE at RSN and the discussions and RfC that resulted in the current text of the WP:SNG section, a couple years ago). I am simply offering to contribute to a specific corner of P&G development concerning GENDERID as well - policy development being an area where my contributions have never (to my knowledge) been perceived as disruptive whether or not GENSEX matters were involved. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

tbh, I took with a pinch of salt the "I'm needed" argument. I haven't delved (and won't) into whether the other editors who have put that forward simply share your POV and that's what they want on board again. But I noted starship.paint's comment to one of them that possibly your value of Newimpartial's input/perspective/help may be because you two have similar stances. I won't be making any other comment either here or at the thread. DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I won't expect another reply, then, but I will point out to you that that since Sideswipe9th and I do not ageee about certain GENDERID-related policy questions, and presumably Sideswipe remembers these differences of perspective, the explanation offered by Sideswipe in reply to starship.paint's insinuation should possibly be given more weight than you are currently giving it. Newimpartial (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I will answer that. "institutional knowledge and P&G knowhow" is not a thing in Wikipedia. The thing - the good thing - about Wikipedia is everything is open to everyone. "Instititutional knowledge" doesn't matter, especially after only 6 years active editing. "P&G knowhow". What is that when it's open access? Don't buy any of that. DeCausa (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The institutional knowledge is in how the current form of the policies and guidelines came to be, and not what their current state is. While anyone can read the current state of them at the relevant shortcuts, finding the exact discussion where say the scope of the first bullet point of WP:YESPOV was discussed, or which of the many discussions (October 2020 WT:V, November 2020 WP:VPP, December 2020 WT:V) on WP:ONUS have resulted in it staying a part of WP:V and not becoming a part of WP:CON is something that's most easily done by someone who was involved in the prior discussions.

Sure anyone can eventually find the information through searching the archives, but that still requires some foreknowledge of what you're searching for and which talk page or noticeboard archives you need to search for it. But if you already know that discussion W on point X was held on talk page Y on date Z, then finding and presenting the information is much more straightforward. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't have any doubt that was what was meant. IMO, it's just not very important, in the sense of it rarely having any real bearing on any discussion. It's nice that you found an example - but the usual pattern is someone saying that's not what was thought in 20XX to which the reply is, so what this is what we think now. DeCausa (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. On perennial discussion points, for which anything related to GENDERID is, one of the first comments/questions is typically "what has changed since the last time this [point/source/thing] was discussed?", alongside a link to the previous relevant discussions. This is vital so that you can address why the previous consensus should change, by referring to key arguments and where relevant the summarised points of closed discussions, and stating how those no longer apply.

Using the current discussion on removing the living qualifier from DEADNAME, in my opening post I referred to when the word living was added to the guideline, and the discussion that occurred surrounding that as context for where I discovered that it was originally added boldly without discussion either before or after. I was not aware of the August 2021 RfC on a similar proposal to mine as I was unable to find it when searching for it. It was another editor who was involved in that past discussion who first linked to it. Had I known or otherwise been able to find out, I would have tailored my initial opening comment in the discussion much more closely to the closure of the August 2021 RfC, which made some specific recommendations for any future discussions on the point. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm happy to agree to disagree. DeCausa (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• By the way, see below on New Impartial disclosure. DeCausa (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)