User talk:WaltCip/Archives/2022/April

Welcome back

Good to see you around at ITN again. You should probably take down that "retired" banner now:-) --Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Done.--WaltCip (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal

On 27 March 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 10:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if I should take credit for this considering my proposed blurb is rather different from what was posted.--WaltCip (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I changed it to the posted article. Your nomination led to a community discussion, which is what's important. Stephen 11:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Amesbury poisonings

Please keep my !vote out of your hat.

Recognize the problem and do apologize. Sca (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump ITN

Sorry, I edit conflicted with you when I posted an earlier response. Anyway, it was a serious nomination, but primarily because no other nominations were taking place, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. As it's a complete non-starter, I closed it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder

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/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, WaltCip. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Social Darwinists

Hello, please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 30 for Category:Social Darwinist Wikipedians. The discussion focuses on whether a category is warranted for a small number of uses; it's not questioning the idea of having a category for this concept. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2019 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship Game

On 9 April 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship Game, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Influence on donations

On a discussion around the village pump that has already been archived, you wondered:

I never quite understood the argument of "I was planning to donate to Wikipedia, but now because of the banner, I don't think I will". That to me shows a rather hollow sense of charity, where one's donation is not predicated on the value that an organization can provide, but rather on the momentary (and, as pointed out above, optional) aesthetic nuisance of a banner. That's rather like stiffing the waiter a tip because they have a tattoo.

It's rather difficult to explain using your simile, as that depends on your culture. But lets approach this rather as someone saying: "I intended to donate to that user-friendly site with lots of information, but I now find it's not always user-friendly, thus I'm not sure I will indeed donate." I expect you, too, know sites that continually seem to do their utmost to irritate you with their meta content. If such a site is only marginally useful, you might not be inclined to sponsor them. But it's a balancing issue, of course: If they would only irritate you slightly and only once a year, and the site is quite useful to you, then you'd probably be willing to put up with it and might donate. (Indeed, if you're in a culture where a tip is a reward, rather than wage, then you might consider a waiter spoiling your appetite with a tasteless tattoo as not worthy of a reward.) Mysha (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mysha: And that's really the point I probably should have made, that the donation drive only happens once a year. Taking into consideration the utmost value that Wikipedia provides, withholding donations because of the method that Wikipedia goes about announcing that they need donations seems outright petty. Unrelated, tips here are basically considered part of a waiter's wages. While they can still earn minimum wage if they earn no tips at all, I've heard in most cases that the owner of the restaurant will simply fire them in that instance rather than pay out the difference.--WaltCip (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

See, a balancing issue. For those to whom Wikipedia does not provide the utmost value, and e.g. on whose set-up the donation drive takes up the entire first screen or more, the balance might swing to the other side.

Well, I hope this helped a little bit in your understanding. With Wikipedia we aim to create equal information access for everyone, but that doesn't mean everyone is the same. Mysha (talk)

An FYI

I have retracted what I said at Wikipedia talk:In the news, but I do not feel comfortable retracting anything else. I believe I am in the right and I believe my statements can be backed up with plenty of diffs. pbp 20:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

That discussion can be found here --Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

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/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 20:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello WaltCip: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Ongoing removal

Hi WaltCip, I know your original inquiry was in good faith (and my initial response to it perhaps a bit bitey) and was perfectly comfortable explaining my rationale. I intentionally waited for the discussion to close before commenting again. Have a lovely weekend. Cheers, --LaserLegs (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

AN

A discussion regarding an issue with which you may be involved has been opened at the Administrators Noticeboard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Comment deleted. Next time suggest you just message me on my talk page rather than going straight to AN.--WaltCip (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Walt. I pinged you when responding to your comment close to a half hour before going to AN. I appreciate your blanking it, and your apology, but it was pretty egregious and being involved I was reluctant to revdel it myself. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand. I was taking a nap and so I guess I missed it.--WaltCip (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

NP. Water under the bridge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Reiner

Hi Walt, I undid your close of Carl Reiner as there are still older RDs in the ITN template currently. Whether the issues are fixed in time is another matter. -- P-K3 (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

One older RD, and there are two other RD noms with a later date ready to go that will bump it off.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 15:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. It still might get posted though if the admins do what they're supposed to do and look at the older ones first. -- P-K3 (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Signature

Hello, WaltCip. Since the Username policy's criteria for inappropriate usernames also applies to signatures and the policy does not permit promotional usernames, I want to ask you to change the part of your signature that links to this Talk page should link to this Talk page. There is enough politics on Wikipedia already, there's no need to polarize by waving political flags in every single signature (and I believe it is not permitted). Hope you understand what I mean. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC).

I can fix the bluelink so it goes to my talk page, but I'm not getting rid of the text.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 23:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Then let's see what the community says: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BLM!Resist_The_Orange_One. Greeting, Eissink (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC).

Footnote: BLM is an acronym heretofore widely known as standing for the Bureau of Land Management, which has 11,000 employees and is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior. (Now you know!) – Sca (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Black Land Matters.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

How 'bout just Lives Matter – ?? — Sca (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

How dare you. >:V --WaltCip-(talk) 17:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

What about the rest of the world?

"As much as I support a blurb, I recognize the impact of systemic bias on this particular section of Wikipedia. We ought to wait a full 12 hours for Europe and Australia to weigh in"?

What about the rest of the world? Why should only North America, Europe and Australia matter?

And then people like you get mad when you are called biased. Manish2542 (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

You may kindly stay off my talk page going forward. WaltCip-(talk) 14:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for the WP:Articles for Deletion work! Thy Pyrometer (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Message Collapsed

You replied on my talk page to an unsigned message from an unregistered troll. I have hidden the message from the troll. Since your reply would be meaningless without what it was replying to, I have also hidden your reply. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thanks for letting me know; I understand. I'm just so fed up with this post-election business. I guess my frustration spilled over.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean that you did anything wrong. Only the troll did anything wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Nicaragua

Really? You really thought Nicaragua was part of Kansas? Kansas??

It's ok. I know a friend who thinks Vermont is part of Canada. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, Paris is part of Canada.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Vermont did briefly have a southern border with the United States. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi WaltCip! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Admittedly I'm not new but..., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

When did I revert anything you wrote on a talk page?

I'm serious. I'm pretty sure I never did that.Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: Refer to this diff. I replied to one of your edits.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

that was a.technical glitch. I would never intentionally DO something like that.Arglebargle79 (talk) 17

20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

horrible analogy

I find your analogy posted at Wt:ACN poorly thought out, and highly offensive as it implies the committee realized they made a terrible error and aligned themselves with something awful that they now want to distance themselves from. That is not at all what happened.I don't like being compared to a bunch of two faced politicians who spread misinformation and encouraged a violent mob so they can stay in power. Perhaps it was not your intent to imply something quite that awful, but that's how it reads. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: You're right, it was a poorly thought-out analogy, and I felt uncomfortable even as a typed it out. I was trying to reach for some kind of current event that would provide some perspective as to why the case was dismissed, since I found it a bit puzzling that Banedon would call for the case to remain open. My respect for the politicians who took place in humoring Trump's autogolpe is extremely low, and in comparison, I have massive admiration for ARBCOM. I don't know much of what goes on behind the scenes or the discussion process beyond what I read in the requests online. And I think you're right, the comparison was an ill-thought out one. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention, and I am sorry for the poor choice of words. I have struck it out.--WaltCip-(talk) 02:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. As I said above, I figured your probably didn't mean to make such an implication. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Strikethrough

Please use <s>...</s>. The old <strike>...</strike> element has been invalid HTML since the 1990s. Continuing to use obsolete markup impedes our migration to HTML 5, and just creates unnecessary cleanup work for other editors. If you'd like more information on this process and how to get involved in the modernization efforts, please see WP:HTML5 and WP:LINT. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow! I never knew that. Thanks for providing a list. My knowledge of HTML tags is rusty so I appreciate the refresher.--WaltCip-(talk) 21:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Winter

FYI, NBC says "As of Friday morning, more than half a million people in the U.S. did not have electricity — Texas topped the list with less than 200,000 power outages." Somewhat less than 5 million. – Sca (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Buxx dowfjihfakbfnwcrERS K OH SORRY I FELLA SLEEP ON THEK EYBOARD AestheticDiabetic09 (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Assuming gender

Re your comment, I do not use he pronouns in Wikipedia. Could you please strike and replace them with gender neutral ones? Courtesy pinging The C of E, who appears to have followed you. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Done WaltCip-(talk) 17:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Darknipples

My apologies, WaltCip. I was in the process of writing a comment which I do with great thought and many edits prior to posting. Add to it that the nurse came in and had to take vitals and when I posted it you had already closed the conversation. --ARoseWolf 13:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The conversation was generating more heat than light. Given DuncanHills's response to your comment, I think my closure was not premature. WaltCip-(talk) 13:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a massive reading into what I was saying but not wholly unexpected given our diverse backgrounds and experiences. I am empathetic towards Duncan though and genuinely understand their being offended even though I know it was unintended. The only reason I spoke up was because I understand valeree's position and why she did what she did. Oh well, back to why we are actually here which is to improve and expand the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf 14:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi WaltCip, I see your closing statement has been criticized by User:SnowFire as appearing slapdash and drive-by. Even if shutting down is the correct decision, next time it might be worth providing a proper summary of the discussion, especially if it was contentious. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Since I was pinged: I believe you mean User:Snow Rise. I did not participate in that discussion. SnowFire (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I WP:CONFUSED you. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you SnowFire. I hasten to add to Pawnkingthree's observation (which is accurate as to my comments) that I think the act of closing the discussion was itself the right call. But yes, I do think that, especially given the divisive nature of that particular dispute, it's something that really should only be closed by a non-admin if they are prepared to summarize the major sentiments expressed by the community in some detail, because the alternative (especially when one has to shut down discussion midstream) is that contributors feel their perspective is being ignored, or even buried. Indeed, I only made that comment in the context of reassuring one such editor expressing concerns about women's voices being marginalized: under normal circumstances I don't go around nitpicking the closes of other editors. Personally--and please don't consider this part directed at you in particular Walt, it's a general sentiment I've come to hold over the last few years based on a number of factors--I think that NACs should probably be disallowed at AN\ANI\AE. But that's a conversation for another place and day. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I'd be happy to provide more in-depth commentary next time behind a close if I'm permitted to do so in the future. True, it was a divisive dispute and ordinarily I would not have waded into a closure such as this without providing some comments on the general prevailing philosophy within the consensus. However, I don't think there was any such general consensus that arose from the dispute other than that there's strong differences of opinion regarding allowable usernames, as well as regarding civility in responding to such subjective issues. The block had already been imposed and any subsequent discussion was becoming unproductive at best, and borderline uncivil at worst. I also believe that hard cases make bad law, and there's really no long-term action items that we can take away from the discussion.

I would be happy to see some greater strides in making Wikipedia a more welcoming place for women and non-binary editors. But it doesn't seem to me that WP:ANI, a place predisposed to drama by design, is the place to have it. That should be handled in a village pump or RFC instead. WaltCip-(talk) 23:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely: you make a good point that it's certainly more important not to mischaracterize the discussion or imply consensus where there is none. That often is the very art of a close (especially at a place like ANI with all its contention): threading the needle between capturing disparate opinions without injecting additional meaning. In any event, I very much appreciate that my comments seem to have been received in the spirit they were intended: not as a particular critique of your approach per se, but more as a discussion of an issue with the space. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Also @Pldx1: Your point is well made; I apologize for the sloppy close and I will tread more lightly in this subject area in the future.--WaltCip-(talk) 23:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Aug 2021

Had just typed you out a reply agreeing with much of your points, though also suggesting the phenomenally sweet RoseWolf & Celestina might be seeing things that we don't. Going to omit most of it per the point EIC just made, but just to say it was nice to see you post me something constructive. Always thought you were one of the few that hate me! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

ARS deletion edit

That was unintentional. I had started editing before the discussion closed. Dronebogus (talk) 12:42, 25 October 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) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

New message from TrangaBellam

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wumbolo/Userbox Trump. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Re:ANI

If you want me to change something you think is a bad nomination or a BLP vio, just ask. Don’t take it to ANI. I’ve been kicked out of ANI for knee jerk reports on good-faith or manageable users enough to know it’s not productive. Dronebogus (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: It's not just the individual nominations that I find worrying. It's your general behavior. You get emotionally invested in an area of Wikipedia that requires discretion and good judgment, then when you are called out on it, you quickly revert and overcorrect with a flurry of apologies. I would be willing to close the ANI thread but to me, the outcome is currently not enough to satisfy me that this sort of behavior won't occur again. Do you have a plan for how to avoid getting into this type of situation going forward? WaltCip-(talk) 13:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I can’t win for losing with you. Dronebogus (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with comments about shiny things

Saw your comment about service awards at the RfA; agree! Also agree that so-called "objective" measures, like edit counts or FA, are just not warranted for RfA. What has the person done, in relation to things admin-y? that's the main issue. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)