Jump to content

User talk:Starship.paint/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

VA discussion of Plymouth, Massachusetts and Salem, Massachusetts

[edit]

Hello, I believe it was improper to close that discussion at 4-3 and have reopened it. pbp 14:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nakba denial

[edit]

On 12 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nakba denial, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nakba denial is a form of historical negationism pertaining to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nakba denial. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nakba denial), 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.

Aoidh (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vital

[edit]

I now avoid vital rankings completely, but would urge you to renominate Nuper rosarum flores and Missa Pange lingua. Simply put, Nuper rosarum is the most important work by the most important European composer of the entire 14th century. Missa Pange lingua is the most famous work by the most important composer of the entire Renaissance... At the moment, early music coverage on the list is highly skewed towards later works. Aza24 (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aza24: - I am sorry, but the low page views and the low interwikis brought me to nominate them for removal. I see that the composers are still vital. starship.paint (RUN) 02:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather depressing to hear that those are the metrics you're using—they kind of defeat the point of the vital list. In such terms, WP:POPULAR would be a much more suitable list Aza24 (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aza24: - I see it differently. If they were that important or that famous, they wouldn't be so little-read or little-written about. starship.paint (RUN) 02:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a highly dangerous ideology to have my friend. Measuring importance from underdeveloped wikis (which are in no way representative of that language/culture's value for a topic!) or from low page views (one of the key distinctions between WP:POPULAR are vital). You ought to look into systemic bias on WP; WP's existing coverage is an extremely dubious method of measuring importance. Aza24 (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting patterns

[edit]

Please don't present patterns of the likely nationality, religion, or ethnicity of other editors when discussing their responses to an RFC. It's never constructive and can end poorly. There's really no reason to compile information on editors to present at an RFC in any situation. If you have evidence rather than hunches about possible canvassing or other disruption present your evidence in the right venue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Kelvin Kiptum

[edit]

On 12 February 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Kelvin Kiptum, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong discussion archived.

[edit]

Uh starship.paint, you accidentally archived the William T. Anderson debate on the VA project, not the Tarana Burke discussion. SailorGardevoir (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just undid that archive, even though I’m certain that Wikipedia is not going to like that a new user like me just did that. SailorGardevoir (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SailorGardevoir: - thank you for catching that. I used the OneClickArchiver tool and something went wrong. starship.paint (RUN) 03:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always precious

[edit]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see my talk - great opera yesterday, such things --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor clarification to the edit of your close

[edit]

Diff for context

Apologies if you were already aware :) FortunateSons (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons: - I was not aware, and in any case, no need to apologise, thank you. I updated the close. starship.paint (RUN) 00:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much :) FortunateSons (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

I attempted to edit the Kristi Noem article late last night, but I was too bleary-eyed to do it competently. I went to bed cringing about the way the newly-added section was written, particularly because, as you pointed out, the article generates huge traffic. I planned to hit it first thing this morning and was hugely relieved by your well-written, neutral, and concise edit. Thank you. JSFarman (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. (It doesn't seem that dramatic as a diff, but when I read it this AM it made a huge difference.) JSFarman (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JSFarman: - I see. Well, it is my hope that the details of the story (and her defense) fairly reflect her side of the story. Readers can come to whatever conclusion they wish. When the story gets condensed too much, you can't really understand why she took these actions. starship.paint (RUN) 07:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling notification for May 19

[edit]

See no evil and fear no bologna. That is all. I tried to work in something about a chestnut tree, but simply did not. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, you called it! I mean, aside from Sister Alexa the Flamingo (or whatever). Maybe she's too obvious, maybe my guy's too heelish, it doesn't matter. Five out of six is absolutely perfect. Have a hot dog, you earned it! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Tyson Fury vs Oleksandr Usyk

[edit]

On 19 May 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Tyson Fury vs Oleksandr Usyk, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 22:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

[edit]

Some of the notifications you issued appear inappropriate, such as the one to Wikiproject South Africa. BilledMammal (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: it’s apartheid. starship.paint (RUN) 05:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is? This accusation isn’t related to South Africa. BilledMammal (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: - the current discussion is literally about apartheid, which South Africa quite famously had. starship.paint (RUN) 05:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t explain why this accusation, that does not involve South Africa, is relevant to their WikiProject. Please remove the notification, to prevent any potential WP:CANVASS issues. BilledMammal (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: - the editors there may be more familiar with apartheid, the subject of the RfC. No, I won’t remove it, but if you want to remove it, you can take action. starship.paint (RUN) 05:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you are giving me permission to remove it? BilledMammal (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: - no, I’m not, but you don’t need my permission to remove it. It is within your ability to revert my notification. I will simply note it in the RFC discussion. starship.paint (RUN) 05:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to edit another editors comment, outside of blatant talk page policy violations, without their permission. I had hoped you would do it yourself; the justification for making the notification is tenuous at best, and as such now concerns have been expressed it would be best practice to remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, up to you. No, I won’t remove it myself just because of your concerns. But if anyone reverts, I won’t be edit warring or reporting to WP:AE/ANI, though maybe other editors will. starship.paint (RUN) 06:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that seems like a weak justification. So do Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, and Malaysia. It would be inappropriate to notify WikiProject Germany for an RfC on accusations of genocide in the lede of Indonesia. Zanahary (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of solving 0 problems and pissing off everyone, would notifying Judaism not be the appropriate remedy? Then we would have added a project with similar distance? FortunateSons (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons: - do it if you wish, you won't see me complaining about that, though I can't speak for everyone, of course. With this RfC, I think I can change my name to Joe Biden. starship.paint (RUN) 08:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I’ll wait for a second person to respond, just to make sure.
Yeah, ARBPIA can be though, Mr. President. ;) FortunateSons (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that BilledMammal wrote "Some of the notifications..." rather than "One of the notifications...". Is there more disagreement than I first realized? For the record FortunateSons, I don't object to any Wikiproject notifications. I think it's better to focus on increasing participation because it solves multiple problems at once. My reading of the guidelines is that there is a lot of wiggle-room in the terms like 'related' and 'may have interest in the topic under discussion' when the objective is "broadening participation". Notifying projects Israel and Palestine is an obvious choice. The Discrimination, Human Rights and South Africa notifications match the projects involved with the Crime of apartheid article. There are multiple projects involved with the Israel article so maybe there should be some more notifications based on interest in that article. I suppose there are risks of bias with all of the notifications, but it could be argued that Wikiprojects are inherently biased by design, or you could say focused. I think ARBPIA RfCs should be illuminated from lots of different directions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland: - I am pretty sure that "Some" equals "One" because at the time BilledMammal first posted on my talk page, I had not yet notified Discrimination / Law / Human rights. starship.paint (RUN) 10:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I could have figured that out myself by maybe doing some due diligence before posting a comment... Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

<- This conversation is both funny and confusing. The accusation isn’t related to South Africa, but it is related to apartheid, which Wikiproject South Africa participants presumably know something about, so we can conclude...(I have no idea what goes here). Good luck with that. Would it be appropriate or inappropriate to notify Wikiproject Cambodia or Wikiproject Rwanda for genocide accusation related RfCs? I have no idea. Either way, I would like to commend Starship.paint's efforts to increase the community population sample size for the RfC. Low participation numbers for ARBPIA related RfCs etc. seems to be quite a common issue. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the other notifications. It made me think about objective or different ways to decide who to notify and increase participation. What got my attention is that you and BilledMammal seem to be using quite different methods. I guess you are both doing some kind of distance estimation, how close is A to B, but with different (conceptual) landscapes and yardsticks e.g. for you, apartheid to SA is a short distance, but for BilledMammal it's Israel to SA, and that is a large distance, too far. Maybe there should be some random Wikiprojects for every RfC, who knows. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly Sean.hoyland, I appreciate that this is a grey area, and I do not begrudge BilledMammal for thinking that way. One more thing to note is that Israel and apartheid has over 60 mentions of either "South Africa" or "South African" in article text, so it seems that South African certainly isn't independent of this topic. starship.paint (RUN) 08:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was one of the ways I was thinking about. Get all internal wiki links in an article with counts, then get all the Wikiprojects for those linked articles, and rank them by count. Could be wildly misleading, or useful. Hard to tell without trying. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since FortunateSons notified the Judaism project, I see no reason not to do same for the Islam, Christianity and Arab projects. M.Bitton (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose was counterweight for any alleged issues with the SA notification. I could have also gone for USA/Germany, but the idea was not having every single project notified. FortunateSons (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that said notifications have happened, I believe that the appropriate neutrality of notification is no longer given. In addition, the issue with the SA vote is no longer appropriately addressed. FortunateSons (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is more relevant to the RfC, Judaism or the others (Islam, Christianity and Arabs)? As for South Africa, as well as being associated with the word "apartheid", there is also what the South Africans think of this. M.Bitton (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Judaism definitely is closer than Christianity and arguably closer than Islam, with about equivalent proximity between SA and Judaism. I would say that Arab is definitely too far away.
However, the primary issue here is balance within the notifications. FortunateSons (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Closer" how? Is Israel's Apartheid against them or against the Palestinians (who are Arabs, Christians and Muslims)? M.Bitton (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m basing it on the proximity between this issue and every other issue (basically: would it be unreasonable to inform the group of every other comparable or closer issue.) To make it simple: if this was the standard, we would have to notify Christianity of every single case where a prosecuted group is partially Christian, and that would be disproportionate.
Israels alleged apartheid would be directed against Palestinians (as in: people who are not Israelis), the claims of that group including Arab citizens of Israel (which would then be based on religious/ethnic membership instead of nationality) is a lot more dubious. FortunateSons (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't explained how Judaism is "closer". M.Bitton (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s always an intuitive measure, however (data is slightly old):
  1. 40% of Jews life in Israel
  2. in the USA (where about the other 40% live), Eight-in-ten U.S. Jews say caring about Israel is an essential or important part of what being Jewish means to them
  3. 76 % of people in Israel are Jewish
Therefore, I would say it’s reasonable that there is a close connection between many Jews and Israel. FortunateSons (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not buying it. The close connection between the word apartheid and the ones who are subjected to it (based on their religions and ethnicity) is way more important than the religion of those who are perpetrating it, but since one may argue that they are interlinked and you already notified the latter, then there is no reason not to notify the former. M.Bitton (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is about the point in time where we need third-party input:
a) was my notification appropriate?
b) were @M.Bittons notifications appropriate?
c) would notifying one or more adequate projects be inappropriate to counterbalance any potential bias-issue due to b (regardless of the outcome of b)?
@BilledMammal@Sean.hoyland@Starship.paint FortunateSons (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I justified the notifications based on yours (using the exact words). I'm done here, so please don't ping me again. M.Bitton (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think looking at this in terms of two other persecutions would be helpful. Would you describe The Holocaust as relating more to Judaism or Christianity? The Crusades as relating more to Christianity or Islam? In the first example, most people would associate The Holocaust with Judaism, the religion being persecuted. In the second example, I think most Westerners at least would associate the Crusades with Christianity, those doing the persecuting. In a sense, you're both correct. Just because we think ourselves that one group is more significantly attached to an event, policy, idea, conflict, etc. doesn't mean it isn't relevant to something else. Not that I think notifying all of these groups is particularly helpful, but I can see some merit in both sides of this argument. I think now may be the time to just disengage and continue making useful contributions to the encyclopaedia elsewhere. Adam Black talk • contribs 16:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thoughtful contribution. You’re probably right about a) and b) (from which I intend to disengage). However, I would appreciate a response to c), if you are willing to give one? :) FortunateSons (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, notifying as many relevant projects as possible is never a bad thing. Including all sides of an argument is important, there are enough accusations of bias against Wikipedia as it is. As long as you can reasonably justify the notifications which I think has been done here. For example, notifying WP:WikiProject Mammals would be inappropriate as, even though everyone involved is a mammal, it's hardly relevant to that project's aims. Judaism and Israel and inexorably linked; accusations of Israeli apartheid are relevant to Islam, Christianity and Arabs. So, I see no real harm in these notifications, other than perhaps it going a little overboard. Adam Black talk • contribs 17:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly didn’t expect all of this! @FortunateSons and M.Bitton: - sorry to notify you again. I’m now willing to undo my WT:ZA notification if both of you can also agree to undo your notification(s). How does that sound? Shall we all undo, or all leave the notifications as is? Offer’s on the table. starship.paint (RUN) 00:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal I think South Africa is fine? My understanding is that it is really not South Africa as a country making the apartheid accusation, it is the African National Congress, which just lost its majority in parliament for the first time in democratic history. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you maybe confusing the apartheid accusation (which is a long-standing characterization that I don't think is associated with any particular country as its author) with the genocide accusation (which the ANC has brought to an international court)? Zanahary (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
😞 Yes, I am very confused now. Some sources mention South Africa accusing Israel of apartheid in the UN court. [2] I think some people in South Africa may think Israel is committing apartheid, and others not, based on video interviews I have seen. Seems the citizens of South Africa have pretty divided opinions on this too, which is why I didn’t think notifying the Wikipedia South Africa project is necessarily a biased action. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like it was mentioned in South Africa's case at the ICJ. See South Africa's genocide case against Israel. Second paragraph in the lead, including what South Africa described as Israel's 75-year apartheid (reference 1 includes a relevant quote). Adam Black talk • contribs 04:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I'm sure it's been mentioned in national resolutions or statements by the governments of Syria, Iran, and Russia, too. That is not a reason to notify their Projects. Zanahary (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My latest comment wasn't an endorsement of notifying WikiProject South Africa, it was simply a reply to your comment about confusing the apartheid accusations and the genocide case (apartheid was mentioned in the case) and Wafflefrites' response to that comment, providing a little extra context. Anyway, like I said to the other editors above, I think it's time to disengage. Everyone has made their opinions clear, it's done now, what is to be gained by debating the merits of this notification ad nauseum? Adam Black talk • contribs 04:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This "Seems the citizens of South Africa have pretty divided opinions on this too" is one of the ways I thought about the SA project notification too, as a kind of sanity check, like notifying WikiProject Thailand for an RfC about a Thai food festival or whatever in Idaho. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m happy undo my notifications if everyone else is willing, and thank you for your offer :) FortunateSons (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so, if M.Bitton can agree to undo, we'll all undo, but if M.Bitton does not agree, then we'll leave them as is. starship.paint (RUN) 07:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good FortunateSons (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leave them. With a bit of luck, they might attract much needed input to the RfC that was previously closed for lack of participation, among other things. M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons: - ^ we are leaving the notifications there. starship.paint (RUN) 01:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for your suggestion anyway :) FortunateSons (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

<- It's quite tempting to notify WP:WikiProject Mammals just to see what would happen...foiled by the pesky WP:NOTLAB policy again. There might be arguments in favor of doing random things like that sometimes for potentially contentious RfCs in polarized topic areas. Borrow one of evolution's tricks to randomize the sampling of a search space a bit via mutation (of the guidelines in this case). Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of line

[edit]

You are taking an extreme action for which there is no consensus. You cannot do this. At the very least, ask ScottishFinnishRadish who closed the discussion about the best next steps. There is the alternative simpler approach of re-closing my RfC by another editor; this is a position many people endorsed.

Taking the step of creating a new nearly-identical RfC is a massive waste of time, and I'm also concerned that the new artificial wording you proposed is basically designed to make things more favourable for the pro-Israel POV. It is a very unnatural wording. JDiala (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JDiala: - SFR literally said I suggest that this be retried with a neutral RFC statement and widely advertised at Wikiprojects that may be interested in order to address the concerns of uninvolved parties at AN that this RFC did not gather enough participation and was not widely advertised. The wording I proposed was based on the discussion section of your RfC. I checked the sources and indeed, HRW, Amnesty and B'tselem have said that it amounts to apartheid. starship.paint (RUN) 08:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: This is a threat. The only one who "nuked" anything was you. I refer you to WP:ASPERSIONS. There was absolutely no consensus in the discussion for a new RfC, and in the closing statement of that discussion there was no mention of closing the RfC. Even if SFR said that separately on Talk:Israel, he has no authority to unilaterally make these calls. You need to take next steps via consensus. JDiala (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, there is consensus that there are significant concerns about the last RfC, and that opening a new one would be an effective remedy. Particularly on this topic, a ‘clean’ RfC with a high amount of proper participation is almost mandatory, and there is no reason to be this critical of @Starship.paint.
I would kindly ask you to make an effort to be nicer to your fellow editors, as was asked by both @ScottishFinnishRadish and me before. FortunateSons (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons: There was no consensus to create a new RfC. This is incorrect. You can read the closing statement and the opinions of the editors there. There were several people of the view that it could be simply be re-closed by another uninvolved editor. It is ironic that you are accusing others of being "not nice" while you falsely accused editors of being antisemetic. JDiala (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JDiala:, no, it's not a threat, I don't intend to take you to WP:AE, and I'm not talking on behalf on anyone else, so I am not threatening you on behalf of others. I simply want to impress upon you the precarious position that you are in, which literally anyone could report. You closed your own RFC in favour of your favoured position, and then you deleted the replacement RFC. That's two controversial actions. Now you're finding conflict with FortunateSons as well. I just wouldn't do all of that. You're in a controversial topic area. starship.paint (RUN) 09:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint:It is a threat. How would you describe saying to a woman "don't wear that skirt, someone might rape you". This is how I feel. I feel attacked and vulnerable. You also haven't engaged with my arguments. There simply was not consensus for your particular action. The closer on WP:AN is also at fault as he should have ideally clearly indicated next steps. JDiala (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
???? FortunateSons (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JDiala: - well, if you feel you haven't done anything wrong, please proceed however you please. I'm sorry for having contributed to your negative feelings. The way I see it, SFR gave several avenues to proceed. Since no one re-closed the original RFC, and no one modified the original RFC, I decided to start a new one. In my view, I took one of several valid avenues. starship.paint (RUN) 09:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: As a matter of courtesy, you could have discussed the matter briefly with others before taking the radical step. I note that the decision to eliminate the prior RfC wastes not only my time, but also that of every voter in the prior RfC who took the time. JDiala (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JDiala: - acknowledged and I will try to remember that for the future. Though, I did ping everyone (I think) from the previous RFC, and past comments can still be copied. starship.paint (RUN) 09:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, me describing that comment as I perceived as misguided at best and that I believe a reasonable person can interpret as antisemitic at worst. is reasonable, and considering I said it on an admin talk page, I don’t think that it was a significant policy violation.
I’m don’t particularly care that you’re reacting like that to me, I understand that me being the (indirect) cause of you having to remove that content from your user page probably doesn’t feel great. However, this is both becoming a pattern and affecting other users in a way that seems disproportional, and that’s the point in time where it stops being unpleasant and starts being disruptive. FortunateSons (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
False allegations of antisemitism are far more serious than anything I have said or done. I'd suggest looking in the mirror before faulting others. JDiala (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m honestly not sure how to even respond to this FortunateSons (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons: - I'm not saying you have done anything wrong, I'm just suggesting you disengage. starship.paint (RUN) 09:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that’s probably a good idea. Thanks FortunateSons (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page stalker) Indeed, there was no clear need to close the original RfC, and I can't think of a supporting policy. Ongoing RfCs are not normally closed by third parties on a whim. There will always be editors who dislike specific RfC options, and the best course of action is to propose alternative wording. Now, however, there's no point to relitigate – the RfC has been closed and a new one opened with good participation. JDiala, feel free to propose a better wording in this RfC – you're welcome to add it as another option if you like. — kashmīrī TALK 11:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Constitutional Barnstar
Your decision to procedurally close and re-open the RfC at Talk:Israel was the right move and you should be applauded. I don't think it's likely to change the outcome, but the process will definitely be fairer and more broadly representative. Adam Black talk • contribs 00:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Adam Black: - I appreciate your kind words! It is nice to hear them, after receiving several criticisms (which may be warranted! I am not perfect!) Indeed, a fair result is what I wish will happen. I hope that there will not be complaints of insufficient advertising or a non-neutral opening. starship.paint (RUN) 14:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had noticed the criticism, which was why I felt you should get a little recognition. You're never going to be popular with everyone on Wikipedia, but editors shouldn't be afraid to act in good faith and in the best interests of the project just because someone else might not like it. If it turns out to be a mistake, that's what the revert feature is for! To be fair, I don't think there was any real impropriety in the previous RfC (the closing was unwise but doesn't seem to have been in bad faith), more a lack of awareness of the importance of advertising something so controversial.
    Nobody's perfect, but as long as you're trying to make Wikipedia better you're a damn fine editor in my opinion. Keep up the good work! Adam Black talk • contribs 14:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you in an AE report

[edit]

The thread is JDiala.

Thank you.

Editor was not directly named, that was a stylistic and not a policy choice, so is being notified later FortunateSons (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antioch churches

[edit]

What’s is your affiliation with Antioch or All Peoples Church? You clearly have a connection. 2600:1011:B068:385C:CA3:E51F:4EF1:9A53 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

[edit]

Hi, was this the correct archive to use? Why level 2? Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curious...

[edit]

...how you made the decision to not include this observation in your AE report? Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks. So, is my understanding correct that from a Wiki-perspective, linking 2 anonymized account names is doxxing when one of them is a Wiki account and the other an offsite account, whereas linking 2 anonymized account names when they are both Wiki accounts is the basis of an SPI report? Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland: - I am not sure if doxxing was the right word, but I can discuss what I remember happened with my indefinite block during WP:FRAM. The editors, which I believe were from the WMF, had similarly named accounts (maybe the real name?) on Wikipedia and a social media website, probably Twitter. I asked the editors if that was their Twitter account. Boom, indefinitely blocked. Perhaps the right word and policy is WP:OUTING. You can read that policy. I don't really wish to review the situation again, you can check if you want. The experience was quite traumatic. starship.paint (RUN) 12:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for taking the time to respond and I'm sorry to bring back some bad memories. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland: - oh, no worries about that! I am alright today even after this discussion! It was painful previously. It's better now. starship.paint (RUN) 13:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Starship.paint/Archive_25&oldid=1251867022"